Chapter 8 – The Challenge of Multicultural Work Groups and Teams

External Conditions & Group Potential

• Organizations impose strategy, authority, and reward systems that frame group behavior (Friedlander, 1989).
  • Contextual factors decide which groups get resources and which behaviors are rewarded.
  • Diversity–performance link varies with corporate strategy:
  • Global‐integration strategy ➔ less learning & lower performance than local‐responsiveness strategy (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006).
  • Strong results orientation in both team and parent department ➔ diversity more likely to enhance performance (Bezrukova et al., 2012).
  • HR practices and selection decide skill/attitude mix entering groups (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004).
  • Geographic dispersion shapes mode of interaction—face-to-face vs. electronic (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
• Multiple-team membership is common—individuals can sit on ext{up to }12 concurrent project teams (Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006).
  • More teams & more variety in tasks/locations create cognitive load, competing effects on learning and productivity (O’Leary et al., 2011).

Group Member Resources

• Two resource classes:
  • Personal attributes → personality, values, attitudes.
  • Skills & abilities → technical + social.
• Positive personality profiles: high openness, conscientiousness, collectivism, teamwork preference; absence of very low agreeableness (Bell, 2007).
• Personality mix shapes group affective climate and prosocial behavior (George, 1990).
• Culture is itself a task-relevant personal attribute.

Group Structure

• Types: task forces, crews, teams — each prescribes unique norms, roles, status patterns.
• Task-process norms (communication channels, effort levels, safety/service climate) are key to effectiveness (Goodman et al., 1987; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
• Norm origins: explicit statements, critical incidents, early behaviors, prior group experience (Feldman, 1984).
• Role conflict (who should play which role/how) usually hurts performance (Jackson & Schuler, 1985) though some conflict can help (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992).
• Status effects: higher status ➔ more influence, positive evaluation, higher self-esteem (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004); culture changes perceived legitimacy (Ravlin et al., 2000).

Process Losses & Gains

• Actual group performance = potential − process losses + process gains (synergy).
• Classic losses: groupthink (Janis, 1982); social loafing (Thomas & Fink, 1963).
• Cultural differences can amplify or dampen these losses (Earley, 1989).

Group Development Over Time

• Tuckman model: forming → storming → norming → performing → adjourning (Tuckman, 1965).
  • Not always linear; stages can overlap or recur (Gersick, 1988).
• Punctuated equilibrium for deadline tasks (Gersick, 1989): inertia – midpoint transition – second inertia – final sprint.
• Temporal rhythms matter in virtual global teams—face-to-face bursts mixed with electronic periods (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).

Group Task Types (Jackson, 1992)

• Production (routine, motor skills, objective standards).
• Intellective (problem solving with a single correct answer—rare in firms).
• Creative / decision-making (idea generation, consensus building).
  • Communication & other processes become more pivotal here; diversity effects magnify.

Group Composition

• Categories: homogeneous, heterogeneous, minority-majority.
• Surface-level diversity (gender, ethnicity) often lowers satisfaction & identification (Mannix & Neale, 2005).
• Deep-level/task-related diversity (skills, tenure) can boost performance if processes are well managed.
• Heterogeneous groups = higher potential + higher risk of process losses.
• Minority influence: consistent, persistent minorities spur better decisions (Nemeth, 1992); speed of voicing grows with minority size (Bassili, 2003).

Culture’s Influence on Work Groups

• Three interrelated mechanisms:
  1. Cultural norms (what each culture views as proper group behavior).
  2. Cultural diversity (# of cultures represented).
  3. Relative cultural distance (how far apart members are culturally).

Cultural Norms

• Cultural scripts shape expectations (Thomas et al., 1996).
• Example clash: collectivist harmony norms vs. individualist devil’s advocacy.
• Metaphor study: individualists liken teams to sports squads; collectivists to families (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001).
• Social loafing lower among collectivists (Earley, 1989) because group goals trump personal gain.
• Case (Box 8.1): Japan Airlines cargo flight 8054 crash—junior Japanese copilots failed to challenge intoxicated U.S. captain, reflecting hierarchy/face norms.

