Going Global Practical Applications and Recommendations for HR and OD Professionals in the Global Workplace J-B SIOP Professional Practice Series by Kyle Lundby, Jeffrey Jolton and Allen I. Kraut_4 pdf

The challenge within multicultural teams lies within the factthat individuals who often have extremely disparate conceptual-izations of how teams should function are required to engage i

based on their cultural orientation The interaction within theseteams primarily reflect intercultural interaction versus intracul-tural interaction.

In seeking to provide guidance to organizations, there hasbeen a fair amount of work conducted that examines intracul-tural differences in group- or team-based work For example,research has shown that cultural differences have implications forcooperation (for example, Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Cox et al.,1991), communication (Conyne et al., 1999), feedback (Earley

et al., 1999), conflict type (Elron, 1997; Mortensen & Hinds,2001), cohesion (Man & Lam, 2003; Elron, 1997), team efficacy(Gibson, 1999), adaptation (Harrison, McKinnon, Wu, & Chow,2000), decision making (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992), and teamperformance (Elron, 1997; Gibson, 1999; Kirkman & Shapiro,2001; Man & Lam, 2003; Matveev & Nelson, 2004; Gelfand, Erez,

& Aycan, 2007) However, as organizations increasingly rely onmulticultural work teams, often overlooked are the challengesinherent in leading and working within teams in which individu-als have vastly different backgrounds, traditions, motivations, andconcerns (Dinwoodie, 2005)

If there are cultural differences in teamwork when lookingintraculturally across cultures, the challenges they pose are com-pounded when multiple cultures are placed within a single team;however, it has been argued that these teams can be effective to thedegree to which they are able to manage the need for consensusversus the need for diversity (Argote & McGrath, 1993) Althoughdiversity in skills and perspectives may benefit multicultural teams,the team also needs a degree of common ground in order to facil-itate coordinated action and the understanding that leads to thatcoordination (Argote & McGrath, 1993) Within organizationalteams diversity is often a feature that cannot be escaped, but is

a function of the operating environment The question becomes

‘‘What does within team diversity in multicultural teams mean forteam interaction and correspondingly teamwork?’’

The purpose of the current chapter is to first highlight some

of the challenges inherent in working within multicultural teams

In doing so, key processes and emergent states will be brieflydescribed, resulting in a framework within which to think aboutmulticultural teams Next we identify several guidelines that may

be used by practitioners These guidelines are grouped based

on their temporal nature (that is, whether they occur beforeinteraction, during interaction, or post interaction)

What Are the Implications of Intracultural

Differences for Teamwork?

National culture has been defined in many ways: as (1) ‘‘ a

coalescence of discrete behavioral norms and cognitions shared

by individuals within some definable population that are distinctfrom those shared with other populations’’ (Lehman, Chiu, &Schaller, 2004, p 690), and (2) ‘‘shared motives, values, beliefs,identities, and interpretations of meanings of significant eventsthat result from common experiences of members of collectivesand are transmitted across age generations’’ (House & Javidan,

2004, p 15) Although there is no universally accepted definition

of culture, after reviewing the multitude of definitions within thesocial sciences, Triandis (1996) argues that there is wide agree-ment across definitions that culture consists of ‘‘shared elementsthat provide standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, com-municating, and acting among those who share a language, ahistoric period, and a geographic location’’ (Shweder & LeVine,

1984, p 408)

The challenge within multicultural teams lies within the factthat individuals who often have extremely disparate conceptual-izations of how teams should function are required to engage ininterdependent interaction (Ilgen, LePine, & Hollenbeck, 1997).Moreover, these culturally based differences are often implicitlyheld and are only recognized once the team is heading down apath to derailment Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) empiricallyexamined the idea that individuals from different cultures mayhave different teamwork prototypes (i.e., metaphors), which inturn, reflect underlying assumptions about a team’s functionalityand structure Specifically, interviews were conducted in whichindividuals from a variety of cultures were asked general questionsabout teamwork The transcripts from these interviews were thencontent coded and sorted based on thematic similarities

