Editor’s Memo

IS GLOBALIZATION BAD?

Your opinion matters. What say you?

Global business is a ‘megatrend’ better enabling development of diverse people and economies worldwide resulting in an expansion and rise of a global middle-class, and, a growing pool of global talent for ‘smart companies’. With that activity across borders, time-zones and cultures, a keen awareness …a ‘global mindset’ has become popular. But, not everyone has received benefits from globalization as we know from the news. Yes, a gap has developed…imbalances have been created so let’s get it right because no one should be left behind. This is not about a “kum-buy-ya”…but is about doing good for business by taking care of people… customers / consumers / taxpayers. It must be a win/win situation.

I say let’s build a series of private/public partnerships for the purpose of developing worker retraining for specific functions/skills, and further, to create a “moonshot” attitude theme utilizing the various media available, implementing “upskilling” throughout companies and across communities. From this “campaign” effort would be funding compensation for the displaced. To balance things, governments need to simplify and adjust tax codes.

Doing so would be good for business. What say you?
Contact me…

Global business, a megatrend, has better enabled development of diverse people + economies worldwide and growing a global middle class

Harvard Business:’The only way for organizations to ensure their workforces are fully productive and able to achieve business goals is to make sure employees are continuously learning’.

GlobalBusinessNews Editorial Narrative:

Applying Talent Mobility Life-cycle to the CHRO & Global HR ROI™ objectives … to include developing nextgen top talent for assignments across borders/time-zones/cultures, engage them more via coaching and motivate them with performance rewards & benefits = effective organizations = retention & performance development = improved financials = ROI™

2016 LIVE conferences and ExecutiveBriefings
GlobalBusinessMobileTalent

 

2015

Global Business requires global talent… diverse people and diverse skills from a variety of nations and backgrounds in order to better develop global products …and to better understand and service customers within the US and international. Smaller companies, not just huge multinationals, are expanding across borders in search of new sales and also sourcing talent. This expands the role of HR to strategic “people management… workforce strategy”. GLOBAL HR policy & practice includes GLOBALLY MOBILE TALENT …sourcing for talent from the world…not just from Western nations…and including this diversity in the global talent pool that could begin to mirror the customer population.

In a global, interconnected economy, jobs will flow to the nations, regions, and companies with the best training and education.
— Larry Fink, Chairman & CEO, BlackRock

NEXT PRACTICES: The 360 Way

GLOBAL HR NEWS …Bringing HR leadership to the global table™

news@globalhrnews.com

With help from others, for many months I’ve been seeking and receiving CONTENT from a diverse source-group from around-the-world, on a variety of topics and themes and one thing in common running throughout is GLOBAL HR… that is…the myriad of activities and responsibilities of today’s Global HR professionals.

I cordially invite you and your colleagues to become more involved and learn more, meet new and bright people who bring a different perspective. Your new contacts and your new practical knowledge will be usable immediately in your business office. Be involved with us and Thrive! Between now and December 2009 we will produce & host at least 17 “live” conferences in Europe, Latin America, and across the US; and, we will publish 16 editions of GLOBAL HR NEWS. We offer you opportunity. Carpe Diem !

Here’s a quick sample of the CONTENT… the topics/themes: Company goals and shortterm objectives; World Trade and Geo-Political issues challenging HR Management in the US and other locations; Compliances: Tax & Legal – US and Global; Financial Awareness & Planning for ROI; Strategic Planning; Talent Management – recruitment/acquisition – integration – deployment – coaching – development – retention; InterCultural Diversity Learning and applications; Employee Communications; Emerging Markets and Global Teams; Employer Branding, Corporate Social Responsibility and the role of HR; Technology and its applications; Global Workforce Mobility – variety of issues and trends, selection/management of provider/suppliers, and policy development and management; issues related to selection for an International Assignment, its Management, and related Destination info & guidance … all for reaching a measurable ROI on an Assignment.

The time is now and GLOBAL HR NEWS & CONFERENCES is the place where you will find, enjoy, and learn more when participating in our unique, collaborative and continuous study, World Trade’s Effect on Company Strategy, Employees, and Cultures™.

I invite you to be involved with us now thru 2009. You’ll be glad you did, promise!

Global Companies Must Innovate …

A Dialog with Philip Berry, Consultant to Colgate-Palmolive, Managing Principal, Berry Block Bernstein LLC

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Please tell us about yourself; include your original hometown, education, current hometown, family, and please name the most recent book you have read, or are reading at this time.

PHILIP BERRY: I was born in New York City. I went to the public schools of NY, received my Bachelors degree from Queens College; my Masters of Social Work and MBA from Columbia University and Xavier University of Cincinnati, respectively. I have a lovely wife, Karen Berry, who graduated from Wellesley and Columbia University; and 2 children; my son graduated from UPenn and is an investment banker at JPMorgan Chase, and my daughter is graduating from NYU this year with a focus on dance, languages and cultural anthropology. We are global citizens.

I have just finished reading The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Innovations at the Intersection of Idea, Concepts and Cultures, by Frans Johanssen. This author has developed some great notions of innovation and creativity considering cultural frameworks and diversity as driving factors of consideration.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Please describe the meaning of your most recent position in the company. Is it “Global HR”?

PHILIP BERRY: Very specifically, my position was Vice President and Corporate Officer of Global Workplace Initiatives. My purpose was to develop global diversity and inclusive strategies on a global basis which enhance Colgate’s ability to attract, develop and retain diverse talent while developing innovative ways to increase their contributions to the business.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Please tell us about your recent work-life, i.e. your roles/positions at Colgate-Palmolive that enabled your appointment to the current role.

PHILIP BERRY: Before coming to Colgate, I worked for 8 years in various positions at Procter and Gamble. However, at Colgate I was in the position VP of Human Resources for various divisions: Central Europe, Africa, Middle East, Latin America and Western Europe; in addition to being Global VP of Employee Relations & Best Place to Work.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Relative to “global HR management”, Colgate-Palmolive is a globally competitive company with recognizable brand names. As we get into this interview, first please describe how this “situation” drives HR Directors to select the right employees (and their families) to represent the company on an international assignment. What are the challenges?

PHILIP BERRY: Colgate is a truly global company being globally diversified in over 120 countries in all continents. As such, it is important to attract, develop and retain people of all backgrounds, cultures and nationalities.

