Effective Cross-Cultural Teams: An Examination of Three Manufacturing Firms in Australia and New Zealand
Increased cultural diversity in today's global organisations, combined with the popularity of team based management techniques, makes the influence of cultural differences on work team process and function a salient management issue. This study explores the reactions of team members to the implementation of teams in three organisations with multi-cultural workforces. The effects of organisational context and team cultural composition on team processes and outcomes are examined.
Organisations in many parts of the world are experiencing a difficult transition with regard to managing workforce diversity. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of multinational organisations which are faced with increasingly multicultural work forces (Adler & Ghadar, 1990), and possibly, there is no more diverse a workforce than exists in the manufacturing firms of Australia and New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand, 1994). In team environments, requirements for coordination, cooperation, and communication make the management of multicultural interactions an issue of primary importance. In this research, we examine team members operating in the multicultural environment, their reactions to the implementation of work teams, and team effectiveness outcomes. The substantial use of work teams by organisations has spurred a significant amount of research on the successful implementation of teams (e.g., Campion, Medskar & Higgs, 1993; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987). Models of team behaviour (e.g., Hackman, 1987; Nieva, Fleishman & Reick, 1978) have typically identified both group composition and organisational context antecedents to group effectiveness. Here, we are concerned with the implementation of teams in environments characterised by a culturally diverse workforce. Therefore, effects of both composition and context on team process and function are considered in the present study, and are described below.
Team compositionThe effects of group composition on outcomes has been of interest for more than 40 years (e.g., Haythorn, 1953; Schutz, 1955). Early research on group composition tended to focus on the idea that a high level of group member similarity on some dimension would lead to more positive attitudes, and in turn, higher levels of performance (Haythorn, 1968). However, as the field evolved, Steiner (1972) and others began to suggest that the problem was not quite as simple as previous researchers might have indicated. Currently, findings seem to indicate that similarity or homogeneity among group members probably facilitates the formation of positive attitudes, and decreases absenteeism and turnover (Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991). With regard to performance, simple tasks may be facilitated by group homogeneity, whereas complex decision making may be hindered by it (Jackson, 1992; Ravlin & Meglino, 1993). These conclusions are drawn from the idea that people enjoy being with similar others, but that a variety of perspectives and group member attributes may enhance performance on more complex tasks.Recent research regarding group composition has begun to more fully develop theoretical perspectives regarding effects on attitudinal and behavioural outcomes; however, no consensus as to how this problem is best approached has emerged. As regards the cultural composition of groups, Thomas, Ravlin, and Wallace (1994) have argued for an approach that draws from individual, group, and societal levels of analysis. They suggested that the importance of the cultural composition of work groups is not to be found in direct effects on team functioning, but through intermediate mechanisms or conduits. These conduits address socio- cultural, group, and individual influences on how members respond cognitively, affectively, and behaviourly in groups of differential levels of cultural heterogeneity. These mechanisms, as described below, are (a) socio-cultural norms, or the orientations of the broader societal/demographic groups represented in the team toward group function and structure, (b) cultural composition, or the amount of cultural heterogeneity represented in the team, and (c) relative cultural difference, or the extent to which team members are culturally different from one another. These mechanisms are interrelated; however, each has different effects, and in some cases, may lead to conflicting predictions. Each has both cognitive and motivational aspects that may be identified as the central catalysts affecting the outcomes of interest.
Socio-Cultural NormsGutek (1985) notes in her work on sex composition of groups that roles drawn from the larger societal context have a tendency to "spill over" into work group function. This effect occurs because values, or beliefs about how one should behave (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987), influence judgment of the behaviour of self and others, and perception of environmental stimuli and task structure. Cultures provide individuals with many of the values or standards used to evaluate situations and potential courses of action in group settings (Erez & Earley, 1993; Hofstede, 1980, 1983), and thus, these standards "spill over" into the work group context. Empirical evidence for the spill over of standards for group behaviour from one situation to the next is provided in a study by Bettenhausen and Murnighan (1991), in which members of new groups who had previously developed norms for cooperation acted cooperatively in a subsequent similar task.The influence of these specific beliefs drawn from the larger socio-cultural context occurs through both cognitive and motivational means. Research on work values has shown that values influence perception in ambiguous situations (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987), thus, socio-cultural belief systems influence what is perceived as correct for group members (cognition). Values-oriented beliefs also influence what is thought to be desirable (Rokeach, 1973). Therefore, we may well expect team members of different cultural origins to be differentially motivated by situational contingencies (Erez & Earley, 1993) and by team outcomes.