Results indicated the emergence of five differential metaphorsfor teams (for example, sports, military, family, associates, and

community) Within individualistic cultures there was a dency for teams to be described in terms of sports and associatemetaphors Sports metaphors reflected a conceptualization ofteams whereby roles are explicitly defined, there is little hierar-chy, membership tends to be voluntary, scope of activity is fairlynarrow, and objectives tend to be well defined (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2002) Associate metaphors were used to conceptualize

ten-a view of teten-ams in which there wten-as little role definition, ten-a nten-ar-row scope of activity related to professional work, and objectiveswere explicit, yet evolving and not focused solely on task-relatedoutcomes (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2002)

nar-Conversely, metaphors reflecting family and communitytended to be used most often with collectivists Herein, teamswere conceptualized using a family metaphor in which there was

a paternalistic hierarchy, activity scope was broad, and objectiveswere more social in nature (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2002) Incontrast, community metaphors indicated a conceptualizationwhereby roles were informal and shared, activities and objectiveswere broad in scope and somewhat ambiguous Perhaps usedless often was the military metaphor, being primarily used bythose valuing power distance (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001).This metaphor reflected a strict hierarchical structure, limitedscope, and task-focused salient outcomes These differences

in metaphor use point to the potential difficulty in buildingshared cognitive structures (for example, shared mental models,transactive memory systems) within multicultural teams

Similar in nature is work that has shown that culture has

an impact on what is considered success in work groups Forexample, Sanchez-Burks, Nisbett, and Ybarra (2000) reportedthat cultures that were more collectivistic (for example, Mexico)valued socioemotional outcomes over task-based outcomes Thereverse was true for a sample of Anglos The work by Sanchez-Burks et al (2000) as well as that by Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn(2001; 2002) offer important insights into challenges that mayarise for individuals working within multicultural teams, as well asfor the leaders responsible for directing and shaping those teams.For example, Gibson’s work suggests that within a multiculturalteam it is likely that the members may come to the team withdisparate ideas pertaining to role structure, activity scope, and

team functioning In turn, these expectations will drive differentbehavioral responses and attributions These disparate expecta-tions are often latent and, in turn, foster misattributions Similarly,the work by Sanchez-Burks et al (2000) suggests different motiva-tional bases for members from different cultures In turn, thesedifferences may result in frustration and a lack of psychologicalsafety within multicultural teams Leaders must take into accountand balance these disparate motivations so that the team as awhole remains motivated.

Given this complexity, we next discuss several processes andstates which must be enacted and sometimes culturally negotiated

in order for multicultural teams to be effective and overcome theinherent challenges often caused by diversity Multicultural teamswho are able to implement these processes in a culturally appro-priate manner have the potential for positive team outcomes Thefollowing list provides a summary of these critical components

Critical Components Driving Effectiveness in Multicultural Teams

• Process Components

1 Engaging in leadership—creating and maintaining

coherence

2 Ensuring clear and meaningful communication

3 Engaging in supportive behaviors to maximize team synergy

4 Engaging in perspective taking to develop a cultural

7 Forming compatible cognitive structures to aid coordination

Components Driving Effectiveness

that researchers have not been conceptually disciplined when

it comes to the constructs which are identified as process, oftenconfounding process with emergent states Accordingly, team pro-cess refers to ‘‘members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs

to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activitiesdirected toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals’’(Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, p 357) Conversely, emergentstates are viewed as a bit more static than process and have beendefined as ‘‘constructs that characterize the properties of theteam that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function

of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes’’ (Marks et al.,

2001, p 357) These constructs often represent cognitive, tive, and motivational components and can be viewed as inputs

affec-to and outcomes of team process Due affec-to the diversity presentwithin multicultural teams, it is often difficult to promote theseemergent states In turn, this has important implications for themanner in which processes (such as leadership, communication,supportive behaviors) are enacted within the team

In delineating a framework (see Figure 3.1) within which toexamine the components which facilitate effectiveness in multicul-tural teams we rely on the current state-of-the science and employthe distinction between process and emergent states In addition,while there are a multitude of process and state variables whichcould be argued to be challenging and essential for multiculturalteams space constraints limit discussion to those we believe aremost essential

