Course Project Reading & Analysis - Assignment Example

Assignment: Project Reading & Analysis Emerging Trends in Global Leadership Team—Case Study Project The ability to lead cross-cultural collaboration across geographically distributed organizations is a highly valued skill. No single company has yet mastered these skills, so the opportunities for research in this are endless. Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei (2006) describe a global organization in which teams are involved. Conflict exists in these geographically distributed teams, and the authors examine: The nature of conflict in geographically distributed teams. The causes of conflict in teams. The relationship between cultural diversity and team conflict. The means used for communication and collaboration across geographical distance. This case study examines the validity of the findings in the above report, and describes how these may be applied to the selected organization. Module I Introduction The purpose of the course project is to examine what leads to conflict in global virtual teams (GVT) by creating a scenario of team members collaborating across cultural, geographical and time boundaries, and “the circumstances under which conflict affects team performance” (Kankanhalli, 2006). This was done using observations, interviews, and examining documents and communication logs. The experiment is interesting because not only do GVT members originate from different place but also “rarely or never see each other in person” (Kankanhalli, 2006) relying instead on interaction through various forms of communication technology. Whilst GVT can have many benefits for organizations, especially in terms of being able to provide continuous support to customers, savings from travel costs and enhanced creativity, in practice the diversity and dispersion poses several challenges. Knowing the nature of these challenges and potential conflict helps to better prepare for them so as to make the teamwork as effective as possible, which after all is the objective of collaborating in this manner. Thus the overall motivation for the research as far as our own organization is concerned is to learn what can either retain or strengthen team cohesion and minimize the potential for conflict to safeguard team performance. For the research and evaluation, the case study will be scrutinized to identify particular traits and other reasons for the conflict to support this learning. This insight can then be used “to manage the causes and alleviate the negative outcomes of conflict” (Kankanhalli, 2006). This includes the role and influence of technology, team and task characteristics, and how these can impact favorably on team performance. The following specific questions are posed in the case study, and the answers used “to build an integrative model of conflict and performance in GVT, which can guide future empirical research efforts and provide practical suggestions on conflict management in GVT” (Kankanhalli, 2006): 1. How are various forms of team diversity in GVT linked to conflict? 2. What is the role of technology in relation to conflict in GVT? 3. How may task characteristics influence conflict processes and outcomes in GVT? Evaluation The identified problems are summarized in the table below together with the related opportunities and solutions. PROBLEMS OPPORTUNITIES SOLUTIONS Communication delays Update technologies being used Acquisition of new communication technology to avoid delays Time zone differences Serving customers at all hours Careful scheduling of meeting so that the timings are mutually suitable. Lack of face-to-face contact due to space-time dispersion Videoconferencing Use of new technology to incorporate video Hindrance to development of understanding and relationships amongst members Increase understanding Remove obstacles that hinder understanding Conflict can lead to ineffective teamwork and other negative outcomes Management role is to form effective teams of members that will work well together Application of conflict management techniques False attributions to explain a conflict that only exacerbates in further Distinguish between personal and situation attribution Should result in constructive suggestions through an integrative approach What emerges from the study is recognition of conflict types, their attributes and measures of resolution. Relationship (or affective) conflict: tension, friction, and personal issues such as mutual dislike, personality clashes, and annoyance, so characterized by intense negative emotions. Relationship conflict was apparent between American and Swedish members in team B. Task conflict: differences in viewpoints such as how to accomplish as task, in assigning duties and responsibilities, and delegating resources. Relationship conflict was apparent between American and Swedish members in team B on more than one occasion. The sequence of outcomes was as shown below. One of the paradigms that emerge from studying the problem is the promotion of team diversity with respect to values and demographics, as opposed to ensuring similarity amongst team members. The diversity may be of a functional nature due to differences in education, experience and expertise, as in the case of team B, or relate to social differences such as age, gender, culture and race. The former is believed to encourage innovation but increase task conflict whereas social category diversity “has been found to cause relationship conflict” (Kankanhalli, 2006). A conflict episode in team C due to functional diversity arose between its members with engineering and business backgrounds who “held very different viewpoints