Functioning and Effectiveness of Inter-cultural Teams - Research Paper Example

Running Head: INTERCULTURAL TEAMS Inter-Cultural Teams of the of the Inter-Cultural Teams Introduction The basic premises of this paper are to evaluate the functioning and effectiveness of inter-cultural teams. As it is said about the inter-cultural teams that when they are good, they are very good; when they are bad they are horrid. We will see in this paper if this assumption about inter-cultural teams is valid or not. For this reason, first we will look at what makes a team. A work team can be defined as a group of individuals working interdependently to solve problems or to accomplish tasks. "Interdependence" has been cited as the degree to which individuals are dependent on and support others in this task accomplishment. People who are assigned to inter-cultural teams often begin working closely with a group of new team members, and the welfare of the new group tends to displace the welfare of the individual as the team attempts to build cohesiveness and a sense of interdependence. (Wellins, 1990, 76) Analysis of Inter-cultural Teams As with self-management, the use of teams in the workplace also may best be thought of as lying on a continuum. At one end, teams with a low degree of interdependence consist of employees who rarely see each other and perform their tasks without exchanging information or materials. At the other end of the continuum, teams with a high degree of task interdependence consist of employees who frequently interact and constantly exchange materials and information to complete their tasks.1 On a highly interdependent team, successful task accomplishment obviously depends greatly on the interaction of employees. Our definition of a inter-cultural teams, however, implies very little variation. Thus, we assume that resistance to inter-cultural teams is, essentially, resistance to interdependent teams. The resistance to inter-cultural teams can be due to a person's philosophy about teamwork rather than to his or her views on particular task characteristics (such as a task's degree of self-management). For example, when introduced to the idea of inter-cultural teams, an individual may accept taking on more responsibility regarding his or her tasks (self-management) but may resist sharing that responsibility with others (teams). Thus, an employee's philosophy about working in a highly interdependent fashion, rather than in an independent manner, may be a key factor in determining that individual's support of, or resistance to, inter-cultural teams. (Adler, 1997, 117) Collectivism versus individualism When people value the welfare of the group more than the welfare of the individual, they are called "collectivists." Hofstede defines "collectivism" as a tight social framework in which a person's "identity is based in the social system" and his or her "belief is placed in group decisions" (1980b: 48). People from collectivistic cultures tend to put aside their own self-interests in deference to the interests of their group. For example, several studies have found that people in South Korea and Sweden (cultures that are highly collectivistic) disregard individual performance differences when determining employee rewards. Consistent with this, collectivists believe in cooperating rather than competing, following a group purpose rather than individual agendas, and promoting the welfare of the group over that of the individual members. In addition, people from collectivistic cultures fear being ostracized personally or bringing shame to their group for behavior not contributing to the welfare of the group. Conversely, people in "individualistic" cultures tend to put forth and promote their own welfare over the interests of their group or organization (Hofstede, 1980a). People in the United Kingdom (a highly individualistic culture) had higher incidences of social loafing than did the Chinese (a highly collectivistic culture) when working on an interdependent group task. People in the United Kingdom also prefer reward distributions that are based on individual performance to those based on group performance.2 Since team cohesiveness and interdependence require its members to focus on the welfare of the group rather than on the welfare of the individual, it seems likely that people in collectivistic rather than those in individualistic cultures have more of the skills and attitudes that lead to acceptance of the team aspect of inter-cultural teams. On average, individuals from individualistic cultures will resist teams more than individuals from collectivistic cultures. Collectivism-individualism and the fairness of team pay The collectivism-individualism value dimension is likely to determine how receptive employees are to team compensation in inter-cultural teams, a form of pay in inter-cultural teams that companies use increasingly and that compensation specialists recommend increasingly. When a company remunerates its employees with team pay, every member of the team gets an equal amount of pay, and that amount is based on the overall performance of the team --an amount which may or may not correspond to each individual's performance. (Kirkman, 1996, 91) As mentioned previously, people from collectivistic cultures prefer to receive group recognition and to be responsible as a whole, and they fear being singled out among their peers (Hofstede, 1980a). For example, the Japanese, who are (on average) a moderately high collectivistic people (Hofstede, 1980a), often say "Deru kugi wa utareru" (the nail that sticks out will be pounded down) (Taylor, 1983: 92). An equality pay system, in which each team member receives the same pay, would