Delineation of Process Components

In the United States teams have been defined as two or moreindividuals interacting together in an adaptive interdependentmanner towards a shared or common goal (Salas et al., 1992).While we expect this definition will hold across cultures the opera-tionalization of the behaviors contained within might be expected

to differ However, at a bare minimum we argue that in any type

of multicultural team the following three process variables aregoing to form the foundation of effective teamwork: negotiation,communication, and supporting behavior In addition, especiallyimportant within multicultural teams are the additional processes

Figure 3.1 Framework for Thinking About Multicultural

Team Performance.

Core Process

Enablers

Shared Mental Models

Psychological Safety

Core Processes

Negotiation

Communication

Supporting Behavior

Multicultural Team Performance

Transactive Memory Systems

Perspective

Taking

Leadership

of perspective taking and leadership as these two processes assist

in providing a way forward amongst the challenges that may beposed in enacting the other process variables See Figure 3.1 for avisual illustration

Critical Process #1: Engaging in Leadership— Creating

and Maintaining Coherence

Leadership has been argued to play a pivotal role in mining team effectiveness (see Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin,Salas, & Halpin, 2006) Specifically, leadership is the mechanismthrough which the shared cognition, affect, and behavior withinteams is promoted so that coordinated action can occur Leadersensure that the team has clear, compelling direction, an enablingstructure, supportive organizational context, and expert coachingavailable (Hackman, 2002) It is within this vein that leaders canfacilitate a team’s ability to adapt by choosing the timing andmechanisms through which to intervene in team process to allowreflection upon methods and procedures to take place (Gersick

deter-& Hackman, 1990; Hackman deter-& Wageman, 2005)

Within multicultural teams, leadership actions become evenmore important given the likelihood of the team’s exhibiting

degradations in its coherence (shared understandings, behavior,and affect), which in turn, promotes the coordinated action indica-tive of effective teams Leadership interventions can help teamsadapt to difficulties in execution and process loss For example,

it has been argued that within multicultural teams leaders shouldpromote a hybrid culture (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000) in order tomitigate process challenges This hybrid culture is not reflective ofany one culture that currently exists within the team, but reflects

a new superordinate culture Yet the picture is complicated,

as research has indicated that there are differences across tures concerning what is deemed ‘‘effective’’ leadership (House,Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Bantz, 1993) More-over, even when leadership prototypes are similar across cultures(for example, charismatic leadership), often the manifestations ofthese prototypes are culturally contingent (see Mehra & Krishnan,2005; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997) Assuch it is not enough to simply train leaders to act in a charismaticfashion, because what is charismatic may differ across cultures.Also important to note for leaders of multicultural teams is thattheoretical work has suggested that when there are large variations

cul-in values pertacul-incul-ing to uncertacul-inty avoidance withcul-in multiculturalteams it may be more difficult for stable norms to emerge (Bantz,1993) This is important, for it is often a leadership function toset the norms for the team It has also been argued that keyleadership functions such as boundary spanning are encouragedmore within collectivistic as compared with individualistic settings(Golden & Veiga, 2005) This can have a tremendous impact onthe team as boundary spanning is the manner by which teamsadapt to the environment and the way in which new informationcomes into the team Thus, although there are several challenges

to providing leadership within multicultural teams, leaders canassist in preventing communication breakdowns (Ayoko et al.,2002) and facilitate the sharing of unique information amongthe team (Baba, Gluesing, Ratner, & Wagner, 2004) Moreover,within multicultural teams there is likely to be more attentionpaid to interpersonally related leadership behaviors as compared

to task leadership behaviors (Watson et al., 2002) Leaders should

be cognizant of this and set cooperative goals and, when conflict

occurs, employ cooperative conflict management strategies (Chen

et al., 2006)