on some issues” (Kankanhalli, 2006). Whereas the former were content with focusing only on key aspects, the latter wanted to include extra details. The task conflict caused by functional diversity was eventually resolved by combining elements from both viewpoints as shown below. The impact of cultural diversity on team performance and conflict is especially important to study, and of Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, knowledge of individualism-collectivism in particular gives useful insight into why conflicts arise in the first place. Individualists “tend to value personal time and the freedom to adopt personal approaches to their work” (Kankanhalli, 2006). Collectivists “tend to value team identity and the presence of team standards for carrying out their work” (Kankanhalli, 2006). There were ‘strong cultural fault lines’ in team A that demonstrated the individualist-collectivist divide. The members from more collectivist cultures perceived the individualists as not being cooperative enough. The task conflict was caused by cultural diversity and developed as shown below. On the other hand, the collectivist members were as expected, uncomfortable with the idea of a peer appraisal scheme. Following implementation it became a task conflict due to cultural diversity. Worse still, a third conflict episode in team A resulted in mutual hostility as it involved “differences in attitude about separating personal life and professional life” (Kankanhalli, 2006). Whereas the individualists preferred to keep the two separate, the collectivists saw no problem in overlapping them. One important aspect of culture is language, and this became a cause of conflict in team C when a French member had difficulty in speaking English fluently. However, it was resolved by an integrative approach developed as shown below. Some findings suggest that in computer-assisted teams, conflict may either increase or decrease depending on the level of support provided. Virtual teams naturally rely more heavily on traditional teams but this also exposes them to more task conflict as experienced by team A. This was attributed to information overload. The geographic dispersion of members, information overload, and “slow rate and feedback lag of communication media” (Kankanhalli, 2006) are believed to cause many of the communication problems that virtual teams face. Team B was set back by lack of immediacy of feedback, which led to a task conflict and progressed as shown below. Most of the time however, team B used an avoidance conflict resolution approach. Similarly, team C also experienced information overload when emails were not being responded to but the conflict was not resolved in the same manner as shown above for team B. Instead, a distributive approach was taken to ‘resolve’ the conflict because the member concerned was simply ignored. The sequence is shown below. Most of the time however, team C undertook an integrative approach for other conflicts. The task characteristics referred to in the study are interdependence and routineness. In situations where interdependency is high, relationship conflict can expect to have a greater impact, and “task conflict may be negatively related to team performance for routine tasks” (Kankanhalli, 2006). Summary As most of the conflicts across all three teams were due to cultural diversity (mostly on linguistic and national grounds), this shows the impact that cultural differences can make on global teamwork. Although linguistic diversity “can cause communication difficulties and hinder the performance of global teams” (Chen, 2007), on the positive side, it can also allow useful contributions by making it possible to access a greater quantity of literature for example. National diversity is also responsible for many conflicts because of three main reasons viz. ethnocentricism, prejudice and stereotyping all of which hamper communication in GVT. Linguistic and national differences are overt and responsible for most conflicts. After these two, the individualism-collectivism differences also create differences in viewpoints. Explanations for the aforementioned cultural differences are offered by similarity attraction theory (Byrne, 1971), which suggests that people prefer to interact with others who are like-minded, and social identity theory (Tajfel, 1986), which suggests preference for people in the same social category. Relationship conflict was perhaps the most hostile form of conflict that manifested due to socio-cultural differences. Other forms of diversity such as functional diversity also create conflict but to a lesser extent. Technology whilst being at the center of making GVTs possible in the first place, created mainly problems of information overload, which led to task conflicts. A general solution to handling conflicts in GVTs should avoid personal attribution as differences are natural. Moreover, it only worsens relationships and breaks down the roles of communication (Blakar, 1984). Rather, situational attribution should be preferred so that an integrative conflict resolution can result as demonstrated successfully more often by team C, or else a constructive categorical attribution. Module II Three problems were identified and worked with viz. language differences, ethnocentricity and individualism-collectivism. The key points are summarized in the table below. Problem / Solution Summary Problem/Opportunity Identified (List final problem/opportunity identified. Presenting problems or opportunities will be identified in Part 2) Solution Identified (Where more than one solution is identified, list the solutions in order of priority) Resource Needs (Constraints related to the problem or opportunity) Metrics of Success (How success or improvement will be measured based on set targets) 1. Language differences 1. Use simple statements, encourage clarifications/questions, allow extra time, establish rapport. 