Introduction

Under the joint pressure of ongoing globalisation and international institutions, the so-called "developing" countries have been summoned to reform. For a long time, their situation was lamented and even aroused a certain degree of compassion—more or less coloured by guilt—in the more prosperous countries. The wind has definitely changed however. The success of (what are commonly named) the emerging nations of Asia, and to a certain extent of Latin America, is largely considered to be proof that there is a way out for those that truly wish it. The oracles of international institutions, led by the IMF, now maintain that good governance coupled with whole-hearted acceptance of market discipline in both public institutions and companies is key. Guilt for underdevelopment lies in corruption of those holding the reins of public and private power, the insufficient transparency of their actions, and the lack of democracy. It is through courageous reforms made in these areas that less-developed nations will gradually join those at the forefront and take their rightful place in a globalised economy. The road is clear ; it is just necessary to want to take it.

[28]

Faced with these pressures, the leaders and ordinary citizens of the countries concerned are divided and often troubled. They are generally very eager for their country to modernise and for a prosperous economy to develop thus providing both remunerative employment and improved levels of public services (health, education, etc.). They are often aware that their public and private institutions function poorly. They wish to establish more democratic and transparent forms of governance and to weed out corruption wherever it flourishes. They mostly agree that "good governance" (whether they are familiar with this term or not), at various levels of power, is an essential ingredient for development. They are aware that this concerns their society as a whole, that superficial modernisation will not be enough and that it will be necessary to question even the most deeply-rooted customs. At the same time, they value their own identities and cultures. They feel that, under the guise of modernisation, a rampant form of neo-colonialism is attempting to impose on them profoundly foreign practices that threaten them with the loss of their very soul. Both international institutions and the ultra-liberal heirs of the "Chicago boys" are the targets of heavy criticism. Certainly, in businesses that have been acquired by European, American or Japanese groups and where the management methods of the new masters have been imposed—at times, brutally—, a degree of resentment can be detected. Large sectors of public opinion denounce what they perceive as dehumanising globalisation. Among the harshest critics, reactions to modernisation go so far as to fuel hatred of the West, seen as the instigator of the process. Here, criticism is accompanied by a withdrawal into cultural identity mixed at times with virulent fundamentalism.

Faced with this type of reaction, it may be tempting to say that critics such as these do not know what they want, and that if they wish to benefit from the advantages of a modern economy and institutions, they must be ready to pay the price ; it is up to them to make their choice and accept the consequences. Any reference to a country's distinctive features is dismissed as an excuse for lack of political will and mentions of cultural identity inspire particular hostility. The most fervent modernists view such [29] considerations either as an excuse concealing a refusal to engage in reforms that would undermine the interests of those who benefit from the status quo, or as a symptom of narrow-minded conservatism. It is then that a kind of modernist fundamentalism, decked in its certitudes, bristles against reactionary fundamentalism : one inflexible adversary against another, one clear conscience against another, one denunciation against another. But does it really have to come down to this ?

Was (and is) the modernisation process in the flagship countries so simple that recipes for success can be extracted and applied across the board with no modification ? Even the virtuous have their faults, as attested by the pitiful bankruptcies of some great American companies that not long ago were held up as paragons. The fight against corruption and support for democracy and good governance are certainly institutional matters, but these institutions are not machines. It is still imperative that those responsible for implementing reforms adhere to them, bring them to life, and remain faithful to their spirit, over and above the texts that are often all too easily distorted. Taking this into account means paying attention to people, who have their weaknesses certainly, but also the desire to do good. How then is it possible to ignore the diversity of forms that this desire can take ? In European societies or European-style cultures, modernisation has been far from synonymous with strict standardisation. Europe's institutions are far from identical and their laws are different. The same holds true for their management practices. Here, the institutions, laws, and techniques are strongly marked by the diversity of their political cultures. [1] Accordingly, the vision of society and governance and the forms of civic or professional duty encountered in the United States differ substantially from those prevailing in France, Germany or Sweden. While less impressive than twenty years ago, Japan has attained an enviable position in the world economy without slavishly copying institutions and practices introduced [30] from elsewhere. While Japan is open to foreign influences, it uses them as a source of inspiration rather than as a model for unquestioning imitation.