Critical Process #2: Ensuring Clear and Meaningful Communication

Communication is essential to teams in that it helps membersdevelop and update the shared knowledge structures that serve

to guide adaptive action, and it provides the foundation formutual monitoring and backup behavior The importance of thisprocess is seen in that cross-cultural communication competencehas been shown to be related to performance in multiculturalteams (Matveev & Nelson, 2004) Despite the importance of clearcommunication, difficulties in communication lie at the heart ofmany of the challenges to interacting within a multicultural team.Within multicultural teams there are often communicationchallenges in terms of differences in language and dialect, commu-nication norms, rate, duration, and expressivity of communication(including urgency and affect) In addition, it is often thecase that much information—or ‘‘the intended meaning’’ ofcommunication—is lost within multicultural teams Differences

in the rate of communication as well as the structure of cation across cultures can lead to challenges within multiculturalteams For example, cultures differ on the extent to which theyexpect the meaning to be explicitly stated within the actual com-municated message (and thereby communication tends to bemore dense) or whether it is implicitly implied based on out-side contextual information (see high-low context, Hall & Hall,1990) Also related to the nature of communication, Earley et al.(1999) found that individual and group-based feedback fosteredcollective efficacy in members with a collectivist orientation, yetmembers with an individualistic orientation were more likely tohave a sense of collective efficacy when feedback was gearedmore individually Finally, within multicultural teams it is not onlythe structure of communication that may pose challenges Butthe actual source of the communication message (that is, thesender) may affect not only the weight or importance assigned

communi-to the message, but also the degree communi-to which the informationcontained within the message is likely to be questioned For teammembers with an orientation toward power distance, messagesdelivered from high-status members will be given more weight

and will be less likely to be challenged In all, communicationdifficulties present challenges that need to be managed in multi-cultural teams.

Critical Process #3: Engaging in Supportive Behaviors

to Maximize Team Synergy

One of the defining features that distinguish teams from viduals is the fact that there are supporting mechanisms builtinto the team structure which, when used appropriately, canfacilitate the team’s capitalizing on its potential synergy, therebymaking its performance greater than the sum of the individualparts Specifically, team members can engage in mutual perfor-mance monitoring, whereby team members jointly observe theactions of members to watch for mistakes, lapses, and overload in

indi-an effort to catch indi-and correct potential degradations in a timelymanner (McIntyre & Salas, 1995) This process enables recogni-tion of when team members need assistance (Marks & Panzer,2004) When performance monitoring suggests that a team mem-ber is in need of assistance, that assistance may be offered throughfeedback in the form of verbal suggestions or actual physical aid.Although mutual performance monitoring and backup behav-ior have been argued to be essential components of effective teams,they are most often effective when enacted in a team climate ofpsychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) When a team is mul-ticultural in nature it may become more difficult to create andmaintain this climate (we will discuss this in more detail later inthe chapter) Psychological safety is but one prerequisite for thesesupporting functions to be seen as valued Research has also shownthat if backup behavior is provided when it is not needed it canactually lead to decrements in performance due to redundancy ofeffort (Porter et al., 2003)

Thus, within multicultural teams, despite the fact that thesebehaviors are argued to be essential due to the complexity presentwithin these teams and the resulting likelihood of errors (taskbased or social), it may be more difficult to enact these behav-iors successfully Culture may affect not only perception of whenbackup behavior is needed and when monitoring is seen as impor-tant (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006), but also the acceptance

of any assistance that is offered as well as the likelihood that

members will ask for assistance In addition, if team membersmisinterpret the cues offered within heterogeneous teams, theymay provide backup when it’s not needed, neglect the cue thatsignals help is needed, or provide backup in a manner that isculturally inappropriate Given this example, it becomes easy tosee how heterogeneous teams may have more difficulty in backupbehavior because of misinterpretations and miscommunications.Variations in power distance among members may also have animpact on the success of any supporting behavior offered Inmulticultural teams with large variations in power-distance orien-tations among team members, it will become more difficult tosuccessfully engage in supporting behaviors, because team mem-bers will vary in their acceptance of these behaviors based onthe status differentials between recipients and senders Further,given some cultural orientations, the explicit manner in whichbackup behavior is conducted may be seen as threatening, rude,

