Agile practices help organizations bring products and services to market quickly and adapt nimbly to customer and market changes and innovations in the technology landscape. In today’s globalized economy, agile methods pioneered in the United States are being adopted in organizations worldwide.
One challenge to implementing agile practices globally is accommodating cultural differences. Because the agile approach started in the United States, American cultural norms may play an outsized role in how agile methods are prescribed and carried out — and that could create problems when teams in other countries adopt agile methodologies. For example, openly expressing thoughts and opinions to authority figures, publicly discussing successes and failures, and assigning credit or blame are often accepted practices in agile teams, but such open interactions may not be consistent with cultural norms in all parts of the world.
Recognizing the unique cultural characteristics of employees taking part in agile projects outside the United States may be critical to project success. When agile practices clash with local culture, it’s important for organizations to recognize the conflict and develop solutions sensitive to the societal norms without impeding agile practices.
We interviewed employees of eight software companies in China, India, and South Korea that had adopted agile software development practices to find an answer to this key question: How do the cultural scripts common in your country work with or against the tenets of agile methods? A population may have a unique word to describe particular behaviors; that named phenomenon is the “cultural script.”1 We focused on a small set of cultural scripts in each of the three countries. (See “Three Countries, Many Cultural Scripts.”)
1. H.C. Triandis, G. Marin, J. Lisansky, and H. Betancourt, “Simpatía as a Cultural Script of Hispanics,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, no. 6 (1984): 1363-75.
2. D.K. Rigby, J. Sutherland, and H. Takeuchi, “Embracing Agile,” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 5 (2016): 40-50.
i. C. Xiaojuan Ou, P.A. Pavlou, and R.M. Davison, “Swift Guanxi in Online Marketplaces: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication Technologies,” MIS Quarterly 38, no. 1 (2014): 209-30.
ii. S. Ho Park and Y. Luo, “Guanxi and Organizational Dynamics: Organizational Networking in Chinese Firms,” Strategic Management Journal 27, no. 5 (2001): 455-77.
iii. D. Tjosvold and H. Sun, “Understanding Conflict Avoidance: Relationship, Motivations, Actions, and Consequences,” International Journal of Conflict Management 13, no. 2 (2002): 142-64.
iv. C. Rowley and J. Bae, “Human Resource Management in South Korea After the Asian Financial Crisis: Emerging Patterns From the Labyrinth,” International Studies of Management and Organization 34, no. 1 (2004): 52-82.
v. I. Yang, “Jeong Exchange and Collective Leadership in Korean Organizations,” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 23, no. 3 (2006): 283-98.
vi. M.G. Singh, A. Gambhir, and J. Dasgupta, “Innovation in India: Affordable Innovations,” The Global Innovation Index (2011): 77-86.
vii. A. Ardichvili, D. Jondle, B. Kowske, E. Cornachione, J. Li, and T. Thakadipuram, “Ethical Cultures in Large Business Organizations in Brazil, Russia, India, and China,” Journal of Business Ethics 105, no. 4 (2012): 415-28.
viii. A. Varma, E.S. Srinivas, and L.K. Stroh, “A Comparative Study of the Impact of Leader-Member Exchange in US and Indian Samples,” Cross Cultural Management 12, no. 1 (2005): 84-95.