It is also critical to be able to operate effectively and develop products which cater to the needs and desires of the local country consumer.

Further, as we move expatriates around the world with their families, it is critical that they understand the cross cultural aspects of living in a country other than their own.

Building this global mindset and cultural sensitivity in our people is critical to their business survival and to the family’s satisfaction while operating abroad.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Please comment on how Colgate-Palmolive views the emerging “new world economy” developing and serving people in China, India, Central & Eastern Europe, Brasil, Russia.

PHILIP BERRY: Certainly, this is very important. We have been operating on the ground in many of these emerging markets for decades and have learned that as the local economies morph through stages of development, you have to be ready to always understand the changing needs of the consumer.

You have to be ready to offer them products of value and to utilize innovative ways to package, market and sell your products to keep consumers excited about your brand.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Regarding Innovation with respect to a multinational organization, can it be presumed that the sheer size of an organization prevents Innovation in day to day activity?

PHILIP BERRY: Sheer size is not the critical factor in terms of enhancing or preventing innovation. If you are big, then you have to have business processes which make you small and nimble.

This means you have to operate across boundaries as a global team. That you need to have superior communications up, down and across the organization; and that you also need to have values in place which encourage cooperation, sharing of information, and joint decision-making.

If you are small and don¹t have these, you will fail. Many large companies operate as silos and this limits their ability to take advantage of the economies of scale.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Assuming that companies want Innovation, how does top management view it? What¹s the Business Case for Innovation? Please describe.

PHILIP BERRY: The business case for innovation is very simple. Competition is more global now than ever before and the consumer is more global in his/her tastes and preferences. In order to satisfy these emerging and changing consumer demands and continue to increase sales and profits you have to continually come up with ways to stay on top of the consumers mind with your product or service.

In other words, you must innovate because the tried and true efforts are not enough.

This is evident in the auto industry, banking industry, electronics industry, consumer products industry, and will soon be evident in the gas/energy industry, mark my words on that.

According to a recent study by the Conference Board, innovation is one of the top ten challenges on the minds of global CEO’s, along with controlling costs, making profits, expanding into new markets, among other things.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: How does Innovation happen? Where does it occur? How is the process managed? How do you measure it?

PHILIP BERRY: Innovation doesn’t occur naturally and it is not magical. It specifically occurs in four areas: within business processes or systems; in products or services; within the customer interface; and within people (in terms of new modes of thinking, behaving and functioning).

For example: recognize regionalizations, outsourcing, and new organization designs ¬according to the Conference Board are new business processes that must be explored. Products and services can be improved and enhanced.

Whatever happened to customer service and coming up with unique ways to reach the consumer?

In terms of measurement, we must first define innovation. It is not just something new, or sexy or exciting.

Innovation is turning knowledge or capabilities into money by creating new products, services, processes or relationships.

Innovation is the development that shows a marked departure from past practices with a promise of significant results.

These results must be quantified like any other part of the business or innovation is just wasted activity, not valued added!

GLOBAL HR NEWS: How does Colgate-Palmolive develop leaders as a result of enabling Innovation?

PHILIP BERRY: You begin by developing the competencies, getting senior management commitment, communicating the intent and encouraging everyone, from the administrative person to the most senior people to come up with innovative ideas.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: How does Colgate deal with the Barriers to Innovate; How do you implement change and how do you keep it going?

PHILIP BERRY: The most important thing is to establish internally is an atmosphere where it is OK behavior to come up with new ideas which may be a marked departure from past practice.

The real question is how you deal with barriers-to-anything in an organization.

You must inspect what you respect – putting resources to what you believe. You need to have values which encourage open communication.

Also, you need to have people develop goals and objectives which include innovation as one of their factors of consideration; giving feedback; and, coaching as part of continuous improvement.

Once people know that you are serious, with dedicated time and attention, they will “catch the wave” and sustain the development.

Einstein said: “You can’t develop solutions with the same state of mind that developed the problems.”

Encouraging diversity of thought is critical to sustaining excellence and managing change. I always say that if everybody is thinking the same, then nobody is thinking!

This is one of the things that true diversity contributes to.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: It appears that one of the biggest “human capital” challenges in the next few years will be successfully managing organization disruption created by the large scale exodus of the baby boomers.

With respect to the theme of corporate innovation and competitiveness, could you please describe how Colgate-Palmolive is looking at this potential scenario to sustain organizational excellence even in a perpetually disruptive job market.

PHILIP BERRY: The most important aspect of these type of scenarios is knowledge management which enhances the capability of the organization to compete and innovate.

This is best accomplished by establishing processes which bring forth and tap the ability of all employees to contribute effectively. Organizational capability is increased when values and competencies are aligned with the overall mission.

Everyone, baby boomers, Gen X and Gen Y need to see how the mission meets their needs and enables them to express their competencies.

At the same time, effective change management must be in place to manage the transition from where the organization is now to where it needs to be.

Effective, innovative organizations discover ways to tap into the creative talents of all its people. We have the processes, mechanisms, and most importantly the values that do this.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Is there a ‘track record’ for innovation in multinational companies?
Does innovation work?
How do you get people to want to be involved and take a risk?

PHILIP BERRY: Where innovation has worked well in different companies is where a value-system is already in-place that appreciates and respects new ways of thinking.

And, where people feel there is recognition for, and I do not mean monetary recognition, but where there is frequent praise of individuals… recognition for their efforts …and we continuously encourage them and this communicates to them that what they can do will make a difference.

At Colgate-Palmolive we develop training programs that teach people and that helps them to think broadly… essentially, “how to do it” different from before.

We also help people develop skills to work successfully in teams; we provide them feedback and coaching to enable them to better recognize and understand the impact of their strengths and weakness areas, and where there are development needs then we structure the work assignments and focus tasks and activities that will address the specific needs and specific strengths, and all of this will enhance personal and professional development and remedy the situation or open up new opportunities for individuals and the company as a whole.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: Briefly, can you please comment on how can companies fix the apparent problem of attrition after an international assignment.

PHILIP BERRY: Yes, it is a problem and yet at Colgate we see the problem differently.

The Repatriation “situation” and challenge is really all about HR Management and very specifically about Succession Planning Systems and Career Development.

And at Colgate this is “job #1” for us and we focus on this as a value-system component company-wide and across the glob. We address the problem with an attitude of innovation and competitiveness.