Group Cultural CompositionAt the group level, composition has primarily been defined as the amount of heterogeneity represented in the group. As noted previously, much research on group composition has focused on the idea that a high level of similarity on some dimension would lead to more positive attitudes, and in turn, higher levels of performance. Another view of team composition, however, introduces the concept of status and advantage. Blalock (1957) argued that as a relatively advantaged group becomes less numerous, and as a relatively disadvantaged group becomes more numerous, the advantaged group will feel politically and economically threatened by their perceived inferiors, and become more hostile, thus worsening relations. While other cognitively oriented approaches focus only on the proportions of various subgroups (e.g., Blau, 1977), and not the groups they represent, Blalock's motivational view, and the socio-cultural norm approach described above, suggest that what groups are represented (e.g., Asian, Anglo) is a powerful factor in determining how intra-group relationships will be played out.Status evaluations and relative advantage of these groups may have even broader ranging effects than are outlined by Blalock, in that status evaluations, as a by-product of multiculturalism, may in fact determine group members' responses to conflicting demands placed on them by culturally different peers. Status composition of the group, as derived from cultural heterogeneity, may also influence commitment and satisfaction with the group by providing either a positive or negative group identity for a member.
Relative Cultural DifferenceThe third mechanism by which cultural diversity may have its effect on work groups is the degree to which individual group members are culturally different. Relational demography (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) is based on the analysis of variation in group member attributes at the individual level. Perhaps the largest amount of theorising on the issue of cultural composition can be categorised as implicitly dealing with this dimension. The similarity-attraction paradigm (e.g., Byrne, 1971) argues that the more similar group members are to one another, the more attracted they will be to the group. In addition, social categorisation theory (Tajfel, 1974), which has become a popular way of approaching group cultural composition, notes that people derive an important part of their self- identity from the groups to which they belong, and that actively distinguishing between themselves and other groups is part of this process of affiliation. Thus the degree to which an individual regards him or herself as similar to other members of the team has important implications for the degree to which the individual may identify with the team, or actively distance him or herself from other members. These two approaches, similarity-attraction and social identity, both have a motivational catalyst, in that affiliating oneself with similar others, and taking part of one's identity from a larger aggregate, fulfils a self-validation function for the ego, as one's beliefs and values are confirmed and supported by others.Alternatively, using a cognitive approach, Mullen (1987) suggests that the more culturally different an individual is from other team members, the more self- aware he/she becomes. In this process of increasing self-awareness, socio- cultural norms for behaviour, as discussed above, may become more important in guiding responses to culturally different others. This brief review of group composition antecedents to team functioning suggests that the cultural composition of the team may have an effect on team outcomes through several mechanisms. Although it was beyond the scope of the current study to research all possible influences, the specific cultures represented in the team, the relative status of these cultures, and the degree of homogeneity or similarity among the team members were examined here with regard to their impact on team processes and outcomes within the organisational context.