reduce differentiation among team members (i.e., no pay differences). The collectivistic values of Swedish subjects led them to prefer an equality-based reward allocation rule, whereas the individualistic values of people in the United Kingdom led them to prefer an equity-based reward system. Conversely, the desire for individual recognition and individual (not group) responsibility that is characteristic of people from individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980a) makes it likely that those individualists will prefer to be compensated by an equity pay system, in which each team member receives pay based on individual performance. This would allow individuals to maintain a sense of self and individualism, even within a team environment. Many employees in inter-cultural teams in the United Kingdom expressed concerns about the fairness of an equality pay system. Respondents from their study made such comments as "Why should someone else's performance affect my pay" and "[My greatest concern is] having to make take home pay for nine other people" (1996: 27). Having an understanding of how cultural values influence each type of resistance should enable managers to design more easily those change interventions that may facilitate employee support--from a variety of cultures--for inter-cultural teams. In the literature on change and teams, we see a lack of empirical studies on the extent to which cultural values may influence employee resistance to teams or self-management; the literature lacks as well research testing the relative strengths of those cultural values (collectivism/individualism, doing/being, determinism/free will, high/low power distance) we noted in the model. Without theoretical and empirical reasons to do otherwise, we therefore weight the presumed influence of each of these cultural values equally in our model. Researchers have found that the resistance behaviors we reviewed earlier, such as sabotage, vocal protest, withdrawal, and negligence, negatively influence each of the indicators of inter-cultural teams effectiveness. For example, resistance behaviors lowering employee productivity include coming late to work, returning late from lunch or coffee breaks, abusing sick leave benefits, spending excessive time discussing personal matters, neglecting work assignments, wasting time, making little effort to improve work-related knowledge and skill, and doing as little as possible. Similarly, those resistance behaviors negatively affecting the quality of goods or services, the cost of producing them, and the safety level of work processes include deliberately sabotaging work processes (Judson, 1991) and making careless mistakes (. Resistant employees also may accept inferior quality performance and may implement quality standards incorrectly. Inevitably, these latter resistance behaviors will have negative effects on customer satisfaction (Schneider & Bowen, 1992). When employees in any culture resist a management initiative (i.e., withhold effort, sabotage work, or communicate negative feelings to fellow coworkers), a reduction in positive outcomes seems highly likely. Conclusion We believe inter-cultural teams effectiveness especially will be affected negatively when employees' resistance to teams is due to both (rather than only one of) the team's aspect of self-management and its team-related activity. Researchers have found that the resistance behaviors we reviewed earlier, such as sabotage, vocal protest, withdrawal, and negligence, negatively influence each of the indicators of inter-cultural teams effectiveness. For example, resistance behaviors lowering employee productivity include coming late to work, returning late from lunch or coffee breaks, abusing sick leave benefits, spending excessive time discussing personal matters, neglecting work assignments, wasting time, making little effort to improve work-related knowledge and skill, and doing as little as possible3. Similarly, those resistance behaviors negatively affecting the quality of goods or services, the cost of producing them, and the safety level of work processes include deliberately sabotaging work processes (Judson, 1991) and making careless mistakes. Resistant employees also may accept inferior quality performance and may implement quality standards incorrectly. Inevitably, these latter resistance behaviors will have negative effects on customer satisfaction. When employees in any culture resist a management initiative (i.e., withhold effort, sabotage work, or communicate negative feelings to fellow coworkers), a reduction in positive outcomes seems highly likely. We believe inter-cultural teams effectiveness especially will be affected negatively when employees' resistance to teams is due to both (rather than only one of) the team's aspect of self-management and its team-related activity. Researchers have found that the resistance behaviors we reviewed earlier, such as sabotage, vocal protest, withdrawal, and negligence, negatively influence each of the indicators of inter-cultural teams effectiveness. For example, resistance behaviors lowering employee productivity include coming late to work, returning late from lunch or coffee breaks, abusing sick leave benefits, spending excessive time discussing personal matters, neglecting work assignments, wasting time, making little effort to improve work-related knowledge and skill, and doing as little as possible. Similarly, those resistance behaviors negatively affecting the quality of goods or services, the cost of producing them, and the safety level of work processes include deliberately sabotaging work processes (Judson, 1991) and making careless mistakes. Resistant employees also may accept inferior quality performance and may implement quality standards incorrectly. Inevitably, these latter resistance behaviors will have negative effects on customer satisfaction (Schneider & Bowen, 1992). When employees in any culture resist a management initiative (i.e., withhold effort, sabotage work, or communicate negative feelings to fellow coworkers), a reduction in positive outcomes seems highly likely. We believe inter-cultural teams effectiveness especially will be affected negatively when employees' resistance to teams is due to both (rather than only one of) the team's aspect of self-management and its team-related activity. References Adler, N.J. 1997. International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. 