GLOBAL HR NEWS: We thank you for this information and your brilliant insight and leadership.

SPECIAL APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS

RAC WHITE PAPER PART I

RAC •

In response to the deteriorating real estate market, employers began giving relocation appraisers “special” instructions aimed at controlling the results of the appraisals. Among them are some that are unethical or illegal for the appraiser to comply with. Some present potential tax and legal problems for the client as well.

In response, Relocation Appraisers and Consultants (RAC) appointed a “White Paper” committee and charged it with the task of sorting out which instructions can, or cannot, be complied with and why.

The committee’s work was extensive and lasted from May through November of 2008. The resulting White Paper has been published on RAC’S web site (www.RAC.net). It identifies which client practices are illegal or unethical for the appraiser to comply with as well as identifying practices that may cause the IRS to disqualify the transfer from its tax-protected status.

The paper is lengthy and lays out, in detail, an analysis of the issues surrounding each of these special instructions. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief summary of the findings. The entire paper should be read to thoroughly understand the issues, conclusions and recommendations.

The two primary types of problems identified were [1] instructions that were illegal or unethical for the appraiser to comply with; and [2]instructions that resulted in “employee enrichment”.

The latter refers to instructions that will produce an estimate of value that exceeds what the home can realistically be expected to sell-for under current market conditions. The practical result is a “bonus” for the transferee in that they receive more for the home than it is worth and, because the transaction is tax-protected, it would be a tax-protected bonus.

This is a problem for the employer because it may result in the loss of the tax protected status of the relocations done under these instructions. It is a potential problem for the appraiser because the IRS may conclude that the appraiser participated in this effort of tax evasion.

Appraisers are bound by USPAP (the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) which are the basis for all state license laws. Because USPAP is complicated, it is difficult to immediately identify what is, or is not, allowed by USPAP. Compounding this is the fact that USPAP was revised annually (now bi-annually) which means what may have been legal last year may not be legal this year.

To sort through this, RAC appointed five of the leading relocation appraisers in the country, including Jeff Barta SCRP; Brad Charnas SCRP, SRA, GMS; Jay Delich SCRP, SRA, IFA; Jim Gargano CRP, IFAS; and Bob Headrick SCRP, SRA, IFA; to the committee and they, in turn, consulted with Arnold Schwartz, SCRP, SRA. and numerous USPAP instructors and authorities. The findings of the White Paper represent their unanimous conclusions. So, what are they?

Instruction #1: Do Not Make Market-Change Adjustments.
Appraisers are required to adjust for the differences between the comparable sale and the Subject property and one of these differences is the date of sale. If a home sold when market prices were generally higher or lower than they are now, and adjustment is required. This is not specific to relocation appraisals. We know of no circumstance under which appraisers can legally comply with this instruction. In a declining market, complying with this instruction would result in an inflated appraisal (employee enrichment).

Instruction #2: Do Not Make Forecasting Adjustments.
The White Paper concluded that appraisers cannot unconditionally accept this instruction.

The most that appraisers can do is develop Anticipated Sales Price (applying forecasting, which is a necessary element of Anticipated Sales Price valuations) and then produce a second value in the narrative section of the report stating what the value would be without forecasting and defining that value as something other than Anticipated Sales Price.

The appraiser would need to state the type of value it is (IE, Market Value) and provide a definition for that type of value, and the source of the definition.

Instruction#3: Base the appraisal on something other than a 120-day value.
Although the Worldwide ERC Guidelines require that the Anticipated Sales Price be based on a 120-day market exposure period, clients may ask for the appraisal to be based on a different exposure period assumption and the appraiser is free to do so as long as proper disclosure is made that the appraisal deviates from Worldwide ERC Guidelines. The White Paper also recommended (but did not require) that the appraiser provide a separate indication of what the value would have been based on the standard 120-day exposure period.

Instruction#4: Do Not Use REO/Foreclosure Properties as Comparables.
The White Paper concluded that the appraiser cannot unconditionally accept this instruction without taking additional steps. It recommends that the employer or their representatives not make such a request or, if they do, to put it in terms of a suggested guideline rather than a requirement of the assignment.

Making it a guideline leaves the decision as to whether to follow the guideline or to not follow it up to the appraiser thus leaving the appraiser responsible for explaining why the guideline could not be complied with.

If the client refuses to give the appraiser the latitude to make this decision, an additional option would be for the client to follow a two-step process.

The first step would be a consultation assignment where the appraiser is asked to research the subject neighborhood and market-area and then determine whether a credible appraisal could be completed without the use of foreclosure properties as comparables.

This would be a fee-based assignment which would stand on its own and would require a careful definition of the scope of work for the assignment.

The client would then be free to determine whether they want to order an appraisal or not but, if they do, it would be without the instruction to not use REO/Foreclosure properties as comparables.

Instruction#5: Appraise the Property “As If Vacant”.
The White Paper concludes that the appraiser can comply with these instructions without violating Worldwide ERC Guidelines, USPAP, or state license law.

Issue #6: Valuation Appeals and Report Updates.
It is not uncommon for employees to formally appeal the contents of the appraisal for a variety of reasons. As well, there are instances where an appraiser is asked to update their value estimate from an earlier appraisal.

The White Paper examines these issues with guidance for how-to-comply, but one specific instruction that cannot be complied with is the instruction to not reduce the value estimate as a result of replying to the appeal or completing the update. It is not unusual for the client to say that the appraiser is not free to lower the value but, if the appraiser is asked to review their earlier value, they cannot accept the instruction to not lower their value.

Instruction#7: Appraiser Must Make A “Market Prep” Adjustment.
The “Market Prep” adjustment is a specific adjustment intended to adjust for the fact that homes almost always need repairs and improvements once vacated and this adjustment was intended to cover the cost of those repairs.

The White Paper concluded that appraisers cannot comply with the instructions to make a separate Market Prep adjustment without violating USPAP and state license law as any need for improvements or repairs should already be accounted for in the condition and/or appeal/décor adjustments.

Business as Agent for World Benefit

Guest Editorial

David L. Cooperrider, Ph.D., Professor / Chairman, Dept Organizational Behavior
Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University • David.Cooperrider@case.edu

I wish I could share his full name. Dan is the Executive VP of Human Resources for one of the largest multinationals in the world. He is a quiet and respected leader, a member of the Office of the CEO, and the architect of a top secret “empowerment” strategy.