Cultural Diversity

• Face-to-face diverse groups often show higher process losses, lower performance (Carte & Chidambaram, 2004).
• Yet diversity adds idea variety ⇒ potential for creativity & quality (McLeod et al., 1996).
• Faultlines: when two non-overlapping subgroups form, subgroup identity overrides team identity; hurts information flow (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).
  • Stronger when multiple demographic layers align (age, gender, nationality).
• Diversity–performance curve can be U-shaped: high or low diversity beats moderate (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000).
• Over time, process losses can shrink (Pelz, 1956) or grow (Stahl et al., 2010). Hybrid team cultures help (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000).

Relative Cultural Distance

• Greater distance ⇒ more self/other comparison, status ambiguity, communication hurdles.
• Favorable status perception raises participation & satisfaction (Mullen, 1987); unfavorable lowers cohesion.
• High distance → higher language burden, lower expected interaction payoff; members may withdraw (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).

Culture × Group Structure × Task

• Influence of culture rises with:
  • Group type: teams > task forces > crews.
  • Task type: decision-making > production.
• Figure 8.3 (conceptual): teams on decision tasks = “very high” cultural impact, crews on production = “very low.”

Global Virtual Teams (GVTs)

• Defined: geographically dispersed, rely mainly on electronic networks (Gibson & Cohen, 2003).
• Advantages: pick best talent regardless of \text{place}; allow remote work (Cascio, 2000).
• Challenges cluster into communication, relationship/conflict, task management (Jonsen et al., 2012).

Communication

• Media richness & synchronicity lower than face-to-face ➔ slower formation (Kraut et al., 1990).
• Preference for medium depends on task ambiguity, ease of use, goals (Treviño et al., 1987).
• Written English often default; helps some L2 speakers but doesn’t erase language barriers.

Relationship Building & Conflict

• Virtuality can mask visible cultural cues → lower conflict (Stahl et al., 2010).
• Yet slow cohesion; shared identity harder without co-location (Fiol & O’Connor, 2005).
• Low identity raises social loafing risk (Shapiro et al., 2002).

Task Management

• High interdependence & urgency demand frequent interaction (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
• Explicit roles, clear strategies, performance monitoring critical; virtual teams usually take longer to finish (Martins et al., 2004).
• Results on decision quality are mixed; moderators include task type and monitoring environment.

Organizational Context Factors

• Management Support: resources, culture of flexibility, diversity respect correlate with better performance & attitudes; crucial for GVTs (Maznevski et al., 2006).
• Group-Level Rewards: hybrid reward systems may backfire; cultural norms (equity vs. equality) must fit member values.
• Work Group Status: higher status boosts self‐worth; effect size varies by cultural emphasis on work vs. familial groups.
• Training: interaction + tech + cross-cultural training improves trust, commitment, and performance (Warkentin & Beranek, 1999).
• Self-Management: empowerment should be balanced; unclear link to effectiveness in multicultural teams, but process feedback helps (Ayoko et al., 2002).

Managing Multicultural Work Groups

• Align task & structure with diversity level; high‐interaction teams on creative tasks need more cultural management.
• Evaluate broadly: track exploration (innovation) alongside exploitation (output).
• Ensure requisite KSAs—including culturally rooted tacit knowledge—are present; cultural mix itself can be a resource.
• Cultivate superordinate goals to foster shared identity while respecting distinctiveness.

Summary Cheat-Sheet

• Six determinants of any group’s outcomes: external context, member resources, structure, task, processes, composition.
• Culture enters via norms, diversity, and relative distance; its impact depends on task & structure.
• GVTs remove location limits but add media & identity hurdles—success hinges on tailored communication norms, trust, and coordination mechanisms.
• Organization must supply support, fitting reward systems, high group status, training, and balanced empowerment to harness multicultural potential.

Discussion Starters

• How will you measure “good” group functioning?
• Which contextual levers (strategy, HR, rewards) can flip diversity from liability to asset?
• Where in your workflow would cultural faultlines most likely emerge?
• Which of your projects are ripe for virtual‐team deployment, and what safeguards are needed?