Organisational ContextPrevious research on the effectiveness of work teams (Campion, et al., 1993; Goodman, Ravlin & Argote, 1986; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987) has identified a number of organisational level antecedents to the effective functioning of teams. Drawing on this literature, we focused on seven characteristics which seem particularly salient in terms of a multicultural work force, that is, these characteristics were thought to potentially interact with diversity of composition. Management support for teams, management support for cultural diversity, the extent to which teams are self-managed, the extent to which individuals' rewards come from the team, the status of the team, the participative climate of the organisation, and the amount of training received by the team are each described below.Management support for teams. Management controls the resources required for teams to be effective. While little previous research relates directly to this antecedent variable (Campion, et al., 1993; Shea & Guzzo, 1987), it seems clear that the level of management support is positively related to the ability of teams to perform. Sundstrum, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990) demonstrated a positive relationship between an organisational culture which is supportive of teams and team effectiveness, and we expected that relationship to potentially be even more important in a culturally diverse environment. Management support for cultural diversity. Just as the organisational culture must support teams to ensure their effective performance, management support for cultural diversity should also be positively related to the performance of culturally diverse teams. For example, Cox (1993) suggests that the climate for diversity influences individual affect, which in turn impacts employee contributions to the organisation. Research that shows the importance of the value congruence between the firm or management and its employees (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989) is consistent with the notion of the effect of a supportive climate on individual and team performance. We anticipated that support for diversity would be most important in diverse contexts. Team level rewards. Much of what is known about the effect of rewards on performance has come from research at the individual level of analysis (see Wageman, 1995 for an exception). The extent to which these findings are applicable to the group level is somewhat uncertain. For example, Pearce and Ravlin (1987) suggest that effective self-regulating work groups will be most effective with a mix of individual and group rewards. However, Wageman (1995) notes that these hybrid reward systems or task designs can lead to poor group performance, and laboratory research indicates that cooperative rewards are most effective with interdependent group tasks (Rosenbaum, Moore, Cotton, Cook, Hieser, Shovar, & Gray, 1980). Campion, et al. (1993) found that group level rewards were positively related to group member satisfaction. Contributing to the variety of findings on this issue, several studies (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Leung & Bond, 1984) have found that individualists and collectivists are guided by different norms for reward allocation. Thus, in the present context, we surmised that the effectiveness of a particular reward allocation strategy would be directly influenced by the cultural composition of the team. Team status. The argument for the effect of the status of a team on its performance is based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). That is, the status and success of the groups to which one belongs has an impact on the self esteem of group members, to the extent that their self identity is derived from the group. Therefore, individuals will be motivated to maintain and enhance their group's standing, and hence their own self esteem. Additionally, high group status will have a positive effect on an individual's self concept, and in turn, on individual performance. However, the extent to which individuals from different cultures derive their self identity from the type of ad hoc groups formed as a result of team implementation may vary considerably (Thomas, Ravlin, & Wallace, 1994). For example, status of the group may have a greater impact on collective self-esteem, confidence, and potency for groups composed primarily of Anglos than for groups of Asians. Participative Climate. Related to the degree of support for teams that exists in the company is the extent to which the climate of the organisation supports participation by employees in organisational decision making. To the extent that team members feel that they are able to exert influence in the company, they may see their task as more meaningful. However, in some high power distance cultures (Hofstede, 1980), participation is not regarded as a positive process. Thus, we expected composition to interact with participative climate, particularly with regard to affective outcomes. Training. The adequacy of training, including technical and team skills, has been shown to be significantly and positively related to both employee satisfaction and managerial judgments of team effectiveness (Campion, et al., 1993). Additionally, the literature on training for team tasks suggests that, when all activities and tasks cannot be specified, training in team skills can be especially important (Wagner, Hibbits, Rosenblatt, & Schulz, 1977). Pearce and Ravlin (1987) suggest that initial training for teams should include training in group decision making and the job skills necessary for accomplishing multiple skill tasks. Despite the intuitively obvious need for team training and a significant amount of research, the empirical evidence in support of the link between the level of team training and team effectiveness is not conclusive (Campion, et al., 1993; DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981). We would speculate, however, that training in team skills will be more important when groups contain more diverse memberships, in that members have more interpersonal barriers to overcome.
Team effectivenessOur review of literature suggests that research evidence supports the importance of team composition and organisational context variables in team effectiveness. Following Hackman (1987), we suggest that effective teams can be defined using three criteria. First, the outcomes of the team effort must meet or exceed the standards for quantity and quality as set by the organisation. Second, the team experience must satisfy the personal needs of team members. And third, the social processes which allow the team to function must maintain or enhance the capability of team members to work together. The research presented below examined the impact of organisational context on team effectiveness relative to culturally diverse environments, with a view to identifying its relative effects in diverse and less diverse work groups.
MethodOverviewThis research project involved two phases of data collection and analysis. The first phase involved semi-structured interviews with team members, team leaders, and managers at three multinational firms which use teams as an organisational or management technique. The operation of these teams was also observed. Based on the results of this phase, on a review of relevant literature, and on results of our own prior work (Thomas, Ravlin & Wallace, 1994) a questionnaire was developed to examine the organisational antecedents and processes associated with the effective functioning of culturally diverse work teams. The second phase involved the collection of data, through the use of this questionnaire, from a broad based sample of team members at the three sites. Also, during the second phase, managerial opinions concerning the performance of each team were collected.