That’s why I can’t share the name, as this competitive strategy has all the makings of first mover advantage. Dan’s goal: to turn on and elevate the imagination and passion of an entire workforce leading, ultimately, to whole new magnitude of business innovation.

I know this case well because I am an advisor to Dan. He first shared with me the complexity of the conglomerate, and how the dizzying diversity of businesses made it almost impossible to communicate the company’s identity or to rally the 57,000 employees around any unified, corporate-wide vision. But Dan had an idea. And I immediately high-fived him saying “Dan, there is no power greater than what you are talking about, for turbo-charging the talent, uniting the strengths, turning on the imagination of everyone.”

So what is Dan’s extraordinary idea?

It’s calling the entire corporation to “be a world solution-provider to the 10 largest global problems facing humankind.” OK, let’s use more familiar language. It’s called “corporate citizenship.”

In the world of ideas, as Thomas Friedman wrote, to name something is to own it: “if you can name an issue, you can own the issue.”

Like Friedman’s analysis of the word “green” the one thing that always struck me about the term corporate citizenship was the degree to which, for so many years, it was defined the opposite of the real business. Especially opponents, people who wanted to disparage it, would roll their eyes if you brought it up at a senior executive strategy think-tank, defining it as “charity”, “expensive regulatory compliance”, as “liberal”, “a side-line distraction”, “vaguely relevant.”

Well its time to rename “corporate citizenship.” We need to rename it global strategic, opportunity producing, innovation magic, and HR turbocharged.

It’s what is happening—if you really pay attention—to the leading stars in virtually every industry. Just as the internet boom sent people scrambling to invest in the next Google, the same thing now is happening to companies that are emerging as pioneers in clean tech, micro-enterprise (eradicating poverty through profitability), and sustainability. Who is going to be first to market with the next new “Prius” or who will be the next new “Whole Foods”? Likewise, why is there so much investor excitement with NanoSolar — with its workforce on fire — and its promise of building a world that is clean and profoundly renewable in its energy options?

So Dan—from a senior HR perspective—could sense it. He could sense this re-naming I’m talking about. So what did he do? He organized the largest global summit this Fortune 500 Company has ever held, using a process called Appreciative Inquiry.

The focus was on “the ten largest global problems facing humankind.” And then the five hundred employees—from machine operators to the head of corporate finance and information technology, as well as customers and representatives from throughout the supply chain — all went to work with a big, inspiring question: “How might we turn these social and global environmental issues into inventive business opportunities to ignite innovation in new products and operations, open new unexpected markets, ignite customer passion and loyalty, turn on and energize an entire workforce, accelerate learning, build better supply chains, reduce risks, radically bring down energy costs, and produce tangible and intangible value such as brand loyalty and higher market cap?”

Friends in HR and OD, just as BP’s beyond petroleum ads admit ‘it’s just a start”, Dan’s story of leadership is just at its creative, beginning stages. But it is part of a much larger mosaic.

I was recently in Switzerland entering a second phase of the most exciting project I have ever worked on. A few years earlier, in 2004, a representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan called me at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management. He wanted our team to facilitate the largest meeting in history between the UN and almost one thousand CEOs, from companies such as Hewlett Packard, Nokia, Microsoft and many others. It was an exploration into the next phases of global corporate citizenship, where Kofi Annan reached out his hand to the business leaders and said: “Let us choose to unite the strengths of markets with the power of universal ideals, let us choose to reconcile the forces of private entrepreneurship with needs of the disadvantaged and the well-being of future generations.”

The summit was powerful. And three years later, this summer, the second summit took place. During the period of time in between summits an explosion of energy occurred: there are now four thousand companies that are now part of the UN Global Compact’s new corporate citizenship movement.

Yes it’s a symbol of a huge macro-trend.

But what’s the bottom line for HR? I have three conclusions, all sharpened by the UN Global Compact’s Leaders Summit in Switzerland held on June 14th-16th 2007.

First, almost all the delegates at the session were business CEO’s and they are bringing corporate citizenship into their companies with a dual mind-set: “Doing good and doing well” is the business innovation mindset of the 21st century, said the Chief Financial Officer of Fairmount Minerals, Jennifer Deckard.

Lesson number one:
HR needs to be going where our top executives are heading — toward a business savvy conception of sustainable value creation.

Second Lesson:
People everywhere want companies to be part of the solution, and they are proud of their own CEO’s when they stand up and speak up. One of the most electric moments of the summit was when the Chairman and CEO of the Coca-Cola Company, Neville Isdell, raised the question:

“As we meet here today, global business faces one of the most important questions of our time. Are we a barrier to sustainability? Or are we the greatest hope?”

He then went on to describe how sustainable value-creation is sending a wave of innovation throughout the Coca Cola Company in arenas such as protecting biodiversity, clean water, climate change, and economic empowerment in poverty stricken arenas.

But what struck the crowd was the passion and conviction of his words. “The time for abstract debate and hopeful assumption is gone. Business must become agents of transformation. We have the resources. We have the talents. And let’s be clear here, we have the self-interest.”

Lesson number three… for the future of HR:
Again quoting Neville Isdell; “its time to step up, speak up, and scale up” this new solution-focused approach to business.

Lesson four:
The business case for all this is becoming crystal clear. Two groundbreaking studies, one by Goldman Sachs and the other by the McKinsey Company, were simultaneously released. McKinsey’s study of CEO’s showed that 92% of global corporate CEO’s see corporate citizenship in environmental, social and governance areas as significantly more important to business strategy than was the case five years ago. And the Goldman Sachs financial analysis discovered, in stunning detail, exactly why. Goldman Sachs, one of the world’s leading investment banks, showed that among six sectors covered – energy, mining, steel, food, beverages, and media – companies that are considered leaders in implementing environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies in order to create sustained competitive advantage have outperformed the general stock market by 25 per cent (this was over a one year period). In addition, 72 per cent of these companies outperformed their peers over the same period.

In other words, and I say this to all my HR colleagues, we are in a game-changing moment. Let’s call it the eclipse of “the great trade-off illusion” …or the belief that firms must sacrifice revenue or outstanding financial performance if they choose to do well. It simply is not true. It’s a myth. In fact the opposite is true.

