This paper critically examines the leadership development practices of Ford Motor Company, a Fortune 100 firm. Drawing on statements from Ford's group vice president of Human Resources and relevant scholarly literature, the paper outlines the company's "One Ford" philosophy, which applies a single, universal leadership development program across all global regions. While acknowledging the cost-effectiveness rationale behind this approach, the paper argues that it overlooks significant cross-cultural variables — including differences in psychological contracts between collectivist and individualist societies — that can undermine program effectiveness. The paper concludes that a more holistic, culturally sensitive approach is essential for developing leaders capable of competing in an increasingly globalized marketplace.
Given the enormous effect that an informed and effective leadership team has on a company's profitability, it is not surprising that leadership development has become an important part of the practices of many Fortune 100 companies. By identifying potential leaders today and providing them with the training and education they will need to become effective leaders in the future, these companies are making an investment in their futures. The costs associated with providing these leadership development programs are significant, however, making the need for informed and effective practices essential. To determine how one Fortune 100 company is approaching this need, this paper reviews relevant literature concerning Ford Motor Company, followed by a summary of the research and key findings in the conclusion.
One Fortune 100 company that has clearly embraced the need for continuous leadership development is Ford Motor Company (hereinafter alternatively "Ford" or "the company"). According to Felicia Fields, the group vice president for Human Resources and Corporate Services at Ford Motor Company, "Leadership and professional development are a high priority for us. We're focused on specific competencies, like knowing and having a passion for our business and our customers, and having a continuous improvement philosophy and practice driven by facts and data" (quoted in Egodigwe, 2009, p. 48).
The company has established important criteria for selecting which employees have the potential to join its executive cadre, including so-called "gung ho" attitudes. In this regard, Fields adds that, "We're very centered on having people who have what we call 'working together' behaviors — things like developing teams, having a can-do, positive attitude, people who find a way, who are resourceful and have emotional resilience, people who are great communicators, who are courageous, who take initiative" (quoted in Egodigwe, 2009, p. 49). These are clearly desirable attributes for corporate leaders that are applicable in virtually any geographic location, irrespective of the national culture in place.
Moreover, Ford maintains its emphasis on leadership development even during periods of economic downturn, reflecting its ongoing corporate commitment to providing opportunities for continuing leadership development (Egodigwe, 2009). Despite competing on a global basis, the company has also sought to develop a "one-size-fits-all" approach to its leadership development practices. This universal approach is based on the company's desire to formulate cost-effective strategies that promote a single brand image around the world. Fields explains: "We have 'One Ford,' so we have one process, we have one brand identity. As an HR leader, I'm building one global skill team. For example, our leadership program — some are developed in Europe, North America, or Asia, and we use them all over the globe. In the past, everyone used their own programs for their own region" (quoted in Egodigwe, 2009, p. 49).
Taken together, Ford's "one-size-fits-all" approach to leadership development may be ignoring vitally important cross-cultural factors that will adversely affect the effectiveness of these developmental initiatives. For example, Krivokapic-Skoko, Dowell, O'Neill, and Kleinschafer report that "employees from collectivist societies will form psychological contracts that are relational in nature, while individualist cultures will form psychological contracts that are transactional in nature" (2009, p. 87). The cross-cultural effects on leadership development will therefore likely affect how effective these programs are in achieving their intended goals. As Krivokapic-Skoko and her associates add, "The nature of these psychological contracts will influence the affective, normative and continuance commitment of employees in the firm, and, therefore, the firm's ability to manage their employees/human capital/human assets" (2009, p. 87).
By applying a "one-size-fits-all" approach, Ford is failing to take these important cross-cultural effects into account — an omission that may ultimately backfire as the company seeks to expand its global presence. According to Krivokapic-Skoko et al., "From an applied perspective, enhanced understanding of the psychological contract will be of considerable benefit for employers and managers who need to successfully manage employment relationships in non-Western contexts" (2009, p. 88). This observation indicates that not only would the company's leadership candidates in non-Western contexts assimilate training in culturally specific ways, they would likely be unprepared to apply this learning to their own situations in the manner desired by the company. Furthermore, it is also unlikely that these candidates could readily transfer what they learned from these programs to other cultural contexts, effectively limiting their future career options.
"Scholarly evidence against universal leadership programs"
"Arguments for complex, culturally sensitive program design"
The research showed that as a Fortune 100 company, Ford Motor Company has achieved significant success in ways that have provided it a competitive advantage. To sustain this level of performance, however, requires a carefully designed leadership development program today to ensure that the company has the type of leadership team in place in the future — one capable of providing the vision, direction, and guidance needed to compete in an increasingly globalized marketplace. The research also showed that although Ford has seriously embraced the need for leadership development, the company's decision to deploy a universal program may be well intentioned but is ultimately misguided in its failure to account for important cross-cultural factors.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.