113-119 Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. 1977. Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J.R. 1976. The design of self-managing work groups. (Tech. Rep. No. 11). New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Organization and Management. Hofstede, G. 1980a. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1980b. Motivation, leadership, and organizations: Do American theories apply abroad Organizational Dynamics, 9: 42-63. Hofstede, G. 1983a. Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Espications in cross-cultural psychology: 335-355. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Hofstede, G. 1983b. National culture in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13: 46-74. Hofstede, G. 1983c. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, Fall: 75-89. Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7: 81-94. House, R.J. 1971. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321-339. Hultman, K. E. 1979. The path of least resistance: Preparing employees for change. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts. Hultman, K. E. 1995. Scaling the wall of resistance. Training & Development, October: 15-18. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. 1991. Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675-689. Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Johnson, S. T. 1993. Work teams: What's ahead in work design and rewards management. Compensation & Benefits Review, 25: 35-41. Judson, A.S. 1991. Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kanfer, F.H., & Karoly, P. 1972. Self-control: A behavioristic excursion into the lion's den. Behavior Therapy, 3: 398-416. Kanin-Lovers, J., & Cameron, M. 1993. Team-based reward systems. Journal of Compensation & Benefits, 8: 56-60. Kanungo, R. N., & Wright, R. W. 1983. A cross-cultural comparative study of managerial job attitudes. Journal of International Business Studies. Fall: 115-129. Kato, H., & Kato, J. S. 1992. Understanding and working with the Japanese business world. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kim, K. I., Park, H., & Suzuki, N. 1990. Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of Management Journal 33: 188-198. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1996. Testing a model of team empowerment: An empirical investigation of the antecedents and outcomes of empowered self-managing work teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH. 89-94 Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. In press. A model of work team empowerment. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kirkman, B.L., Shapiro, D.L., & Novelli, L., Jr. 1994. Employee resistance to work teams: A justice perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX. Kirkman, B.L., Shapiro, D.L., Novelli, L., Jr., & Brett, J. 1996. Employee concerns regarding self-managing work teams: A multidimensional justice perspective. Social Justice Research, 9: 27-47. Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F.L. 1961. Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Kotter, J.P., & Schlesinger, L.A. 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, March-April: 106-114. Osterman, P. 1994. How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47: 173-188. Palich, L. E., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. 1995. Managing in the international context: Testing the cultural generality of sources of commitment to a multinational enterprise. Journal of Management, 21: 671-690. Pearce, J. A., II, & Ravlin, E. C. 1987. The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40: 751-782. Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E.J. 1980. Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5: 391-397. Renwick, G., & Witham, L. In press. Managing in Malaysia: Cultural insights and guidelines for Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeifer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253. Schneider, B., & Bowen, D.E. 1992. Personnel/human resources management in the service sector. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, vol. 10: 1-30. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schuster, J. R., & Zingheim, P. K. 1993. 'New pay' strategies that work. Journal of Compensation & Benefits, 8: 5-9. Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. 1987. Group effectiveness: What really matters Sloan Management Review, Spring: 25-31. Wellins, R. S., Wilson, R., Katz, A. J., Laughlin, P., Day, C. R., Jr., & Price, D. 1990. Self-directed teams: A study of current practice. Pittsburgh: DDI. Welsh, D. H. B., Luthans, F., Sommer, S.M. 1993. Managing Russian factory workers: The impact of U.S.-based behavioral and participative techniques. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 58-79. Williams, L.K., Whyte, W.F., & Green, C.S. 1965. Do cultural differences affect workers' attitudes Industrial Relations, 5: 105-117. Read More