That’s precisely why Dan’s HR proposal to unite his whole company around “the ten largest global problems facing humankind” is so brilliant.

This is the re-named “corporate citizenship” in action. Stay tuned. In forthcoming features I am going to share exactly how this is all being done, not just at Dan’s place but at places such as Fairmount Minerals (this year’s corporate citizen of the year at the US Chamber of Commerce) as well as the largest corporation in the world and others. It’s a tremendously exciting time to be alive in the field of Human Resources.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR —
David L. Cooperrider, Ph.D. is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University.

Professor Cooperrider is past President of the National Academy of Management’s OD Division and has lectured and taught at Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, Katholieke University in Belgium, MIT, University of Michigan, Cambridge and others.

Currently David serves as Faculty Director of the Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit. The center’s core proposition is that sustainable value creation is the business opportunity of the 21st century, indeed that every social and global issue of our day is an opportunity to ignite industry leading innovation, eco-entrepreneurship, and new sources of value.

David has served as researcher and advisor to a wide variety of organizations including the Boeing Corporation, Fairmount Minerals, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, McKinsey, Parker, Sherwin Williams, Verizon as well as American Red Cross, American Hospital Association, Cleveland Clinic, World Vision and United Way of America. Most of the projects are inspired by the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) methodology for which Professor Cooperrider is best known.

His founding work in this area is creating a positive revolution in the leadership of change; it is helping institutions all over the world discover the power of the strength-based approaches to multi-stakeholder innovation and collaborative design. Admiral Clark, the CNO of the Navy, for example brought AI into the Navy for a multiyear project on “Bold and Enlightened Naval Leadership.” And in June 2004 Cooperrider was asked by the United Nations to design and facilitate a historic, unprecedented Summit on global corporate citizenship, a meeting between Kofi Annan and 500 business leaders to “unite the strengths of markets with the authority of universal ideals to make globalization work for everyone.”

Cooperrider’s work is especially unique because of its ability to enable positive change, innovation, and sustainable design in systems of large and complex scale.

David’s often serves as meeting speaker and leader of large group, interactive conference events. His dynamic ideas on appreciative inquiry and sustainable design have been published in journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Human Relations, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, The OD Practitioner, and in research series such as Advances in Strategic Management. More popularly, Professor Cooperrider’s work has been covered by The New York Times; Forbes Magazine; Science, Fast Company, Fortune, Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronicle, and Biz Ed and others. He has been recipient of Best Paper of the Year Awards at the Academy of Management and was name top researcher of the year at Case in 2005. Likewise numerous clients have received awards for their work with Appreciative Inquiry.

Among his highest honors, David was invited to design a series of dialogues among 25 of the world’s top religious leaders, started by His Holiness the Dalai Lama who said, “If only the world’s religious leaders could just know each other, the world will be a better place.” Using AI, the group held meetings in Jerusalem and at the Carter Center with President Jimmy Carter in Atlanta. Today the United Religions Initiative has over 300 centers around the world devoted to fostering interfaith dialogue. David was recognized in 2000 as among “the top ten visionaries” in the field by Training Magazine and in 2004 received the top award in Washington D.C. for “distinguished contribution to the field” of organizational learning from the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD).

David has published 14 books and authored close to 50 articles. Cooperrider’s volumes include Appreciative Inquiry Berrett-Kohler (with Diana Whitney); The Organization Dimensions of Global Change (with Jane Dutton) Organizational Courage and Executive Wisdom and Appreciative Leadership and Management (both with Suresh Srivastva). David is editor of a new academic book series Advances in Appreciative Inquiry (with Michel Avital) published by Elsevier Science. David’s wife Nancy is an artist. His son Daniel is a Masters of Divinity student at University of Chicago, Hannah is an art student at University of Indiana and Matt is a biology and anthropology student at Case Western Reserve University.

Key websites: http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/
http://worldbenefit.cwru.edu/

Managing Differences Between US and …

Guest Editorial

Dean Foster
Dean Foster Associates

There’s an oft-quoted statistic that the country from which the US has the highest number of failed expatriate assignments is…..the UK. It is oft-quoted precisely because it is counter-intuitive and always surprising.

After all, how can it be that two countries that appear to be so culturally similar, that have so much in common (such as a mutual language – more or less – and a shared history that binds), can produce an experience that for at least the US-Americans going to the UK (by the way, it is not the same in reverse) can be so problematic that a significant number of those Americans simply do not complete their international assignment?

Admittedly, this is a bit of a skewed statistic, for it refers to the absolute number of expatriates (and the US sends more expatriates to the UK per annum than to any other individual country), and not to the highest percentage of failed assignments (as measured by early returns), but nevertheless, there is something critical to be learned from this statistic: that cultures that share significant aspects of similarity can present an even greater challenge for expatriate adjustment, admittedly in a different kind of way and for different reasons, than would cultures of clear and extreme difference.

We culturalists call this phenomenon: the danger of “cultures of similarity”, where the similarities that exist between cultures tend to mask over any differences, and where similarities may appear to be so much greater than any differences, so that the differences are either ignored or dismissed…and consequently, never really dealt with. Instead, these differences are left to fester, under the surface, and usually reveal themselves, to everyone’s surprise and despite all the apparent similarities on the surface, in a frustrating business or relocation experience, often to the point of sending the family home, itself a bit mystified as to what exactly went so wrong in a culture that felt, at first, so right.

This, of course, is on one level, a problem of expectations.

If we are relocating to or working with a culture that is clearly different in obvious and perceivable ways, then our antennae are already tuned to expect and deal with every little difference that comes along. At first, we may even find such differences charming and exciting to deal with. And when they become annoying and problematic, as they usually ultimately do, we are still not surprised by this turn of events.

However, when we relocate to or work in a culture of similarity, our antennae are on pause mode, we don’t expect differences, so that when these differences do emerge, they do so to everyone’s surprise, and are that much more irritating.

If Americans, for example, are assigned to India, the assumption usually is that there will be lots of difference to deal with, and therefore surprises are themselves, well, not surprising.

However, when Americans are assigned to the UK, the assumption more typically is that there aren’t any real differences, and those that are, are small and insignificant (just a difference in “accent”, as opposed to actual language, for example).

If the expectation of difference is great, we are steeled to try to deal with them; if the expectation of difference is low, we tend to be surprised by them, and often manage them badly.

