hoanghaitan
Posts : 4
Points : 12
Thanked : 0
Join date : 2014-02-24
 |  Subject: GLOBAL TEAM CHALLENGES  Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:31 am | |
| Eisenberg and Riley (2001) observe that “globalization is one of the drivers of growing workforce diversity in almost every industry, raising critical questions about ways to coordinate people of markedly different backgrounds to promote organizational and personal goals”. All groups have some element of diversity, yet from a team perspective it becomes significant when it affects a group’s performance. Maznevski (1994) identifies two different types of diversity: role-related and inherent (e.g., gender, nationality, cultural, personality). It is often these differences that allow a group to make decisions from a wider perspective. For example, if a company is marketing a product to women in France, having women and team members from France can assist the group in its advertising approach. Similarly, having team members fromtraining, sales, and finance can help the group look holistically at various facets of the project and develop a comprehensive timeline for product release.Although diversity in a team is valuable, the benefits of multiculturalism are not automatically positive or easily accomplished. In fact, more effort is usually required to establish the team’s communication strategy and working relationships so that productivity is achieved. Parker (2003) perceptively observes that “the communication modes that make virtual group status possible are the same modes that make group interaction difficult”.Although several studies have shown that multicultural groups develop more and better alternatives to problems and offer more creativity than homogeneous groups (Ling, 1990; McLeod & Lobel, 1992), others report that the actual performance outcome of the groups was decreased (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992; Kumar, Subramanian, & Nonis, 1991). Even the sense of permanence affects the working relationship of team members.Walther (1994) found that communicating virtually as a team was perceived as more positive when team members believe the interaction would be extended over time. Maznevski (1994) concludes that the differentiating factor is the degree of integration of diversity itself. She states that “diversity led to higher performing groups only when members were able to understand each other, combine andbuild on each other’s ideas”.Pothukuchi, Damanpour, Choi, Chen, and Park (2002) studied joint ventures and found that the outcome of cultural differences had both negative and positive results depending on whether the organizational members viewed national cultural differences as barriers or as opportunities. Keyton (2005) also observed that “if national cultural differences are perceived to be part of aninternational or multinational organizational culture and embraced positively, they can in turn create a challenging and stimulating work environment with organizational members developing an organizational culture to accommodate and bridge national cultural differences”. In a similar study, Hobman, Bordia, and Gallois (2004) reported that “there was a negative relationship between dissimilarity and work group involvement when individuals perceived low group openness to diversity, whereas there was no relationship when individuals perceived high group openness to diversity”. In their study of managers with an average of eight years of international experience, Hurn and Jenkins (2000) indicated that the managers’ primary frustrations were (1) approaches to time which related to punctuality and keeping appointments and schedules, (2) decision-making—specifically knowing when a decision had been reached by the team, (3) managing the tension between the need to build personal relationships and the need for immediate action, (4) problems created by nonverbal communication (i.e., posture, gestures, and eye contact), (5) idiomatic phrases (i.e.,“let’s hook up so you can teach me because I’mnew and pretty green”), (6) business practices for conducting meetings (e.g.,unstructured versus structured or open versus closed), and (7) challenges with giving and receiving feedback. They also identified the following items as a “cultural minefield” for team members working across cultures: (1) greetings, (2) degree of politeness, (3) showing agreement or disagreement, (4) use of “small talk,” (5) use of interpreters, (6) punctuality, (7) leave-taking, ( gift giving, (9) status of women, and (10) body language.Even the use of humor or teasing can be difficult to interpret when one is a member of a cross-cultural team. Dr. Jamie Murphy (2005), Business Professor at the University of Perth, Australia, recalled during an interview the challenges of understanding the role of teasing among coworkers that he encountered as an American working in an Australian culture. After several months of teasing, he asked a teammate to explain why people were frequently making sarcastic comments or continually using put-downs with colleagues. He was told that “we tease you to show you we accept you and like you, mate.” However, without the cultural understanding, others might easily take offense or withdraw from communicating when the repartee is interpreted as negative or disrespectful.Time issues often create challenges for global teams, including perceptions about past, present, and future scheduling of work projects and crossing time zones. For example, in the United States we try to do jobs faster, whereas the Japanese and Germans are more concerned with the overall synchronization of separate tasks.We analyze before we integrate, whereas Germans tend to integrate before they analyze and generally consider that part of the whole context. Even silence may cause misunderstandings. In one study conducted in Finland, Americans were offended at the gaps in conversation and the long periods of silence and mistook these as negative negotiation strategies. The Finns, however, have a high tolerance for silence and they were comfortable and considered this normal behavior (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2002).Team coordination, specifically for synchronous meetings, can become a critical point of tension. For many global teams, the time that is scheduled for the meeting may privilege some members and disadvantage others. Carol Ellis (2005), a senior advisor for ExxonMobil, reflected during an interview that “for us in the United States it was 7:00 a.m. and in Singapore it was 7:00 p.m. It seemed that it was easier for Europeans . . . because they always got to work a ‘normal’ day.” Time differences can not only disrupt family life but also often mean having less access to office resources needed to contribute to the dialogue or decisions being made.Language skills also tend to favor some team members over others. Although teams may agree on a certain working language, those who are not as fluent in that language are disadvantaged (Bantz, 1993). Stohl (2001) pointedly states that “language not only directs what we say, but influences how we shape and frame experience, mediates the meanings we assign to action, helpsdefine members of in- and out-groups, and confers status distinctions”. It appears that the more linguistically skillful and articulate one is, “the greater the opportunity for the acquisition of resources, capital, information, and expertise”.Another issue that may create an advantage for some members and may potentially cause conflict is the choice of technology or software used for working together. Keyton (2005) has observed that “technology structures the work of organizations and, as a result, influences organizational culture, work activities, organizational members’ work roles, and their work relationships”. Consider the consequences when the leader wants every project to be monitored through a specific project management tool, yet some team members may not own or know how to use the program. Or, when individual members of the team have software skills to create more professional looking presentations—even if the content is the same—it may give an advantage inthe decision-making process. For most teams, e-mail is the primary communication medium, and members exchange messages asynchronously.When working asynchronously, interaction patterns change as one is not required to take turns and ideas are often shared without interruption. Ideas can be documented for retrieval, and the text is constructed with opportunities for revision and reflection. On the negative side, conversations may be discontinuous or disjointed, and it takes extra effort to reconstruct the threads of various comments to make them cohesive. Although time, language, and technology can make it challenging for global teams, many organizations are using strategies to offset these issues. |
|
