hoanghaitan
Posts : 4
Points : 12
Thanked : 0
Join date : 2014-02-24
 |  Subject: Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Global Teams  Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:59 pm | |
| Effective decision-making often gives companies the competitive edge, especially when the playing field requires innovation and rapid solutions. Yet, working in a global environment creates new and complex challenges as members reach across cultures to solve problems through mediated technology. The research on the effectiveness of global teams is inconclusive and leads
one to speculate about the best course of action.
DECISION-MAKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING
Researchers have reported mixed and often conflicting results regarding the effects of working virtually on the quality of a team’s decision-making. For instance, several scholars report that there is no difference in decision quality between teams who work virtually and those who work in person (Cappel & Windsor, 2000; Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986; Straus & McGrath, 1994).
Others maintain that face-to-face teams outperform virtual ones (Andres, 2002;McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001), and some assert that virtual teams make better decisions than those working face-to-face (Hollingshead, 1996; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Schmidt, Montoya-Weiss, & Massey, 2001). Some hypothesize that increased time and repeated exposure to team members enhances decision-making such that a virtual team may improve its ability to
make decisions over time.
The same inconclusiveness is found in the literature about the performance outcomes of multicultural groups. Although previous research has shown that increased diversity on teams increases the innovation (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Cady & Valentine, 1999; W. Watson, Kuman, & Michaelson, 1993), Kirkman, Tesluk, and Rosen (2004) found that “team race heterogeneity was negatively related to team empowerment and to multiple indicators of team effectiveness”. Further, they noted that “team members on more racially diverse teams reported experiencing less team empowerment than did team members on more racially homogeneous teams”. At the same time, researchers found that empowerment was of greater importance for process improvement in teams that worked virtually (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Results like these are confusing for leaders and global teams, yet it is clear that there is a strong connection between message flow, participation, and quality of decision-making.
There is one point that most scholars and practitioners do agree on— communication, integration, and clarification are the keys to ensuring group performance. For groups to work together to make good decisions and solve problems, certain conditions must exist at both the individual and group level. It is critical that each member has (1) a clear understanding of his or her contribution to the task, (2) an ability to take the other’s perspective long enough to consider input, (3) motivation to communicate and work together rather than independently, and (4) the ability to establish and maintain a sense of trust.
Crookes and Thomas (1998) compared Chinese managers and contrasted local managers with expatriates (who were more typically Western) to study how culture might correspond with approaches to problem-solving. Using adaptation-innovation theory (Kirton, 1987), they discovered a correlation between cultural stereotypes and preferences for either an adaptation style or innovation style. Adaptors tended to develop their ideas on the basis of preexisting
definitions of the problem and tended to work within established guidelines and rules. They approached decision-making by “refining existing solutions to problems” (Crookes & Thomas, 1998). Innovators tended to “reconstruct the problem separating it from the accepted definitions and frameworks, generated many ideas, and developed unusual solutions”. They approached decision-making from the perspective of working outside traditional rules and constraints. Each approach carries its own level of risk. For the adaptor, however, risk is initially much lower because ideas are based on previously established precepts. Conversely, the “ideas of the innovator can be more strongly resisted and their originator treated with caution” (Crookes
& Thomas, 1998). It appears that both cultural value orientation and organizational culture influence one’s predisposition to problem-solving. Large bureaucratic organizations may discourage risk-taking and encourage the adaptor style similar to those countries that value high power distance. This can affect how members themselves approach decision-making.
The effectiveness of decision-making in global teams is a factor of the decision process selected, the media used, and the complexity of the problem itself (E. Kelley, 2001). In effective teams, as task interdependence increased, so did interaction frequency; and as task complexity increased, so did message complexity, as the most effective teams selected richer media to match. For
example, as the number of borders (cultural, professional, company, country) spanned within the group increased, they often used audio conference calls instead of e-mail and the “successful [team] focused specifically on building relationships to increase trust and develop shared views across these borders, while the ineffective team did not”. The “effective teams exhibited a
strong, repeating temporal pattern to their interaction incidents” that Kelley (2001) referred to as “a heartbeat rhythmically pumping new life into the team’s processes” providing stability to the team.
Establishing a communication pattern in the early phase of a team’s development is important for helping groups make decisions and solve problems. Social cognition theory (Bandura, 1986) reinforces the importance of strong communication patterns and suggests that empowerment is a socially constructed phenomenon requiring extensive communication, trust, and confidence
in the skills of other team members. Roberto (2004) found that “groups attained greater efficiency and consensus if they made a series of small but critical choices during the process, rather than focusing entirely on the final selection of a course of action”. He used the metaphor of “pruning a tree” in that successful groups systematically “pruned” member ideas, thoughts, and views, whereas the less effective teams tried to simultaneously analyze all views, which often proved to be cognitively overwhelming. “Pruning” makes the task more manageable and makes the evaluation process more transparent, enhancing members’ perception of fairness in the process while gradually building momentum that is more sustainable.
Teams often experience the tension of finding the balance between efficiency in decision-making and the need to build consensus for smooth implementation. Previous research suggests that attempts to enhance efficiency inhibit the development of understanding and commitment (Roberto, 2004), so leaders must find ways to seek the balance between these seemingly opposite polarities. The process of working globally is still in its infancy, and research conducted only a few years ago may need to be confirmed or updated to include recent technologies and team members who have greater exposure to technology and working globally with multiple cultures.
TRUST AND TEAM PROBLEM-SOLVING
Trust has been identified as an essential ingredient by several scholars studying virtual teams (Grabowski & Roberts, 1998; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). For many, trust implies an expectation that someone will do what they say they will do and that they are capable of doing it; however, trust is often undermined by a lack of clarity about purpose and goals or by a lack of understanding of individual roles and responsibilities. Social categorizing
theory (Moreland, 1985) posits that people tend to sort one another into categories based on demographics and may attribute greater trust and confidence in other team members who are perceived to be more similar. Kirkman et al. (2004) state that “those who are recognizably different in terms of demographics may be more affected by in-group and out-group biases than those who are more similar”. There are, however, certain communication behaviors that either encourage or discourage the building of trust.
Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) organized over 350 graduate students from different countries into virtual teams to study how trust was developed and maintained. They found that although all groups revealed sources of vulnerability, uncertainty, and expectations, how they responded to these challenges had a significant relationship to their final outcome. Specifically, they found that certain communication behaviors facilitated trust early in the team’s lifecycle and other behaviors facilitated trust after the initial start-up phase. Communication behaviors that facilitated trust in the early stages of the team included the following:
• Developing a system for coping with technical and task uncertainty
• Individuals taking the initiative to make suggestions and respond
• Predictable and timely communication with a regular pattern for exchanges
Communication behaviors that facilitated trust after the initial start-up included the following:
• Leadership based on proven expertise and revealing a positive tone.
• Successful transitions from social to task focus with consistent expectations.
Cosmopolitan Leadership, Teams, and the Global Workforce 139 Team members genuinely solicited input from others and did not judge responses. Although trust is important to group cohesion and effective problemsolving, an individual’s cultural values and cognitions affect their interactions. Trust, decision-making, and problem-solving occur “within intricately interwoven cultural tapestries that transcend individuals” (Stohl, 2001). All studies concur that trust is essential to making good decisions and solving problems. |
|