1. Translation tools 1.Instantaneous understanding 2. Ethnocentricity 2. Awareness and appreciation of other cultures and ways of life 2. Knowledge of others 2. Greater acceptability and tolerance for other culrue. 3. Individualism / Collectivism 3. Mutual understanding 3. Training 3. Harmonious relationship 1. Language differences Language differences are an obstacle if they hinder communications between the linguistically different members i.e. if any misunderstandings arise due to language barriers. So this is the assumption and it only adds complexity to the communicative interaction. The solution requires greater attention to ensuring that communication is effective and misunderstandings are minimized. Technology can have a big role to play in avoiding such misunderstandings (Lewkowicz, 2008) from taking place. But simple strategies can also be applied. For example, using simple statements and avoiding long or complicated structures can make it easier for the other person to comprehend what has been communicated. If the person does not understand, he or she should be encouraged to ask for immediate clarification lest the misunderstanding gives rise to a conflict. Thus extra time should be allowed for questions too in online meeting, phone conferences etc. It is also advisable for communication to be conducted as often as possible instead of being limited to important occasions because this provides opportunities for establishing rapport (Johnson) and to learn when communications sometimes fail. It is better to experience this before hand than having to realize communication failure at a time when it is important. 2. Ethnocentricity This arises out of belief for the superiority of one’s own culture over that of others and is therefore an unhealthy attitude to hold for cross-cultural collaboration. Respect and tolerance for, and kindness towards those of other cultural origins needs to be developed before engaging in teamwork. This can be achieved through creating greater awareness and appreciation of people of other cultures and ways of life. In short, an acculturation is necessary that trains to effectively adjust and adapt to a specific culture (Harris, 2004). This makes the other culture more familiar and reduces the likelihood of a culture shock. The problems of prejudice and stereotyping are dissolved once familiarity is gained to such an extent that one’s own better informed opinions are formed. 3. Individualism-Collectivism These are patterned differences in a number of areas that either makes one more inclined to conceiving the individual as the basic unit of reality, or regards the group as this primary unit. Individualists regard personal time as valuable and prefer freedom to adopt personal approaches (Kankanhalli, 2006). Collectivists value team identity higher than the individual and uphold stronger team standards. Cooperation must be fostered between the two types so they can work in harmony together. Measures that could be taken include bridge building exercises, strengthening trust between them, and collaborating in . For a GVT operating with members in both eastern and western societies, there is an even greater need for mutual understanding and appreciation between the individualist and collectivist viewpoints. References Hofstede (1977) is a researcher known for a number of publications on the nature of cultural differences in global operations. It is suggested that you consider the body of Hofstede’s work as a possible key reference source. Blakar, R. (1984). Communication: A Social Perspective on Clinical Issues. New York: Columbia University Press. Quoted in Kankanhalli, 2006. Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. NY: Academic Press. Quoted in Kankanhalli, 2006. Chen, Chao et al. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 285-304. Chen, Stephen et al. (2007). The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic perspective. Management International Review. Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 679-696. Harris, Philip Robert and Moran, Sarah Virgilia. (2004). Managing cultural differences. Butterworth-Heinemann. Hofstede, Gert Jan. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. McGraw-Hill Professional. Hofstede, G.H. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, NY: McGraw Hill. Quoted in Kankanhalli, 2006. Jarvenpaa, Sirkka. (1999). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science. Informs. Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 791-815. Johnson, Karen. (n.d.). Working through language, time, and cultural differences. Bacon’s Information, Inc. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from: http://www.logigear.com/newsletter/working-through-language-time-and-cultural-differences-part-1.asp. Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei. (2006). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Lewkowicz, Myriam et al. (2008). Misunderstandings in Global Virtual Engineering Teams: Discussions, Causes, and Guidelines for Knowledge Sharing and Interaction. Methods and Tools for Effective Knowledge Life-Cycle Management. Pp. 145-157. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Stat, Raymie. (1992). What is Individualism. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/RaymieStata/WhatIsIndividualism.html. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Quoted in Kankanhalli, 2006. Read More