A basic intercultural rule is that similarities don’t make the problems, differences do.

Therefore, even if the cultural difference is small, say only 10% (as might be the case between the US and Canada, for example), as opposed to great, say 80% (as might be the case between the US and India, for example), it’s not the 90% that makes us the same that will create problems: it is the 10% difference that keeps us misunderstanding each other that makes the problems.

Sure the US and Canada have more in common than that which separates them. Much more, in fact. Nevertheless, if we overlook even the small 5% or 10% that does define the difference between US and Canadian culture, we are sure to be overlooking precisely those key issues that are the source of whatever cultural difficulties do emerge between these two cultures.

Cultures of similarity, in fact, have an insidious ability to cause real problems, precisely because the differences are usually fewer, more subtle, and easily masked. But they are real nonetheless, and if ignored, can undermine an otherwise successful international transfer or business relationship just as easily as if the situation were between two cultures of obvious difference. Perhaps even moreso.

CANADIANS AND AMERICANS.
NO DIFFERENCES, EH?

It has been said that there is no difference between Americans and Canadians, and the only way to tell the two apart is to make that statement to a Canadian.

Once again, the overwhelming similarities mask the few, but real, differences. If problems emerge when Canadians and Americans work with each other, these differences usually revolve, as all cultural differences do, around the influence of history, topography, climate and religion on the values, and subsequently on the business behaviors, of both countries.

A classic complaint, for example, by Americans is that Canadians are unresponsive to their needs, ideas, requirements, etc. The Canadian perspective, of course, is that the Americans are ignorant of the way things need to be done in Canada and assume that they can just export the way they do it in Tampa into Toronto.

Often associated with this perception is the American frustration with what they view to be Canadian resistance, or foot-dragging to new American ideas which Americans are sure to be successful and beneficial if only the Canadians would “get on board”; the Canadian perspective is that Americans are constantly “pushing the envelope”, “over-the-top”, and advocating a change-based agenda when it is not necessary, unproven or downright unproductive.

If we look at the historical, religious and even topographical realities of both countries, however, these different business perspectives become less mysterious: for example, the US had a violent revolution against the “mother ship” (the UK), and has nurtured values of individualism, change and future-orientation, and most importantly, the benefits to be gained by constantly challenging limits, authority, barriers and frontiers.

It should be no surprise that these American values developed in a country that succeeded in a sudden, violent act to free itself from an unwanted master, and which existed in a moderate, temperate climate. In the developing US, the physical frontier yielded to hard work, which could be accomplished by a lone individual, in many cases. The indigenous civilization, being nomadic and unorganized, also yielded to the advancing European power. Frontiers were things to be overcome, not limits that defined and constrained individual action. And perhaps most importantly, those founding British revolutionaries were advancing a religious agenda that was, in its day, radical and fundamentalist, a puritan interpretation of Christianity that empowered each individual to determine their own salvation, independent of religious hierarchies; this idea was so challenging to the Anglican establishment in Britain in its day, that these “pilgrims” had to cross an ocean to advance their new and unique vision.

This was not the case on Canada. Canada had no sudden and violent revolution against Britain. Canada, on the other hand, slowly and carefully, with mindful and cautious deliberation, legislated itself into independent existence, more or less, from Britain. The Queen after all is still pictured on the “loonie” (the Canadian dollar bill). Canada is still a member of the British Commonwealth. The founding settlers of what was to become Canada were not violent revolutionaries on a puritanical mission to advance a particularly individualist notion of accountability (and ultimately, therefore, of personal worth and salvation); rather, they were royalists, often loyal to the British King (settlers in the US colonies who did not want to join the Patriot cause in the US revolution often packed their bags and moved north to Canada), and Anglicans in their devotion to the less-than-puritan Church of England. (Please note: we are speaking only of Anglophone Canada: the Quebecois French experience is different, and presents a “culture-of-similarity” phenomenon only when comparing Quebecois with their French cousins in France!).

Most importantly, Canadian settlers were living in a topographical reality that prevented individuals from challenging limits and frontiers: in the vast north of Canada, the Great Canadian Shield, that topographical feature of wild and frozen tundra, prevents individuals from acting independently on their own, and does not nurture the valuing of overcoming limits and frontiers. In fact, in Canada, limits and barriers are to be respected, for there is no overcoming them easily.

Individualism yields to the need to collaborate with others if one is to survive, to build an orderly society based on the collective good for all, rather than a society whose first priority is the guarantee of individual rights. This can be seen no more clearly today than by standing on the riverbank that divides Windsor, Ontario, from Detroit Michigan.

Depending on which side of the river you are standing, you are either viewing a rather orderly, somewhat unexciting, but certainly civil society on one side, and the raucous and over-the-top complexity of a very different society on the other side. Depending on your viewpoint, both have their pluses and minuses, and interestingly, the minuses are exactly the same complaints that one hears by either side when they attempt to work together.

“GOD SAVE OUR GRACIOUS KING”;
“MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE…” (same song, different lyrics)

If the subtle and few, yet real and problematic, differences between Canadians and Americans can derail even the best-intentioned business deal, then imagine what can happen when Americans and Britons try to get on with each other.

Britain is, after all, the mother ship against which Americans had their revolution. Therefore, it is important to recognize that those same differences which drew both the colonies and the UK into violent confrontation with each another are often at the invisible source of much of the misunderstanding that can sometimes emerge when Americans and Britons attempt to work with each other. Sure we have unique historical, political and linguistic ties that bind, especially in the face of larger, more definitively different world. But those few, historically rooted differences, can be profound sources of misunderstanding.

Primarily, the US revolted against the imposition of authority, hierarchy and ascribed privilege: in short, aristocracy, Kings and Queens.

In its stead, the US developed a culture that valued the everyman, that empowered individuals based on their competency, not their class. And while it is true that Britain also shares a strong democratic tradition (the Magna Carta, after all, over one thousand years ago, began the tradition of devolving kingly authority to what would eventually become a representative Parliament), Britain still simultaneously has rigorously held on to its aristocratic lineage: it is today still one of the world’s oldest and remaining monarchies, and the society runs, in many key ways, based on class and privilege.

When these traditions clash with American individual empowerment traditions, Americans and Britons often experience a profound disconnect, which can reveal itself in day-to-day business interactions.

