Coaching and Consulting in Romania
A few hurdles and some options to grow together

In the course of the last twenty five years I have worked in a large number of countries all over the world.  In each and every case, Romania included, the diversity and the constant challenge has always both challenged and interested me. 

What is different about consulting in Romania? I often get that question both there and the rest of Europe.  A lot of people are interested in Romania and perceive it as a far-off unknown land at best somewhere in Eastern Europe. In Romania, however, people both want to know and don’t want to know how they are perceived by foreigners.  I have the feeling that Romanians are very eager and afraid of other people’s perception of their culture in general and of their business culture in particular. Maybe more so than in other countries.  It is difficult to say things without ruffling feathers. That is a first difference about consulting in Romania, or being an expatriate here. 

So answering the question is not easy.  I usually try to respond to the best of my ability, and have often fallen short of expectations.  But I have never avoided the question when it has be put to me.

When I start a new consulting project there, am aware that I have preconceptions of what I will find, based on local experience.  I feel there are specific characteristics about working in Romania.  However I question these preconceptions because they are most probably not true for a lot of organizations, regions and people in Romania.  Besides, it is very important for me to approach every new project, organization and client with an open mind, free of “pre-judgments”, or “prejudices”.

But to cover one of the differences that strike me here, I would like to start with a Romanian quality.  Every time I come to Romania I am struck by the people’s friendliness and respect.  There is very a high level of politeness, civility, “bonne éducation” one would say in French.  Romanians like to welcome, receive, host, make you feel at ease, and like to show they listen and value what you have to say.  The culture and the people are warm and “open” to others rather than “competitive” or resistant.  Relationships are polished, showing respect and saving face is important.  And whether rich or poor, Romanians always give you the best they have.  It is always a great pleasure, especially in contrast to more direct, less generous or respectful environments, like sometimes in France.

The other side of the coin is that I sometimes measure the extent of all that is not said, not shared or withheld, to save the appearance of a good relationship.  Organizations and cultures that favor apparently good relationships above all have important counterproductive limits.  Its members will often face a difference of opinion with apparent passivity one could mistake for acceptance.  Contradictions are dealt with in very indirect, devious and sometimes manipulative ways.  Conflicts are not apparent, and therefore sometimes all the more difficult to resolve.

I have found that relationships are so important in some Romanian companies that these often take precedence over effectiveness or results.  Defining and solving problems, making decisions, managing action, and running efficient organizations, all seem to come second to developing or preserving good networks with people and groups and catering to different internal and external webs of influence. 

More than elsewhere, it seems important for Romanians to develop and follow up on coalitions and allegiances, to have a personal hold on people through secrets and knowledge of confidential information, to create solid friendships with potential partners in strategic places rather than to focus on challenging objectives, respecting deadlines or attaining exceptional financial results.

“Without relationships, you get nowhere” could be the motto which designates relationships as the main means to success.  This would make Romania quite oriental, in its business culture.  Paradoxically, however, it sometimes seems that entertaining good or useful relationships has become a fulltime job that does not lead anywhere else.  For a lot of people, it appears to have become a goal in itself.

Although that is slowly changing, I have been told the job market is generally “difficult”.  As an indicator, that is interesting.  Finding openings is not easy for anyone, no matter the position. It is due in part, if I understand correctly, to the very low turnover in Romanian organizations.  Traditionally there is very little mobility.

People get into organizations or “find a place” through relationships.  Then they stay there as long as possible, developing the network around them to make their “position” safe.  To do that, hiring old time friends, bringing in some family, and weaving strong personal ties with people already in place are common strategies.  Implementing this takes time and energy, and the outcome is a safe lifelong position.  What then is the benefit of changing jobs?

