Search results

Aster Retail (AR) is the retail pharmacy division of the Aster Dr Moopen's Healthcare (ADMH) Group. The group delivers healthcare services across the Middle East, India and the Far East, with a portfolio of hospitals, clinics, diagnostic centres and retail pharmacies. AR, under the leadership of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jobilal Vavachan, is well known for its people-centric approach, unique culture and innovative human resource (HR) practices. AR has won multiple awards for HR practices, service quality and business performance. In a recent corporate restructuring (2018), “Aster Primary Care” was carved out by combining the group's Clinics and Retail businesses. This case discusses the evolution of AR's HR journey and the challenges associated with integrating culturally diverse businesses without compromising the values of ADMH and its promise, “We'll Treat You Well.”

After completion of the case study, the students will be able to understand the importance of being culturally savvy when working in a culturally diverse environment and managing people from different cultures; critically reflect on the risks resulting from the absence of a clear direction from the company’s top management regarding unifying corporate values and a diversity policy for cooperation across cultures; be aware of best practices in implementing diversity management (DM) initiatives in the company; and learn that changes in the strategic orientation (i.e. focus on automation projects) must be cascaded down to hard elements of structures, processes and systems, as well as to soft elements of skills, staff and management style.

The Kuwaiti branch of a Japanese corporation specialising in control systems and instruments, Rising Sun IT, hired a German professional, Alex, to handle the increasing demand for automation from customers. This recruitment followed several unsuccessful attempts by the company to deliver more advanced automation solutions. Recognising the need to adapt to Kuwaiti customer requirements or risk losing market share, Japanese management understood the importance of transforming their engineering staff. Failure to achieve this next automation step would result in a steady decline in market share and ultimately impact the company’s survival. However, Alex, who was supposed to lead automation projects, was confronted with opposition from the Indian engineering staff and managers. He was not able to find common ground with the staff and perceived issues such as lack of communication, delays in work schedules, missed deadlines and high levels of absenteeism, as a sign of low work morale. Although he tried to increase the awareness of his supervisor and other managers by informing them repeatedly about the problems regarding employee behaviours, his interventions went unheard. He felt ousted by his fellow colleagues and the other employees. Besides, from Alex’s point of view, the Japanese top management did not provide clear directions to the staff and explicit support to Alex in his efforts. This case study highlights three dimensions of Alex’s problem with establishing and maintaining working relationships with other people in the company:▪ Alex’s cultural “blindness” and ignorance of differences in work behaviours that ultimately led to his inability to build solid and trustful relationships with other employees. The case study demonstrates Germany’s performance-oriented and individual-centric culture versus India’s family- and community-oriented culture and the Japanese employees’ strongly hierarchical and company loyalty-oriented culture.▪ Lack of support from the Japanese top management to Alex, which is connected with a wider problem of the lack of a systematic strategic approach to managing a culturally diverse workforce. The case study pinpoints the rhetoric–reality gap in DM in the company, where the diversity, equity and inclusion programme and corporate values were applied only formally and had little attention from the leaders as well as non-managerial employees.▪ Employee resistance to change: The lack of positive communication from the top management level in the company regarding automation projects and the lack of support for Alex’s mission in the company resulted in steady resistance to executing projects, which endangered the company’s survival in the market. Also, one part of Alex’s problem with building a working relationship with the Indian engineering staff was based on the fact that others perceived him as the automation “change agent” – an advocate and catalyst of an undesirable change connected with adverse consequences on employment in the Indian community.

This case is intended for discussion in undergraduate management and business study programmes.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 6: Human resource management.

To understand how certain cultural dynamics play out in the case, the main attributes of Hofstede and Meyer’s work are first highlight. While Hofstede focuses on national culture, Meyer’s uses culture as a tool by which to gauge behavior within organizations, teams and individuals. Below the main elements of their work are highlighted. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are detailed in IM Exhibit 1. Note there are six dimensions on a scale of 0–100. The higher the number, the higher that element of that dimension. For example, the individualism score for the USA is 91, whereas China’s score is 20, suggesting that Americans are much more individualistic, whereas the Chinese are much more collectivist. Students can find where the USA, France and China, the three countries discussed in the case, stand at the Hofstede’s website noted below. For reference, these are also noted in IM Exhibit 2.

All of the information in the case was gathered using publicly available secondary sources (i.e. news articles, annual reports and executive/employee interviews). All sources are cited at the end of the Case/IM.

On April 12, 2022, LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), the global leader in the personal luxury goods, released first quarter earnings for 2022, highlighting their latest acquisition, the New York City-based Tiffany & Co (Tiffany). Tiffany had performed well due to growth in demand in the USA following two difficult years because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. This underscored the fact that Tiffany was still largely dependent on the US market, which was a cause for concern for CEO, Anthony Ledru, who was brought in by the parent LVMH to elevate Tiffany and exploit the high growth market for personal luxury goods in China and other parts of Asia-Pacific. LVMH’s acquisition of Tiffany had been completed on January 7, 2021, and LVMH was expecting the turnaround of the largely US-centric Tiffany to show results by shifting focus to higher-end and more iconic jewelry lines and greater expansion in China. Nonetheless, Ledru’s ability to address the China market for Tiffany was constrained by culture clashes between the company’s French owners and management team and its large cadre of US-based employees. Employees chaffed at what they felt was a rigid and autocratic management style and at the company’s insistence on limits to a work-from-home policy that was instituted in early 2020 because of the pandemic. Ledru and his top management team had to quickly overcome the internal clashes and employee issues to make significant inroads in the China market.

This case is appropriate for undergraduate and MBA courses addressing dynamics of global business, strategy and culture, such as cross-cultural management, international business, global strategy and organizational behavior. At both levels, its is found that the case will be valuable in generating a lively discussion on organizational and strategic challenges grounded in often lesser discussed issues around cultural fit. In most courses, the case should be positioned toward the end, mainly because it examines both cultural challenges (French ownership of a quintessentially American company) and strategic initiatives (how to grow the brand itself along with geographic expansion, i.e. China), assuming that the module has covered one or the other/or both at different points in the course.