Is there a lesser need in developing countries to adapt institutions to the cultures in which they take on meaning ? Are the political and economic benefits of modernity really so incompatible with their cultural particularities that they must be done away with either by developing a 'modern' sector supposed to function in a cultural void and which gradually eats away at remaining 'traditional' institutions and practices, or through a sort of broad cultural conversion ? If this is the case, the sole choice open to these countries is to decide which of the so-called modern societies they specifically want to choose as a model. Are we truly to believe that a kind of brainwashing (were it actually possible) is the inevitable price certain countries will have to pay ? If the countries called upon to reform suffered uniformly from a combination of inefficiency autocracy and corruption, and if their cultures were but a collection of customs standing in the way of progress, then this question could be posed more legitimately. But their situation is infinitely more complex.

Those with direct experience of these countries are fully aware that small islands of modernity, efficiency and good governance already exist, even in those countries that seem the most criticisable all round (or, from another perspective, the most in difficulty). Everywhere, one can find companies reputed for their management and performance (and, despite what is sometimes said, not simply old-style workshops where greedy multinationals exploit poorly paid manual labourers, using local compradores as intermediaries). [2] The issue then becomes : what lessons can be learned from their existence ? Do such examples mean that these countries can be modernised despite their culture by fighting against it or simply disregarding it, and importing foreign models to construct a sort of counter-society from scratch ? Or, on the contrary, do they show [31] that there is good in each culture, even in terms of governance, and that these countries can be modernised by leveraging their culture ?

This book aims to demonstrate that the second hypothesis is the correct one. It purports to show that when one takes the trouble to examine in detail those pockets of modernity that are in stark constrast with their environment, one finds that local culture (understood as being that which gives meaning to situations and acts) [3] has imbued the new practices with meaning, thereby playing a decisive role in garnering the support they receive.

We were led to this conclusion by the field research that we undertook into business operations on different continents and in countries at varying stages of development. [4] Although this fieldwork was of limited scope, it was nonetheless extremely useful in terms of development and full of lessons to be learned about the relationship between governance and culture. The industrial companies we met with in developing countries struck us as outstanding examples of success. They led us to question the secret of their success in environments that were hardly favourable a priori. In each case, the underlying mode of governance underpinning their success clearly rested on a combination of a distribution of power, transparency and ethics. Much less expectedly, what also struck us in each case was the alchemy operating between the most modern aspects of a company environment and the most deep-rooted elements of the local culture. These were resolutely modern businesses, not only at operations level, but also in terms of their reliance on management tools imported from the industrial world either via company headquarters (for subsidiaries of international corporations), or through international consultants. Their success [32] clearly rested on the mindful and persistent efforts of the company leaders to combat the excesses of the countries' dominant forms of management. Yet in many respects, their operations remained profoundly traditional, not only in residual aspects, unaffected by the acquisition of new tools, but also in the way in which these tools were actually used. It was not simply a matter of juxtaposing or compromising between the modern and the traditional, but an intimate union between them. It was as if the most modern business standards had been given body through the intermediary of local cultural forms. As these standards had taken on meaning based on local conceptions of life, employees adhered to them and implemented them efficiently. These standards thus became an effective vehicle for the organisation's success, rather than joining a host of defunct reform initiatives. In each case, therefore, the company transformed its way of functioning by leveraging the driving strengths specific to each culture.

Our purpose in this book is to seek to explain this kind of alchemy. We wrote it with the conviction that such clarification would be welcomed by people, in many places, who are trying to modernise their countries without renouncing their culture. This conviction developed over the course of conferences and seminars given for business leaders, scholars and students in many African, American and Asian countries. The discovery that there are many roads to economic excellence has given them hope for the future of their countries.

Simply presenting the broad lessons drawn from this research would have been inadequate. It was essential to pinpoint, as concretely as possible, the processes at work when innovative lines of action and tradition-based approaches come to meet. It was thus necessary to take specific situations as a starting point. Four case studies of resolutely modern industrial companies appeared especially illuminating by virtue of their diversity. Three are subsidiaries of large multinational corporations : a Mexican agro-food business, a Moroccan manufacturer of electronic components and a [33] petrochemical company in Argentina. The fourth is a publicly held company, the electrical power supplier of Cameroon. [5] The development levels of these countries differ significantly, as does the progress achieved by each company. The most striking aspects of management also differ. In the Mexican and Moroccan cases, what stands out is the personnel's motivation. In Cameroon, it is the setting-up of a system of delegation and control, and in Argentina, the battle against corruption. The traditional collective forms that the companies have been able to leverage are also dissimilar. In Mexico, there is a family of brothers where growth comes through mutual aid ; in Morocco, it is a brotherhood gathered around a holy man and governed by integrity and trust ; in Cameroon, a group united around a shared ritual that meticulously sets out what is expected of each individual ; and, in Argentina, a network of friends in which a strict interpretation of moral principles prevails.

