Cultural Diversity Impact on Teamwork - Essay Example

Cultural diversity impact on teamwork Ever since the beginning of humanity cultural diversity exists and there is little knowledge regardinghow different cultures reacted to one another during those times. Even though official strategy often argues that cultural diversity develop a society, history has revealed that minority groups were not viewed in this optimistic way. The troubles in the Middle East and the recent wars in Africa and the Balkans are the examples which show how hard it is to manage cultural diversity for the mankind. This essay examines the influence and impact of cultural diversity in teams. Introduction The cultural diversity is alive in the individuality and a multitude of the characteristics of the team and people making up human race. Preservation of cultural diversity is essential as a basis for exchange, improvement and creativeness of teams like biodiversity for the nature. Accordingly, it is the common inheritance of humankind and ought to be accepted and avowed for the advantage of present and future generations. Cultural diversity opens a series of choices available to all individuals; this is one of the main causes of growth, not only in terms of economic growth, but as well as a source to attain a more reasonable intellectual, exciting, ethical and spiritual survival. It entails an assurance to human rights and basic freedoms, specially the rights of individuals belonging to minorities and those of native people. In any situations no one may raise cultural diversity to violate upon human rights assured by international law (UNESCO, 2001). The Aspects of Cultural Diversity Many aspects form the fact that the labour force is becoming more diverse: Women stand for an increasing percentage in organizations; the difference in age is becoming more obvious on all levels; because of the changing demands, organizations employ more and more people with diverse skilled and expert background; the increasing number of refugees also has an upshot on diversity, since they hold different background, religions and cultures; lastly, the continuing globalization results a growing number of emigrants, sharing with diverse values and cultures. This rising diversity can be considered in both ways as a chance for progress or a challenge to the safety and working of teams. Hiring diverse people to work together is a problem because of the tensions diversity can generate, but, many writers (e.g. Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Jehn, et al., 1999; West, 2004) propose that social contact among diverse viewpoints also have great capability leading to creation of new ideas and inspiration, since creativeness in teams seems to rely on diverse opinion and outlooks. Yet, the field of normal diversity literature is more complex since there seems to be uncertainty in the results concerning diversity is an advantage or a disadvantage for creativeness (Polzer, et al., 2002). The Intra Group Trust & Cultural Diversity The level of confidence existing among team members is referred as intra group trust. Simons and Petersen (2000) advocate that there are two features concerned while evaluating intra-group trust between team members. Task conflict or cognitive conflict is a view of difference among group members regarding their choice and engross diversity in opinions, ideas and views (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Relationship clash is an awareness of interpersonal incapability that comprises tension, annoyance and hostility between group members. Simons and Petersen (2000) again explains that task clash can have two positive effects on team development: it can improve decision-making since task conflict supports greater cognitive reasoning of the issue and it can result improved fulfilment with the group resolution, as team members sense that they had the chance to pronounce their view in the decision making practice. On the other hand, relationship conflict can pessimistically impact on group contentment and obligation in addition to resolution quality as this may restrict the data processing skill of the team, raise strain and concern, and restrict team’s cognitive performance. Further, relationship conflict can also build a self-fulfilling prediction of pessimistic group incident as the consequence of hostility and conflict growth. The relationship between the two recommends that knowing the outcome of intra-group trust is the important team level concern that can persuade efficient student team concert. Hence it can be said that intra-group trust will influence team performance. But, the intra group trust as a team-level issue is also depends on other aspects such as sub-group formation. Sub-group Formation Earley and Mosakowski (2000) recommend that an efficient team is one with a strong team culture since joint member outlook smooth the progress of individual and team performance and contact. Once team members perceive shared reasoning with other members, the optimistic influence and tendency to trust produce superior performance. Team member character mainly influences the progress of a team culture. Earley and Mosakowski (2000) advocate that this is in two ways: the first is that individual character form members hope about suitable contact rules, group effectiveness and group identity and secondly individual character persuade how team members see others will perform within a group. Conversely, choices of these individual personalities by team members are based on their own cultural composition. The dependence on individual personality to foresee others’ manners improves the potential for sub-group creation. The result of sub-group creation on team performance can be double, first of all, it relates a potential for relationship conflict, which in turn influence intra-group trust and later team performance; secondly, sub-group development can limit access to contact and data and thus have an