ParticipantsThe participants in this study were employees of one of three manufacturing firms located in Australia or New Zealand. Firms were chosen based on their use of team based management techniques, the amount of cultural diversity in the firm, and their willingness to participate. Site A is located in major metropolitan area of Australia, while sites I and F are located in large cities in New Zealand. All of the firms used teams as a management or organisational device. However, they varied somewhat in the amount of time they had been using this technique and in the types of activities in which teams were involved. All of the firms had a significant amount of cultural diversity in their workforce. Thirty five different national cultures were represented across the four firms.
Interview ProcedureSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 team members and nine managers at the three sites. The number of team members interviewed was distributed approximately evenly across the three sites. The interviewees were selected so as to represent as broad a cross section of the employee population as possible, with the restriction that they be capable of effectively communicating in English. Participation in the interview was voluntary and subjects were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses.The foci of the team member interviews were their perceptions of the criteria for team effectiveness, the importance of the team to them, the characteristics of effective versus ineffective team members, team processes such as conflict resolution and information gathering, the support and training provided for teams, the effect of cultural diversity on team performance, and their preferences for the cultural composition of teams. The interview protocol consisted of open-ended questions which allowed considerable latitude in responses after the basic information was gathered. The focus of manager interviews was on establishing similarity or difference among the three sites on the organisational context of team implementation. Both employee and managerial interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes each and all were tape recorded. The taped interviews were then transcribed verbatim. These transcriptions were then content analysed according to the dimensions noted above, and answers to specific questions were tabulated.
Questionnaire ProcedureThe questionnaire was distributed to team members at the regularly scheduled team meetings, which are held with varying degrees of frequency at all three sites. Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary. The anonymity of respondents and the confidentiality of their responses was assured. During the first phase of the study, it was learned that certain segments of the employee populations were not fluent enough in English to complete a pencil and paper instrument in that language. The questionnaire was, therefore, administered in standard Chinese (Mandarin) and Vietnamese as well as in English. The questionnaire was translated using the back-translation method suggested by Brislin (1970) to insure conceptual equivalency. Of 360 questionnaires distributed 206 were returned for a response rate of 57%. The number of teams represented was 41.
Questionnaire MeasuresThe variables measured in this phase of the study fell into three categories. These were organisational context antecedents to work team processes, team composition variables and measures of team effectiveness.Organisational context. Organisational context variables measured were management support for teams, management support for cultural diversity, the extent to which teams were self-managed, the extent to which individuals' rewards came from the team, the status of the team, the participative climate of the organisation, and the amount of training received by the team. All organisational context variables were measured using 5 point Likert type scales anchored by strongly disagree = 1 and strongly agree = 5. Sample items and reliability coefficients are given in Table 1. Unless otherwise noted, items were developed for this or earlier research by the authors (Thomas, et al., 1994).
Table 1 -- Organisaitonal context: Sample items and scale reliabilitiesSample items Number Reliability coefficients Management support for teams 2 .88 "Higher management in the company supports the concept of teams." Management support for diversity 2 .74 "In this company people from all cultures are treated with respect." Team self management 3 .83 "As a member of a team, I have a real say in how the team carries out its work." Team rewards 2 .80 "My performance evaluation is strongly influenced by how well my team performs." Team status 1 NA "Taking all things into account, I feel that my group's status in the company is high." Participative climate 3 .69 "The persons in this company who are affected by decisions are asked for their ideas." Team training 3 .88 "The company provides adequate technical training for my team." Team Composition. Team composition variables included in the study were the national culture of team members, the relative status of individual team members, and the degree of team heterogeneity. Although the response rate of over 50% was reasonable for this type of research, unfortunately, it did not allow us to develop more fine grained measures of team heterogeneity and individual relative difference from all other group members. Thus, these aspects of composition were captured through assessment of individuals' perceptions of similarity to their team mates. National culture was indicated by participants in their answer to an open- ended question about the culture with which they most identified. Thirty five different national cultures were recorded. To facilitate analysis, these thirty five cultures were, based on previous research (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), reduced to three relatively similar clusters. These cultural clusters were Polynesian, Asian, and Anglo-European. Additionally, this clustering was consistent with participants' descriptions of the cultures represented and