Interestingly enough, I felt that my intercultural fluency in week 2 was developed more through my interaction with my diverse classmates than the Danes in our group. This begs the question of “Why go as far as Denmark to learn the lesson?”. And I don’t know the answer to that. Furthermore, I felt I learned more regarding inter-age differences from the Danes, than specific cultural lessons. But, staying on task, I do have some observations regarding cultures and my personal growth in working with diverse people.

Stereotypes are difficult to overcome and I could sense that our group needed to ground itself to get past appearances in order to focus on each of our strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, we needed to trust each other early on and this was not a foregone conclusion. Since we’ve all been trained at various schools, in a variety of countries, I felt that I leveled different standards on people depending on where they were from. I began to realize that focusing on the person and trusting not only was the easier way to work, but gave for better results. This seems like a simple proposition, but when feelings and previous experiences are so deeply routed, it is difficult to overcome what comes naturally.

The evolution of my intercultural fluency has come to a point where I can work well with many different cultures in an efficient manner, without wasting time on making assumptions one way or the other.

The CSR lecture covered a number of interesting points. What came to the forefront for me in the potential inconsistency in reporting CSR across cultures/countries. Although standards might mandate CSR, we must be cognoscente of the source of the information. For example, as pointed out by one of the CBS MBAs, volunteering in the US has a completely different connotation that in Scandinavia. And it was interesting to see how philanthropy in the Nordics entails more cultural pursuits, and this is largely due to the governments’ taking on most social aspects of aid. So, as previously mentioned, CSR across borders is difficult to assess.

The trip is done. Glad to be back. Two quick weeks. Actually, they went by slowly for me. But let’s get more into week 1 and see what can be gleaned from the company visits and such.

The business presentation was extremely useful for setting the scene. At the time, I did not understand the close ties the country felt with its long running firms. By contrast, I would say that Canada doesn’t have much pride or connection as an identity to Beoing or Bell. Within a company culture, seeing the country as a stakeholder could be a very powerful tool. This was obvious in the first visit to Maersk. Even more interesting in that visit was the international flavor of the companies, and that continued throughout the week. It became very clear that Danish companies had to think globally from their inception because the Danish market was so small. I believe we can take away from that as well because in Canada, we often look to the US and possibly China, and then forget the rest. A last point on Maersk before delving into the bus trip was the surprising comment our guide made to “leave our litigious selves at home when visiting the companies”. It wasn’t clear to me what he meant and I think he was alluding to his perception of Canadians as apprehensive compared to his comment on Danes and how they were cooperative and held their word. The reason I mentioned this is because I was taken aback and my feelings were ratified to some degree as we continued our tour to other companies.

Moving forward in the week, it was interesting to see how old the companies were. I often joked that my take-home message from the visits was to start a company a hundred years ago. But, it was clear a start-up spirit and creativity existed within even the largest and oldest firms (Carlsberg and Danfoss). I believe this could be useful in my work going forward because at times I forget that even within a team, or hierarchy, one can be adventurous.

Touching on the foundation and family owned aspect of these companies, I was surprised that they managed to stand the test of time in that framework. Again, I think the success comes from giving employees at all levels ownership of their task. I don’t know if that is necessarily the case in Canada. We feel at times that we work for somebody and not with them. I think that that is a top-down problem and starts with the CEO or founder. Also, the Danish ownership model seems to have less of an exit strategy. The companies have gone through thick and thin, and have not succumbed to pressures to take the easy way out. In Canada, I sense that even a start-up is already looking towards acquisition or exponential success before the core has been established. This is obviously detrimental since focus is lost.

You can’t talk about Danish business and not talk about design, and particularly when it comes to furniture. It was very interesting to see two different and successful business models for furniture design and manufacturing. An automated vs a hand-made product. Much emphasis was made on design and innovation by both companies, but it was clear that the hand-made Fredericia model was much more adaptive, flexible and adventurous. The guide often mentioned failed projects and instances where they created new manufacturing processes (eg. 5 axis milling and high-curvature wood lamination). The automated Fritz Hansen line concentrated more on volume and looked internally to modify and market the Arne Jacobsen S7 chair, although, in all fairness, I must mentioned that they did work with independent designers to create new products as well. A final surprise, and speaking again to the international flavour of the businesses, was how many functions were being exported to Poland specifically. Cutting costs was still at the core of some of the expansion, and this was sad to see, but obviously a business reality.