For example, Americans often complain about British business meetings being events where their input is sometimes less than welcomed, and where individuals are less than forthright with their thoughts and opinions in front of others at the table.

On the other hand, Britons often complain that American meetings are merely brainstorming sessions, where individuals appear to compete with each other at the table for the position of “who-said-most”, while not really advancing anything.

The conflict between these two very different styles, indeed purposes, of business meetings, is based on two very different perspectives of hierarchy, and the roles of individuals toward hierarchy.

As we stated, British meetings can be solution-oriented, where all individuals are expected to contribute to a decision, but often this style occurs in Britain only when the individuals around the table are peers; once authority enters the room, individual initiative often stops dead. In the US, it is precisely because authority enters the room that individuals enter into a competition to appear as if they are contributing to solutions to the problem which prompted the meeting in the first place.

Not to mention the difficulties and misunderstandings surrounding the English language!

George Bernard Shaw once stated that Americans and Britons are cousins separated by a common language, and the myriad number of differences between American and British English can fill many a book (and many have been written about it!).

For example, when a Briton says, “let’s table this idea”, the American assumes they want to put the topic aside for discussion at a later time; however, in Briton, to table something means to bring it forward for discussion now. Precisely the opposite meaning than in the US.

But that should not be surprising, given the fact that Americans had a revolution once against all things British (and European). It is for this reason that black cats, lucky in Britain, are unlucky in the US; that Americans dine by switching their knife and fork precisely because Britons, when dining, keep their knife and fork in the same hands; that Americans drive on the right, because Britons drive on the left; that Americans date their correspondence “month-day-year” precisely because Britons dated their correspondence (and still do, along with most all Europeans) “day-month-year”; and that Americans will flash the “V-for-victory” sign with abandon (even if only to order two more beers), while Britons are careful to always and only perform this gesture with the palm facing outward (when the palm faces inward, it becomes a very rude gesture of defiant hostility).

“Baseball English”, so common in America (“give me a ballpark figure”, “that idea is from left field”, “step up to the plate”, and on and on), is completely lost on most Brits, just as “cricket English” (“sticky wicket”, “not just cricket”, etc.) sounds odd and arcane to the Yank’s ear. The two cultures constantly step on each other’s language toes, often to the detriment of a good business relationship.

WATCH OUT FOR THOSE TALL POPPIES DOWN UNDER!

And if the American can appear all too casual, and individually unaware of the importance of rank, privilege and class, imagine the difficulties that they can experience when working with their Australian counterparts in the land of “the tall poppy”.

As explained universally in Australia, poppy flowers can individually grow to many different heights, some are short, some are tall. But tall poppies get their heads cut off in Australia, meaning that anyone who appears (or thinks and acts as if they are) more important, or taller, than anyone else, in the end will get their head cut off, and be cut down to size.

Modern Australia, after all, was founded by the cast-offs of British society, who all shared the same rank and status, that of prisoners of her Majesty. It should be no surprised, therefore, that the society that developed from these humble beginnings would be one that devalues any kind of behavior that reinforces ideas of rank, status and ascribed authority. In Australia, anyone who tries to “pull rank”, who puts themselves and their agenda above anyone else’s, is immediately undermined, undercut, and a target on a pedestal to be knocked down.

Australians usually do this “cutting-the-tall-poppy-down-to-size” maneuver in a number of ways: through joking, through disregarding, and sometimes, through direct confrontation.

One way or the other, however, Americans often find themselves going to Australia with the goal of advancing their own business agenda, only to be received by Australians who’s first priority is to knock you down to size…and only then, when we have insured that everyone is an equally short poppy (and when “Jack’s as good as his master”, as we say in Australia) do we take a closer look at the Yank’s agenda.

Rugged individualism also takes a different form in Australia, in a land so forbidding that 95% of the population lives within 100 miles of the coastline, and where almost nobody lived in the interior (the “outback”). In this very challenging physical environment, everyone needs a “mate”, someone they can rely on, someone who is no better nor worse than they, who is dependable and trustworthy. Going it alone is downright foolish, less than productive, and can be dangerous. Becoming a mate, therefore, is often a first priority as well for the Australian, while getting the task accomplished in the least amount of time is often the first objective of the American. Take the time in Australia to “throw another prawn on the Barbie”, host a “shout” (pay for a round of drinks at the pub), and become a “mate” on an equal basis with your Australian counterparts, before jumping into that all-important agenda.

WHEN THE WORLD MAP WAS PINK

In the 18th and 19th centuries, much of the world was dominated by the British Empire, represented in maps of the day by the color pink.

“The sun never sets on the British Empire”, so the saying went, and by virtue of this colonial phenomenon, English became a lingua franca in many locations around the world. Today, one of the legacies of the British colonial experience is the use of English as a world language of convenience –enhanced and globalized by the American presence on the world stage in the 20th and 21st centuries – in many countries, beyond just the US, Australia, Canada, and, of course, the UK. In the global business community most anywhere, English is the language of mutual comprehension that is often used, and in former British colonies, beyond those of Australia, Canada and the US, such as Singapore, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, and many other nations, English – or some form of a heavily Anglicized local language – forms the spoken local word.

Many of these cultures beyond Canada, the US and Australia, are very different in many fundamental ways from Canada, the US, Australia and the UK, which share an essentially Anglo-Saxon culture and view of the world, in addition to a similar language.

Singapore, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, may all share the influence of English on their local languages, but their fundamental cultures are far from Anglo-Saxon.

So the differences that exist between Americans and Malaysians, for example, are significant enough that both Americans and Malaysians will not typically mistake each other for a “culture of similarity”, despite any mutual use of English.

However, for cultures like Canada, Australia and the UK, Americans share, in addition to language, the additional commonality of an Anglo-Saxon culture, and for this reason, the subtle dynamics of “cultures of similarity” need to be seriously considered.

To do less would be to invite surprising, unexpected, and therefore, even more challenging, difficulties than those one might expect with cultures more clearly perceived as “different”.

Our similarities don’t make for our problems: it is our differences, even when they are few, and subtle, as they often are, when working in “cultures of similarity”.

CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS Pfizer, Caterpillar, PwC, Citi, ACS International Schools

LEFT: Pfizer’s Rehka Chalasani; CENTER: Caterpillar’s Dr. John Pompe; RIGHT: PwC’s Kellie Roberts and Richard Baird

New York – GLOBAL HR NEWS was pleased to honor the first recipients of the CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS in a New York ceremony on 23 May 2007.