categorisations used for administrative purposes in the firms. Status of team members was measured with a single Likert type item: "Taking all things into account such as my age, sex, position, cultural background, I feel that my status in my team is high." Participants responded on a five point scale anchored by strongly agree = 5 and strongly disagree = 1. Similarity of participants to other team members was measured by four Likert type items adapted from Pulakos and Wexley (1983). Participants responded on a seven point scale anchored by not at all similar = 1 and extremely similar = 7. Internal consistency reliability as measured by Cronbach's alpha was .83. Team effectiveness. Consistent with our definition of an effective team, both process and outcome measures of team functioning were used to assess effectiveness. The principal team performance measure was an evaluation by management of each team's effectiveness on five dimensions of performance; technical quality, budget and cost control, meeting the assigned schedule, value of team results to the company, and overall performance (Keller, 1992). Management rated teams on a five point scale anchored by very high = 5 and very low = 1 for each item. Cronbach's alpha for the five items was .81. For subsequent analysis at the individual level, each participant was assigned the summated performance score associated with their team. Individual outcomes measured were satisfaction with the team and with the team process. Team process outcomes were cohesiveness, commitment to the team, emotional conflict in the team, substantive conflict in the team, organisational citizenship behaviour, team spirit, and trust. All individual and process outcomes were measured with a five point Likert type scale anchored by strongly agree = 5 and strongly disagree = 1. The source of the scales, the number of items, and the internal consistency reliability of these process and outcome scales, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 -- Scales for team effectiveness variablesScale Source No of items Alpha Individual Satisfaction Hackman & Oldham, 1975 5 .86 Process Satisfaction Thomas, Ravlin & Wallace, 1995 3 .87 Emotional Conflict 3 .83 Substantive Conflict 3 .81 Cohesiveness Watson & Michaelson, 1988 2 .82 Organisational Citizenship Williams & Anderson, 1991 3 .79 Commitment to Team Watson & Michaelson, 1988 3 .77 Trust Thomas & Ravlin, 1995 3 .78 Team Spirit Campion et al. 1993 3 .79 ResultsInterviewsThe following provides a summary of the results of the content analysis of the interviews conducted in the first phase of the project. These results were used in the development of the questionnaire previously outlined and provide some insight into team development and functioning at the three sites.Management Interviews. The focus of manager interviews was on establishing similarity or difference among the three sites on the selection and career development of team members, the resources, support and training provided to teams, the reward systems for teams, and the climate of the organisation as regards teams, participation, and cultural diversity. The results of manager interviews are presented in the following profiles of each site along these dimensions. Site A. Site A is an Australian firm which designs and manufactures aircraft components and performs scheduled maintenance on large commercial aircraft. The tasks performed by the teams range from solving problems related to aircraft component design to process related problem solving associated with aircraft component manufacture. Regarding selection activities, managers reported that previously, selection of team members had not considered the ability of the employee to work in teams. However, they agreed that this would be a desirable characteristic and that inability to work in teams would be detrimental to promotion potential. The following quote was typical:
You just can't work at (Site A) if you're a supervisor, a core supervisor or a cell leader, or logistics or whatever it is, you must be able to work in a team. That's really number one, everything else comes secondary to that.As regards institutional support for teams, managers were not very specific about the nature of support. However, they agreed that support in the way of training and top management involvement was much more evident during the first six to twelve months of implementing teams than it is at present. Intensive training was done during the implementation of teams. Now, training is limited to a two day training session for team leaders which is to be expanded to three days. As with many Australian firms, the ability to reward individuals or teams is limited by the collective bargaining agreement. At Site A, managers responded to the question about a reward system for team performance as follows:
I think it's fair to say we haven't got one.... we really haven't got a reward system.Managers reported that top management and the formal structure of the organisation emphasised the importance of teams. For example, reorganising into work teams meant some duplication of resources, which was provided. However, one manager reported that the informal system sometimes reverted to "the old style of management when the going gets tough or something goes wrong." While recognising the high level of cultural diversity in the work force, managers were hard pressed to think of ways that the organisational climate supported diversity. The following examples were typical:
Yes, it's not something we give a lot of active thought to.Managers had mixed views about the power structure of the organisation and the relationship of teams to that power structure. Some said that power resided with the cell leader if he knew how to use it. Others said power resided with top management and with the unions. Site F. Site F is a New Zealand assembler of automobiles. Teams at this facility are limited to ad-hoc groups which are organised around a problem or opportunity. Teams vary in the length of time they have been together and in membership. Team membership includes a cross-section of all levels of employees. The teams operate autonomously under a "Champion" and are typically involved in problem solving about quality, resource allocation, or scheduling. Teams interact as dictated by the nature of the project in which they are involved. Managers did not seem to believe that the ability to work in teams was considered in selection decisions. The following response was typical:
