To gain some insight into how assignment objectives and outcomes were monitored, interviewees were also asked about their reporting lines and where they fit into ManCo’s organisational structure. One of the key observations was that all five parent country managers assigned within EngCo were sent from and reported to the divisional headquarters in the US, while only one manager reported to the company’s global headquarters (HQ) in the US. The divisional HQ to which the four managers (R2, R4, R5, and R7) reported was based in North Carolina. The particular arm of ManCo’s business division that they worked for was one of thirty, which ccollectively were responsible for more than fifty billion dollars in annual turnover. R2 in Marketing offered a brief description of the company’s hierarchical structure:
“So you got the CEO of the company then you have a series of group presidents, about five or six of those, and they’re segmented by the types of business we’re in, and then you’ve got a bunch of vice-presidents, and so this division [business name] has a vice-presidents and that vice-president has several key department heads who are basically aligned by product and then they have a series of division heads so I am one of the division managers reporting to the department head who reports to the vice president.”
- R2, Marketing, EngCo The above structure reflects the changes in the company’s organisational structure post-1990s, as indicated in at the beginning of the chapter. Whereas prior to this period, ManCo company structure and reporting lines were centralised into four key functions, the company was now divided into key divisional structures, as indicated in the above manager’s quote. This structure reflected a more decentralised approach and aim at increasing the autonomy of business divisions. Moreover, it permitted a better flow of information across various organisational units by removing layers of bureaucracy between ManCo’s head office and subsidiary units. Indeed, the department
115| P a g e head and the vice-president that R2 reported to were based in one such divisional headquarters (HQ). R2 stated that he had responsibility over a locally-based team, and one of the team’s members was also based within this US office in the South. When asked about his contact with this office, he stated that this was purely driven by the level at which he operated and whether or not the role being performed was a global one. As his job role was a global one, he stated that this resulted in much broader responsibilities and more extensive contact, in order to report on progress and exchange information. R4, who was also in marketing explained that he was also in frequent contact with the North Carolina divisional HQ but that this was for different reasons. This manager operated at a middle management level, but explained that his contact with the US was a little more complicated:
“So if you go up our string, it’s I am here, then NC, then here, then NC and then Hong Kong. So every one of us in the string is somewhere else. My boss is in the US, then her boss is here so the interesting thing is sometimes if I want to have a conversation with the product manager, I call the US to talk to my boss, and then she might go up the channel… but you know I would directly talk to our product manager here, and keep my boss in the
loop” - R4, Marketing, EngCo
This reporting was due to the global nature of the team of which R4 was a part. Hence, conversations took place on a daily basis with members of the team across borders, to ensure that all employees’ activities and efforts were effectively coordinated. With regard to contact with ManCo’s global HQ, R4 stated that while he knew employees within this HQ, there was hardly ever a need for him to contact this office while on assignment. Another AE manager who had reported into the division office was R3 in Finance, who had recently returned from this divisional headquarters in North Carolina. When asked about if there was a reason for them to be in touch with the company’s global HQ, while on assignment, R3 stated this was done at least once a month but that it was not always necessary:
“They are more coordinating the reporting for the company at the highest level so unless I have an issue, it’s just more meeting their deadlines. But no sort of constant interaction unless there is an issue that I need to bring up. - R3, Finance, EngCo
R3 went on to explain that he operated within a ‘satellite’ (business unit), which operated frameworks and structures of management handed down from HQ. It was these structures that
116| P a g e facilitated to the indirect management of activities within the specific business. He stated that he and other employees within this business operate independently, without regular direction or interference from ManCo’s global HQ. Unless a specific problem arose, R3 described his usual contact with HQ as ‘radio silence’. R5, who was also in Finance, also reported to the divisional HQ in the US explained that his contact with this office was a bit more frequent:
“We speak at least once a week and then there’s interaction with my team in NC, daily sometimes depending on the time. And then he will come over typically once a year to visit and then I will go over to NC typically once a year to visit. And then we would do monthly one-on-ones where we would sit down on the phone and have a conversation and then he works and he would talk to me on my performance and how I am doing and getting feedback from R7 here as well.” - R5, Finance, EngCo
The difference in the frequency of contact between R3 and R5 was due to the management level at which each operated, as well as the specific job role being performed within the subsidiary. R5 also explained that while at his level, he did not require the same amount of contact as if he were performing a more tactical role, he maintained regular contact in order to report his results and gain feedback on his performance. However, he also agreed with R3 in saying that he was left alone to manage his team and set strategy in the way that he saw fit:
“It’s really up to me to manage the team and set a strategy and vision for the team so he’s expecting me to do that he’s expecting me to hit my numbers and make my results.