The Awards recognized three specific corporate programs that either prepare employees and families for effective international assignment, or foster exemplary goodwill in the international communities in which the company does business.

The company programs receiving the Awards were Caterpillar Inc. for their International Employee Assistance Program; Pfizer, Inc for their Global Health Fellows Program; and PricewaterhouseCoopers for their UK-based Ulysses Programme.

The judges who reviewed the nominations and agreed on the awards were Philip Berry, VP Global Workplace Initiatives and Corporate Officer, Colgate-Palmolive Company; Austin Fragomen, Partner and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Fragomen Del Rey Bernsen & Loewy LLP; Dean Foster, President, Dean Foster Associates, Intercultural Consulting & Training; Andrew Kittell, Director of Corporate Relations, ACS International Schools; Judson Scruton, Director, New York & London, GLOBAL HR NEWS; and Ed Cohen, Editor & Publisher, GLOBAL HR NEWS.

The Caterpillar “International Assistance Program (IAP)” Award was announced by Andrew Kittell, who highlighted some of the essential facts about the program. The program was started in 2004 to assist their more than 1,000 employees living and working outside their native country. The program features extensive pre-departure orientation, proactive, ongoing outreach to employees and spouses, educational webinars, professional counselling as needed, and repatriation assistance. Caterpillar’s IAP program recognizes that expats and their families often do not seek the help they need until there is a significant crisis. The Caterpillar program invites international assignee families to accept help before a crisis develops. The company cites improved retention and productivity as a result of the program. Kittell said that the Caterpillar program was “as good as any I have seen in a decade of working with multinational companies.” Accepting the Award for Caterpillar was Dr. John Pompe, Manager, Behavioral Health Programs.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Ulysses Programme”, a global leadership development program that was started in 2001 and has sent 80 partners from 32 territories on 26 projects in 20 different developing countries was announced by Philip Berry. One of the objectives of the programme is “to integrate stakeholder collaboration into the role of high performance business to create sustainable success for communities and markets across the world.” An example of this would be the 2005 Rural Electrification Project in Madagascar where four PwC Partners from Russia, France, Indonesia, and the US went to the Andapa and Sambava Districts of Madagascar to work with a UNDP to do a social-economic study to guide the selection of projects best suited to reduce poverty and create economic growth. The programme consists of eight weeks of preparation, eight weeks on location, and a week of review and recommendations, plus follow-up. Among the benefits PwC sees for this programme is creating “a sustainable brand in which PwC is differentiated by the quality of our relationships with our people, our clients and the community.” Accepting the Award for PricewaterhouseCooper was Richard Baird, Global Human Capital Leader and Kellie Roberts, Ulysses Programme Manager.

Part of the presentation ceremony included a look at the sustainability theme as it related to Caterpillar. Judson Scruton introduced this theme stating that sustainability is one of the key words in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—in Corporate Citizenship. He mentioned that if a company is successfully sustaining its employees in overseas assignments, or using biofuels in its equipment, or is partnering with suppliers who are themselves practicing sustainability, or those companies are learning from the leading CSR theories being taught in Business Schools…then the Caterpillar story demonstrates this full cycle.”

To illustrate this point the presentation included looking at the video on the website of Fairmount Minerals, a major minerals company that supplies Caterpillar with materials to build their equipment and works with them to develop a process for reusing spent sand for fertilizers to grown corn for ethanol companies to produce biofuels. Caterpillar makes biofuel equipment; Fairmount Minerals buys Caterpillar biofuel diesel equipment.

Fairmount Minerals has a major sustainability focus throughout their operation, a more than $300 million dollar operation with operations in the US, Canada, Mexico and soon to be in China. They have won numerous awards from major environmental organizations. Fairmount Minerals’ VP for Administration, Jack Wymer, was at the ceremony to accept a certificate for Corporate Citizenship Teamwork as it related to Caterpillar.

A Pfizer executive had this to say about their award-winning program: “A scientist working on a database to improve patient care at a refugee camp in northern Kenya. A research manager bringing her skills to bear on an AIDS vaccine clinical trial in Uganda. A doctor assessing training for medical colleagues in Russia.”

“These are the faces of Pfizer’s Global Health Fellows Program (GHF), an innovative public-private partnership that leverages our most valuable resource – our people – to address systemic public health challenges in developing nations.”

“Now in its fourth year, the GHF program selects volunteers from among Pfizer employees to serve with non-profit organizations in developing countries. Their goal: transfer knowledge and technical skills to build capacity over a period of three to six months that will be helpful long after they have gone home. The 128 scientists, clinical researchers, financial and data analysts, nurses, doctors, HR managers and others, whom Pfizer has deployed to 30 developing countries, all share an incredible desire to do good. With the strategic guidance, established partnerships, and technical resources of Pfizer, these individuals become powerful catalysts for change.”

“They are also manifestations of Pfizer’s overarching purpose: helping people live healthier lives. In fulfilling this mission, Pfizer prioritizes three key arenas:

* discovering and developing new medicines;
* improving access to medicines; and
* finding health system solutions.”

“The Global Health Fellows program has allowed us to advance all three in a new way for us – and for multinational companies across industries.”

Unlike some Corporate Citizenship and CSR Awards, GLOBAL HR NEWS CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS were chosen from very specific programs nominated by the companies themselves.

“We were honored to have such outstanding programs to recognize with our first Corporate Citizenship Awards. Each of these programs makes a distinctive and valuable contribution to global management. We firmly believe that effective global management measurably contributes to better understanding, human development and perhaps to world peace, and I believe that companies and their international assignees and their families are actually “everyday Ambassadors” living and working in the community and coming into daily contact with local residents, businesses, and organizations,” said Ed Cohen, Publisher, GLOBAL HR NEWS.

He concluded by saying, “We are taking this initiative globally and our next CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS event will be in London 28 November 2007 for companies primarily located in or doing significant business across Europe, in the MidEast or in Africa. The Awards ceremony will be an integral part of theEURO-ATLANTIC WORLD TRADE CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS, during the Conference Luncheon Program. We expect the conference to be a “sell-out” so if you have some interest to come and be involved please do not hesitate to contact us for information on registration. Thank You.”