or embarrassing

Critical Process #4: Engaging in Perspective Taking

to Develop a Cultural Foundation

One of the challenges to interaction within multicultural teams isthat cultural differences in values and beliefs lead individual mem-bers to expect different things, ranging from how a team shouldfunction to the interpretation of members’ actions Yet oftentimesthese cognitive assumptions lie hidden In the absence of explicitrecognition of such underlying assumptions members are oftenlikely to use stereotypes to explain behavior or will engage infaulty attributions as they assume that fellow team members areoperating under the same set of rules, expectations, and prefer-ences as their own Perspective taking may be one of the mostimportant transition processes (see Marks et al., 2001) that occurwithin multicultural teams It involves ‘‘understanding how andwhy another person thinks and feels about the situation and whythey are behaving as they are’’ (Sessa, 1996, p 105) Perspectivetaking is not empathy, but reflects a more cognitive process.Perspective taking has been shown to have a number ofbenefits such as: (1) reducing stereotypic responses and increas-ing the overlap ‘‘between representations of the self andrepresentation of the outgroup’’ (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000,

p 708), (2) encouraging social coordination and helpingbehavior (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005), and (3) facilitating bettercommunication Specifically, Sessa (1996) found that perspectivetaking caused people to disclose more information and frametheir conversations in such a way that they were easily understood.This, in turn, leads to overall greater success in multiculturalcommunications In essence, perspective taking is a key aspect

of effective intercultural team interaction; it provides the tional knowledge pertaining to a recognition of the need to adaptbehavior in some manner and offers a mechanism through whichlikely member actions can be projected in the future However,perspective taking is not a natural tendency This is especially truewhen it involves taking the perspective of members of anotherculture Though it has been argued that individuals who are high

founda-in self-monitorfounda-ing (Densten & Gray, 2003) are better at tive taking than those who are low self-monitors, there may also beinterventions that can be designed and implemented to facilitatethis process (we will discuss this more later in the chapter)

perspec-Critical Process #5: Engaging in Negotiation to Find Common Ground

Negotiation is a process that is often ignored or minimized when

it comes to the delineation of important team processes However,within a multicultural setting negotiation becomes key to effectiveinteraction Negotiation has been defined as ‘‘the ways in whichindividuals manage their interdependence’’ (Walton & McKersie,

1965 as cited in Gelfand, Fulmer, & Severance, in press) Inaddition, whereas negotiation may differ across cultures, Gelfand

et al (in press) argue that there are several core characteristics thatshould apply across cultures: there is a perception of conflictinginterests, communication is involved, a joint outcome exists, andalthough there are mixed motives, compromise is possible.Within multicultural teams negotiation is critical becausemembers often come to the team with disparate cognitivestructures that are based in their cultural orientations Theseknowledge structures, in turn, serve to affect the way eachindividual member views the world, team interaction, and theattributions that are made Though there are situations in whichthe knowledge structures are different but still compatible, it

is often the case that the differences are not initially compatible

It is the team leader’s job to facilitate a negotiated reality forthe team such that coordinated, adaptive action is enabled.Researchers have argued that the emergence of a third culturewithin multicultural teams is one of the mechanisms thatfacilitates effective interaction (see Earley & Mosakowski, 2000).However, negotiation is a complex process even when conductedwithin a single culture; it becomes even more complex whenconducted within the context of a multicultural team Forexample, culture has been shown to affect the types of negotiationstrategies, the nature of the influence used in negotiation, aswell as the valued outcomes (Gelfand et al., 2002; Morris et al.,2004; Gelfand & Brett, 2004) Although viewing negotiation

as the process by which differences in cultural values within asingle team are resolved is not the normal way this behavior isexamined in the literature, taking this approach within teams

is essential in order to achieve the common ground that allowscoordinated action In engaging in this process Gelfand andDyer (2000) report that emotional appeals are thought to

be more impactful within collectivistic cultures, and rationalappeals more effective within individualistic cultures Leadersneed to be cognizant of this difference when seeking to facilitate

a negotiated reality For more detailed treatment of the role ofnegotiation, the reader is referred to a recent review by Gelfand,Fulmer, and Severance (in press)