At first I was also struck by the amount of time and energy spent in what one could consider ‘gossiping’.  Who did what to whom, what the other did in return.  Who else was then involved to clear out the situation, who then got hurt or mad.  It seems there is always a “dramatic” play going on, that attracts organizational attention and keeps “confidential” discussions rolling between not-so-innocent bystanders.  Beyond gossip, however, it is almost vital in some spheres to keep up with the relational information and know who ends victorious.  The winner of relational “duels” obviously pulls the most weight and being friendly to them may someday be useful.

Leaving any organization may therefore be a risk in Romania, not only because one looses a job and a salary, but because one will have to rebuild their relational base all over again elsewhere, in another organization which already has very strongly structured social networks, often resistant to newcomers.  One will loose a lot of time and energy learning the new spheres of influence, finding the good information outlets, developing the right connections.  This is very costly, and so the low turnover rate.

One needs to note that gossiping as a national sport Romania is also a passtime that is not helping the coaching and consulting profession.  "Don't tell anyone I told you this, but.." is the introduction often used to pass on confidential information.  Unfortunately the initiator rarely considers that the information will surely spread with the same introduction, and that the world is a very small place. 

As a consequence and knowing this all too well, numerous clients are quite hesitant to really open up to a coach, and even less to a local coach.  Indeed, how sure can one be that the professional who is intimately part of the local culture has truly learned not to use confidential information to increase his or her importance in this relationship-based environment?  To coach executive teams and important figures in the country, this state of affairs may be giving foreign coaches a definite advantage on local providers.

There are also very positive aspects to this type of relational organization culture.  Organizations in Romania are made up of very strong and tightly knit clans.  The clans have a  high obligation to protect their members.  There is therefore a good level of concern, support and solidarity between clan members.  Fidelity runs high.  The clan will protect you if you protect the clan, no matter what happens or what it does.  Your clan can become more important to you, to ensure your survival, than your organization.  Remember that this concerns lifelong commitments.  These social networks or clans can survive through major economic and political upheavals.  I suspect some have been here a long, long time, and some today cross international boundaries

The flip side of the coin is the highly conservative dimension of relational clans.  Change can be dangerous to internal hierarchy or networks of influence.  Whatever comes from the outside can be disruptive to the subtle “clan” relational equilibrium.  Some strongly-knit “clan-like” or feudal organizations would rather let themselves die than accept change.  They would prefer excluding the environment rather than grow and see their power base get modified to their disadvantage.  Protecting the clan is paramount.  Other operational and objectives are secondary.

Working with companies that are so highly involved with complex relational networks of influence at all levels, is very difficult for the unknowing stranger, the expatriate or the foreign coach or consultant.

To be accepted by a relational company with this type of “feudal” culture, one must first show that they accept its premises and operating principles.  This is quite a contradiction for an outsider, a consultant or an expatriate who is officially there to help implement change.  To implement change in an organization, it is useful to propose new basic assumptions and help implement different and more efficient and effective operating principles.  It is also often necessary to model different ways of being and relating.  But if you represent change to a “feudal system”, there is a high probability you will be rejected by all as unacceptable.

To pass this hurdle, there are some possibilities.  There must be at least a few internal strongly motivated “change agents” who are personally and deeply committed to developing a different future for their organization, if not their country.  It is obviously useful if the leaders and owners are amongst them, as well as members of the most influential clans. 

But this is not enough to implement organizational change.

There is a another criteria about doing business and consulting in Romania which comes into play at this point.  It seems that in general and more so than elsewhere, Romanian employees have exceedingly high expectations of their leaders, and are equally disappointed with them. Normal: leaders are human.

There is a widespread belief that change must come top-down from the hierarchy.  And if hierarchy does not plan for it and implement it correctly from start to finish, then not much can be done.  According to the personnel, it seems the leaders are responsible for everything, and owe them results.  Romanian personnel seem to spend their time holding their leaders accountable for results, not the other way around, as one would have it elsewhere.  It is striking to see the number of people who consider that the evolution of their own professions, positions, jobs, and even lives, are out of their hands, in those of their hierarchy, of the state, and today of Europe.