effect on contact and support in the team (Caspersz, et al. 2003). Diversity as a Doubled-Edged Sword In the normal literature, diversity is explained following a common feature, between diversity on noticeable characteristics such as race or ethnic background, age or gender, and diversity with regard to fewer noticeable features such as education, technical abilities, practical background, and tenure in the institute, personality characteristics or principles. The reason for separating between noticeable and non-observable types of diversity is that when differences between people are noticeable they are likely to bring to mind reactions that are due openly to biases, jump to conclusions or stereotype (Milliken & Martins, 1996). According to Jackson & Ruderman (1995) describe diversity of three categories: Demographic diversity which includes gender, ethnicity and age; psychological diversity which includes values, beliefs and knowledge; and organizational diversity that consist of tenure, occupation and hierarchical level. Jackson et al. (1995), McGrath, Berdahl, & Arrow (1995) develop further this explanation to five groups as they split up the psychological dimension into values, capabilities and personality. These dimensional categorizations are the most used classifications, as it contains the most precise definitions. A number of studies of merits and demerits of diversity have been done on the basis of the above diversity explanation of McGrath et al. (1995). But, the outcome has been uncertain as to whether a group or team can gain from diversity or not. Hence diversity seems to be a double-edged sword, escalating the chance for creativeness besides the probability that team associates will be disappointed and fail to recognize with the group (Milliken et al., 1996). Australia as an Example of Vast Cultural Diversity Australia is one of the most developed countries which posses’ vast cultural diversity and is the best example for favouring cultural diversity. Australia has a unique past that has fashioned the diversity of its peoples, their cultures and way of life today. The major reasons for Australias demographic composition are a diverse native populace, a British colonial history and wide-ranging immigration from many other nations and cultures. As on today, 19 million Australias people are the most culturally and linguistically diverse populations in the world. Even though the bulk of the populations are born in Australia, about 3/4th of Australians recognize with a heritage of other nations. Only 2% of Australians come from native backgrounds. Altogether, Australians are linguistically diverse and they have more than 200 languages. The main religious conviction in Australia is Christianity with about 68% of the population identifying as Christian and others include Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Around as little as 5,000 Australians practice Aboriginal traditional faiths. Nearly 15% of Australians have no faith in religion (Racism, No way, 2005). Conclusion Diversity in a team of people certainly causes conflicts, and it appears that it most probable will engage both task and relational conflict. Therefore diversity can be both negative and positive. Studies has still, had complexity in determining the reasons for a positive or a negative outcome. Although scholars agree that diverse groups should highlight their dissimilarities and develop into socially incorporated, how this can happen remains unclear. However, the conflict theory has provided with the significant fact that Australia task related conflicts are productive, but conflicts on a personal level are destructive for teamwork. Hence the success of a diverse work team is based on how people in a team recognize and manage diversity and the conflicts. Individual’s sincerity to diversity is the basis of successful diversity management. The motive for an individual to be inspired and contribute with his unique views he must feel happy in his diversity and feel appreciated and free to self distinguish, in order not to build up personal conflicts with his fellow team members. References Caspersz, D., Wu, M. & Skene, J. (2003). Factors influencing effective performance of university student teams, [Online] HERDSA 2003 conference proceedings, Available from: [Accessed on 24 May 2007]. Earley, P C. & Gibson. C.B, (2002). Multinational work teams, a new perspective, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Jackson, S.E, & Ruderman, M.N. 1995. Introduction: Perspectives for Understanding Diverse Work Teams. In S. E. Jackson, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a changing workplace. Washington: American Psychological Association. Jehn, Karen A., & Bezrukova, Katerina. (2004). A Field Study of Group Diversity, Workgroup Context, and Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 703-729. Jehn, Karen A., Northcraft, Gregory B., & Neale, Margarat A. 1999. Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 741-763. McGrath, Joseph E, Berdahl, Jenifer L, & Arrow, Holly. 1995. Traits, Expectations, Culture and Clout: The Dynamic of Diversity in Work Groups. In S. E. Jackson, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in Work Teams. Washington: American Psychological Association. Milliken, Frances J., & Martins, Luis L. 1996. Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 402-433. Polzer, Jeffrey T., Milton, Laurie P., & Swann, William B. Jr. 2002. Capitalizing on Diversity: Interpersonla Congruence in Small Work Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 296-324. Racism, No way, (2005) Australias cultural diversity, [Online] Available from: [Accessed on 24 May 2007]. Simons, T. & Petersen, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111. UNESCO, (2001) UNESCO Universal declaration on cultural diversity. [Online] Adopted by the 31st Session of the General Conference of UNESCO, PARIS, 2 NOVEMBER 2001. Available from: [Accessed on 24 May 2007]. Read More