Delineation of Emergent States

Although processes explain the manner in which interactionoccurs within multicultural teams, it is also essential to recognizethe effect that emergent states may have on multicultural teams.Specifically, these cognitive and motivational states can arise asthe result of multicultural team interaction and, in turn, serve

as inputs to future interaction As with the process variables,there are many emergent states that have been identified withinthe teams literature that may be argued to be important for thesuccessful interaction of multicultural teams, but due to spaceconstraints we limit our focus here to a few which we feel formthe foundation for success: psychological safety, shared mentalmodels, and transactive memory systems See Figure 3.1 for avisual representation

Critical State #6: Creating a Sense of Psychological Safety

to Facilitate Interaction

Psychological safety has been defined as a shared belief ing the degree to which the team is perceived to be a safeenvironment to engage in interpersonal risk taking (Edmond-son, 1999) As such, psychological safety reflects a team climatecharacterized by mutual respect and trust Edmondson (2003)found that psychological safety was important in culturally diverseteams (such as medical teams) because it facilitated team inter-action For example, as the degree of psychological safety withinmulticultural teams increases, members will be more willing totake interpersonal risks, such as speaking up and offering con-tributions during plan development or engaging in supportingbehaviors One of the potential benefits of multicultural teams isthe diversity of vantage points that exist within these teams; psy-chological safety helps the team to take advantage of this diversity

regard-by promoting a climate in which members feel free to questionsuggestions and decisions, in essence allowing members to play atype of ‘‘devil’s advocate.’’ Furthermore, though cultures vary inthe degree to which they may engage in these actions, based onpower differentials and concerns about saving face, psychologicalsafety might play a role in mitigating some of these tendencies bypromoting a collective, holistic view of the team setting in whichout-groups are diminished

Edmondson (2003) found that team leaders could promotepsychological safety within culturally diverse teams by engaging

in motivational, interpersonal activities and fostering a climate ofinclusion so that power differences were minimized and the input

of all members was recognized As psychological safety reflects

a climate of trust and mutual respect, activities that promotetrust would be expected to facilitate a sense of safety Withinmulticultural teams, research has shown that not only does trusthave different relational bases, but also that cultures vary intheir motivational bases Specifically, Yuki et al (2005) foundthat in more collectivist cultures (such as Japan) an importantbasis on which team members based their decisions to trust eachother was the indirect interpersonal ties that existed betweenthem Conversely, within more individualistic cultures (such asthe United States) decisions to trust were related to how well team

members identified with each other, based on a shared category

is often very challenging within multicultural teams, because mostoften members come to the team with very different knowledgestructures These knowledge structures, as partially witnessedthrough the metaphors used (see Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn,2002), guide member expectations, attributions, and interactions.Shared mental models and transactive memory systems are twocategories of knowledge structures which, though difficult toconstruct in multicultural teams, are essential for coordinatedaction

Both shared mental models and transactive memory areaspects of shared understanding Transactive memory system(TMS) is defined as the collective knowledge within a groupthat is coupled with the coordinated awareness of the knowl-edge distribution among group members (Wegner, 1987) WhenTMSs are effective, team members can easily assess who should

be responsible for which task based on a mutual understanding

of expertise, thereby reducing the cognitive load through moreefficient social information searches Thus, using TMS within mul-ticultural teams may affect communication patterns in that theperceptions of where expertise lies within the team will differen-tially guide interaction based on perceived expertise-based powerdifferences In addition, when TMSs are accurate and knowledgewithin them made explicit this may counter the tendency of indi-viduals within multicultural teams to rely on false stereotypes andinaccurate attributions

TMS involves three primary components: specialization, or thedifferentiation of information among team members; credibility,

or the beliefs of members regarding the accuracy and ity of others’ knowledge; and coordination, or the organizedknowledge processing of information (Akgun, Byrne, Keskin,