- R5, Finance, EngCo
Other assignees agreed with R5’s comments, highlighting the ‘hands off’ approach to management, and the use of more tangible mechanisms to monitor AE managers’ progress. All of the managers interviewed stated that the progress of their particular roles was monitored via metrics and the attainment of previously outlined goals. R6, however, reported to a divisional office in England and then to the regional headquarters for the EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) region. He indicated that he was monitored a bit more closely because of the nature of the assignment for which he was sent. At the time of interviewing, EngCo had been going through a transformation of their technology systems and this process was being headed by R6. About his reporting line he stated:
“For work I have a fortnightly meeting with an IT manager in the US who is also responsible for other factories as a part of [name of business division]…the [name of
117| P a g e business division] has an organisational structure which is for [business division] so I have regular meetings with them and he so happens to be based in the US and that’s just to keep us in line”
- R6, IT, EngCo. This manager stated that this level of contact was set to become more frequent because of another upcoming project. He also stated that there was a specific group within ManCo, who was in charge of rolling out common processes across all of ManCo subsidiary units, and that his assignment fitted into this process. Similar to other interviewees, he stressed ManCo’s approach to managing and monitoring the operations of all of its global subsidiaries via specific company metrics, which compared the performance of one subsidiary with the performance of another. About this, he commented:
“There are different metrics that say how you are progressing towards this productions systems target and then it will assess each facility. How are you doing it here? Are you doing it better than the next facility? Some members would talk about [subsidiary name] one of the China facilities. That’s one of the top [name of group] metric scores and viewed as one of the best operating facility and how we would learn overall best practice from
them”
- R6, IT, EngCo This was recognised as a common way of quality checking within ManCo, and a means of ensuring that each facility was utilising similar and agreed processes. The high-level metrics within each unit were owned by the senior leaders within each location, who then translated these into meaningful components and targets for the particular subsidiary by the AE managers. With regard to assessing the extent to which managers achieved this, R7, the managing director of this branch, agreed, stating that he was assessed by the business’s vice president, based on a specific profit target or the location. Aside from this however, he stated that there was little contact with this individual, and that he was given freedom to run the business as he thought best:
“Yeah the last eleven years I’ve always had the luxury of being on my own reporting…So I get to run the facilities by myself which I like.” - R4, MD, EngCo
With regard to the outcomes of the expatriate managers’ assignment within the particular subsidiary, in addition to the attainment of individual targets, this was also determined by other more tacit results, at various levels of the firm. Many of the assignees interviewed stated the
118| P a g e international experience gained, knowledge of different work approaches, increased presence and competences within the locality, increased understanding of the firm, and improved relationships between home country and host country were key indicators that the assignment was fulfilling its objectives. R7 provided further explanation:
“It allows you to see a lot of different sides of the company, so it gives you a lot wider view on every aspect of the company, because every country has a different culture still. I mean we have those 50-60 percent ManCo culture and the other 40 or 50 percent is the local culture and of course there is some intermingling of that and you start to understand those cultures much better. Also all those divisions have different cultures and report to different parts of the company and you learn much more”
- R7, MD, EngCo Others managers agreed, and provided other examples of how their understanding and professional careers would be enhanced as a result of the assignment, as well as how their presence aided in enhancing communication between their home country unit and the host country unit, EngCo. This was particularly highlighted in the section on Management Development, where interviewees emphasized the knowledge gained while on assignment. In addition to the measuring of assignment outcomes, the researcher was also keen to find out if any changes in the use of these assignments had been observed over the years. Hence, the below section will go on to outline interviewees’ comments regarding changes in the nature or use of expatriate assignments.