The way in which this partnership of the traditional and the modern, the universal and the local, comes about is somewhat strange for those who normally contrast these two categories. [6] We will first address each of the case studies, leaving aside the cultural dimension. Our chief interest will initially be in the universal aspects of the management issues encountered, and we will examine the approaches used to deal with these issues. At this stage of the analysis, we will resolutely disregard everything our interviewees told us about the singular ways in which they give meaning to the situations created by the use of the management tools and how they make these tools their own. We will see that remaining at this level of analysis makes it almost impossible to understand the role of certain 'strange' aspects of the approaches used, even though the individuals involved consider them as vital ingredients of success. Moreover, [34] one is left wondering how transformations of the amplitude we observed were successfully brought about, over and above the good intentions of their proponents. We will then shift gears and go on to examine the mental universe in which the transformations obtained and the methods used took on meaning for the actors. This will allow us, in the third step, to understand why the reforms accomplished were so effective and which key elements—paradoxical as these might appear to management experts—enabled them to succeed.

A good many lessons relating to both knowledge and action can be gleaned, as we will see, from these cases.

Management theories are currently struggling to find suitable points of articulation between the universal and the local. Debate continues to rage between the majority who defend the universal nature of good management practices and those who emphasise their local character. In fact, the two theories appear both correct and inadequate. On a highly abstract level, there are certainly a considerable number of management principles of universal scope, whether this involves exercising authority, mobilising people, business ethics, or other issues. Yet once we return to the concrete realm of action and implementation, the local level must be taken into account. A certain confusion arises, however, given that management theorists tend to conflate these two levels. Advancing principles with a universal scope, they justify what are in fact no more than original methods of application bearing the imprint of the specific societies in which they evolved. In order to clearly distinguish the universal from the incidental in such practices, it is necessary to revolutionise the way in which management theories conceive the relationship between management tools and the people who use them. Instead of focusing on the tools and disregarding the people, these theories should look at way in which the use of tools is integrated into the mental (and thus, cultural) world of those putting them to work. This considerably multiplies the number of factors that need to be taken into account and represents a hugely [35] demanding step for the discipline, which is thus compelled to open itself to traditionally foreign approaches.

Without such reform, there is a strong risk that the application of management theories to developing countries could be counterproductive, given that their cultural contexts differ hugely from those in which the usual practices advanced as models were conceived. Management theories often assume that each individual fulfils a professional role within a company that is completely disconnected from the personal relations (of complicity or hostility) they have with colleagues, superiors, subordinates, clients, and so forth. These relationships are assumed to belong to one's private life, which is separated by a kind of Great Wall of China from a professional life that belongs to the public sphere. Of course, this way of perceiving things is never more than a relatively loose approximation of reality. Admittedly, in most societies with European-style cultures, this interpretation is not entirely senseless and even serves as a basis for some useful guidelines for action. However, once outside these societies, and particularly in developing countries, this interpretation becomes much more hazardous, and even excludes some essential aspects of reality. In developing countries, a fundamental ingredient of good management is the capacity to take into account the interplay between personal relationships and the exercise of professional duties. This singularly complicates the task of managing, particularly as the forms of personal relationships vary enormously from one society to another. It also complicates the way in which one can use these relationships to reinforce effective management, whilst also neutralising any excesses they may generate. To suggest, however, that they can be dispensed with would be to hide one's head in the sand.

There is a pressing concern today, particularly among development institutions, to identify and disseminate best practices. Yet these institutions tend to go about the task ignoring the fact that best practices—when viewed from an operational standpoint and not just in relation to their general principles—are only valid within a certain context. [36] The relatively local character of those practices, deservingly held up as models, should thus be taken into account regarding the methods used to identify and disseminate them. At the same time, this local dimension makes identifying and disseminating these practices all the more useful. Management practices pertaining to a limited geographical area are less likely to have been detected spontaneously and described than practices with a more universal scope. As a result, they are less likely to be known by potential users. The innovations associated with such practices are thus poorly publicised. Scaling up their diffusion would lead to substantial improvements in the efficiency of businesses in the countries concerned, and accelerate their pace of development.