This tendency to delegate responsibility upwards and wait in a more or less passive or expectative stance for significant change makes it difficult for people to motivate themselves and provoke even small significant differences in their direct environment.  There is a general shared perception that change is the responsibility of “someone up there”, if possible of a well-meaning leader or more vaguely, of the “system”.  An individual is helpless and cannot do much to modify anything for the better in their own realm of responsibility.  What a load to carry for any leader!

For the personnel, there are personal and collective advantages in having this type of belief and position.  One of them is not having to be responsible for goals and results.  Whenever anything is not achieved, it is invariably because of the leader’s decisions, because of the social, political or European context, or all of the above.  If we are convinced that our leaders are both totally responsible and not very competent, we never have to feel responsible for our own unsatisfactory lives and results.

For a consultant in Romania, dealing with this upwards delegation and passivity is also difficult.  People agree with what you have to say as an expert, but don’t expect to change their habits.  For them, change is the consultant’s and leaders responsibility.  That is what "they" are paid for.  The tendency is to try and delegate to him or her all the research, analysis, decisions and responsibility for problems and solutions, and wait for results in a passive and critical stance.  It is as if one could teach effectiveness and other ways to achieve success to hopeful but passive students.

Here again, the strategy for the consultant, or leader, is not to take on the apparent challenge.  It is in fact a trap.  One cannot help a team or company grow or help solve its long term problems if there isn't at least an “active minority” of employees ready to take on the challenge.  The organization and some of its personnel, must actively want to succeed before success will come their way.  In a way, this would justify choosing a coaching approach to help Romanian personnel help themselves.  Only afterwards, when the personnel wants change can consultants and their "expertise" be useful.

The first step for a leader and consultant who wants change in an organization is therefore to develop an active circle of internal change agents.  A new “network of influence” of key employees who can be trained to foster change, mobilize motivation, take initiatives, stay centered on developing effectiveness and take pride in delivering results.  This “change agent network” has to be well chosen, structured, trained, supported and closely followed to succeed in a resistant environment. 

So like elsewhere, a coach or consultant in Romania faces several hurdles and as usual, there are strategies and solutions to overcome them.  These hurdles may be found elsewhere in other companies and cultures but it seems to me there is a mix specific to Romania.  That is what makes the job of a consultant so exciting: constantly searching for and finding new ways to learn and grow together.

Alain Cardon
www.metasysteme.eu
September 2001,2007

February 2009:  About the crisis in Romania

On this trip to Romania, I have been struck by the number of times I have heard leaders and managers pronounce the word “crisis” to describe the present economic situation.  Indeed, it seems almost socially fashionable for the whole Romanian population to have long discouraged discussions on the subject.

Note that along with the use of this word comes a commonly accepted frame of reference: the present situation is perceived as temporary.  When it will be over, all will come back to normal, that is to say: to what life was before the crash.

Consequently, a large number of people are bracing to wait out the crisis, hoping it will be short. Some self appointed futurologists are reinforcing this idea by announcing probable dates, such as 2010, maybe early 2011.

For organizations to survive through this period, the main fatalistic financial strategy is very logically first to cut all expenses that are not perceived as productive, second to downsize production.  When times are good, spend in marketing and hire personnel.  When times are hard, cut all unnecessary expenses and fire. To be sure and for lack of real leadership, that must be the pinnacle of current strategy.

This is not a crisis but an adjustment

Leadership and top management urgently need to re-establish communication channels with their personnel to reinstate their company’s social contract.  To do this, executives must rapidly develop their people skills.  They need to learn to work together rather than agains each other.  They need to develop respect for each other, for their managers and for all their employees to start tapping the unused, dormant potential within their organizations.

Presently, the training profession is also going through a very difficult period.  Lavish leadership roll-out programs focused on delivering leader-chic principles are being cancelled.  It seems they are suddenly perceived as unnecessary expenses that have created very little measurable added value.  Probably, training needs to be redesigned to very practically help develop everyday individual and collective behavior aimed at increasing operational results.