CCR were just “paper rules and big words”

Several respondents stated that, after TW was introduced, it should “be practiced” daily, but TW was not practiced as intended; “TW was just a concept on paper” (Conversation with one of the a former TW managers, 2014).

Many respondents drew my attention to the fact that, in a short period, TW started to represent a gap between what stood on the website and in various other related documents, and how managers and employees really behaved in practice.

TW is a process. If it is not being practiced, the process is dying. The new managers joined “T” afterwards, as part of the process to recruit the international team. They were not so interested in TW. There is no passion around TW. There are no ambassadors as there were at the beginning. I notice a gap between the words on the paper and what is happening on the ground. (Senior manager, interview 2014)

163

In a short conversation about how TW works, one respondent stated that “ it stands fine words on the intranet, but managers do what they want” (Employee in HQ, 2014).

At the same time, one of the respondents mentioned that, in one of the JVs in Eastern Europe, where

“T” could not demand the implementation of TW, but nevertheless introduced the concept, TW was enthusiastically accepted by employees, top managers, the CEO, and the Chairman of the BoD. This was despite that fact that the partnership in this JV was rather challenging because of the differences in attitude towards corporate governance. One of the employees explained why TW was accepted without any problems:

For us, employees, there was a hope that we would get the Western style of business in the company, but for the top management TW was just a nicely written document that they could present to the authorities and publish on the website, showing that, as top managers, they were working in the Western way, in contrast to many other companies in the country. They wanted to position themselves as the pro-Western and modern managers. In reality, the written document was not meant for practicing, it was just a picture to be glanced at. We worked as we worked before, in the local way. (Interview with a local employee in a JV in Eastern Europe, 2018)

To organize the location of the subsidiary in “Fornebu-style” (HQ in Norway –style) is to link the subsidiaries to HQ’s culture and values. We liked it – we understood the Norwegian organizational culture of delegation, trust, respect, and flat structure, that was extremely important for the modern business, but life is life, and seminars are just seminars. (ibid.)

There were divided opinions about TW. Those who work or worked with TW are very enthusiastic about TW; at the same time, there are many employees who were critical of TW, saying that TW are just nice words. Here are some statements from different respondents:

TW abroad is not TW but “T” Norway – I have heard it myself. TW is just words.

Why is TW not on .com - just on the intranet? (Employee working internationally, traveling a lot, 2014)

164

The CEO is not interested in TW. It should be a part of the Business Review process.

The Code of Conduct should be practiced; it is meaningless to have a Code of Conduct just on paper and not read or practice it. Now the Code of Conduct is just for having on paper or to punish somebody if something happens. (Employee in Norway, conversation 2015)

TW is a décor for the management. Almost nobody believes in it, even the top management. (Employee in Norway, middle manager, conversation 2014)

TW is nonsense, just words. But culture is important. (Manager working internationally, travels a lot, meets different subsidiaries, conversation 2014)

TW are just big words. I didn’t notice any respect from the managers towards the ordinary employees. (Conversation with an ordinary employee, working in “T”

Group in Norway, 2015)

The interviews presented above indicate that CCR, as TW and the Code of Conduct, did not engage people in HQ. Those top managers who worked with TW were positive, while top managers who were not involved in TW considered it as CCR, and some representatives of ordinary employees were negative. At the same time, some ordinary employees in “T”’s subsidiaries had a positive attitude to TW, as they appreciated an understanding of the Norwegian business culture and Norwegian values, proudly working for a Norwegian company. At the same time, employees abroad looked at TW from the “owner-perspective”, underlining that the CCR are needed because the HQ is saying that CCR are important (Conversations with several employees in European subsidiaries 2011-2015). Many employees admitted that they practiced their own rules “on the ground”. CCR were not yet functioning as the common governing platform and did not always provide the influence in subsidiaries, in order to enhance behavior.

In order to continue the further development in a process of internationalization and further position itself as the global company that “T” had become at the end of 2006, top managers in “T” perceived a need to improve the controls that had been created in HQ, to strengthen its influence in the subsidiaries.

165

Chapter 7: Phase 4. 2005/2006-2015: From International “T” to MNC:

“Different companies – one group”, further building of the system of corporate governance and management control

From 2005, “T” positioned itself as an MNC in strong international growth that continued to remain one of the fastest-growing providers of mobile communications worldwide.

The company put industrial ownership at the top of the agenda, emphasizing that the importance for

“T” was to be an industrial investor that develops industrial competence in WOSs from a long-term perspective.

The company continued its international development, hunting “green fields”⁵⁶, supported by an active M&A strategy and targeting those investments with high possibilities for growth. Thus, in this period,

“T” continued its international expansion, mostly in Asia and in a few projects in Europe, strengthening its footprint in global markets.

At the same time, “T” concentrated its focus on the processes of building corporate governance, a common corporate culture and a common managerial system:

1). “T” changed its name to “T” Group (in this research, “T” will be used), in order to underline the size of the company as an MNC, its global footprint and a new strategy: “Different companies – one Group” (“T” website, 2013). 2). “T” started to define itself as an MNC and announced organizational changes, aiming to be structured as an MNC. It can be defined as an “internationalization processes inside organization”: new internal routines were established, in order to have a greater focus on performance management. Business Reviews related to the performance in “regions/cluster” presented by the responsible manages to the CEO and CFO (Chief Financial Officer), were implemented; “the best practice idea” was announced, aiming to transfer the best “know-how” solutions from different subsidiaries across the whole group.

56 A green field investment is a type of foreign direct investment (FDI) where a parent company builds its operations in a foreign country from the ground up. In addition to the construction of new production facilities, these projects can also include the building of new distribution hubs, offices and living quarters https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenfield

166 7.1. Antecedent conditions