...assessing whether or not someone has worked in teams and had been effective in teams is not something that I'm aware that we've got into.However, managers felt that the ability to work in teams would be considered in a promotion decision. As regards institutional support for teams, managers mentioned the provision of time and facilities for team meetings and the liaison function of the team champion. No regular training program devoted to team activities was identified. As in other New Zealand firms, this firm's ability to provide monetary rewards for team performance is limited by the collective bargaining agreement. Managers mentioned symbolic rewards such as company paraphernalia (caps, badges, jackets, etc.) or morning tea which have been provided to high performing teams. In describing the organisational climate for teams managers mentioned the flurry of activity surrounding this site's competition for a company wide quality award which precipitated much of the team activity. The award was won; however, since that time the enthusiasm for teams seems to have waned. The organisational climate regarding the cultural diversity of the workforce is summarised in the following comments:
I don't think anyone around here is treated any different from any other.The relationship of teams to the power structure of the organisation was described as follows:
Well, I think the organisation is still reasonably autocratic, and the power is through the president and the management function.Site I. Site I is a New Zealand manufacturer of window hardware with employees organised into teams around natural work groups. Team members also participated in cross-functional or "methods" teams which are organised around the solution to a problem or improvement of production methods. All members of the firm, in all functions and at all levels, are organised into teams. Selection of new employees involves a subjective assessment of how well the prospective employee will work in teams, as indicated by the following quote.
... the people who are working, say as process operators or engineers... the team leaders get to look at them, ... or get to select them, I should say. One of the aspects is are they going to fit into my team.The ability to work in teams seems central to this firm, and numerous examples of people who self-selected out of the company or whose career progress was slowed as a result of not being able to function in teams were presented. Team support resources mentioned included a culture or atmosphere that allowed teams to flourish, as well as the provision of time and facilities for team activities. The following quote exemplified management's attitude:
... we have delegated responsibility to the teams in a very real sense, it is not just a token delegation. They have the wheel ...All employees go through an induction process which orients them to how the firm is organised into teams. In addition, all team members undergo training in team methods and methods related to job definitions and control. Team members in some areas are encouraged to develop multiple skills through company sponsored training in order to be able to fill in for other team members. The basic reward structure for individuals at Site I is a pay for skills formula which is consistent with the collective bargaining agreement. The rewards system for teams includes symbolic activities (awards of sports bags, sponsorship of social functions, etc.) which reward team performance. Additionally, a voucher system has recently been introduced that allows teams to "win" vouchers from customers, other teams, and managers for team effectiveness. These vouchers will be converted to cash awards at the end of the year in proportion to company profits. Management describes the organisational culture for teams at this firm in the following way:
... fundamentally the whole basis of our organisation is the team. It is not a block of people who are in production. It is a team in whatever they are doing.Managers at this site seemed to have a sense of awareness of the influence of cultural diversity and mentioned their perceptions of how one cultural group or the other reacted differently in team situations. The egalitarian nature of the firm where "they can speak to anyone... there is certainly no feeling that there is a hierarchical thing..." was cited as support for cultural diversity. The value that management placed on diverse employees is expressed in the following statement:
And, you know we're gradually getting the message to those people, you know, (that) we are all valuable commodities.Management of this firm was clear about the relationship of teams to the centre of power in the organisation, although some expressed some reservations as to how this process was working, as exemplified by the following statements:
In theory the centre of power is in the team leaders and the teams, but for one reason or another they are still not picking it up and running with it.Results of the managerial interviews indicated that the three sites differed in the extent to which teams have been adopted as a management practice, the degree of institutional support provide for teams, and the degree to which teams are central to the functioning of the firm. Firms also differ as regards their recognition of and support for a culturally diverse workforce. Based on these results, our subjective ranking of the degree of support in the environment for culturally diverse work teams, in order from most supportive to least supportive, was Site I, Site A, Site F. This interview based ranking was later supported by questionnaire results, as described further below. Team Member Interviews. The foci of the team member interviews were their perceptions of the criteria for team effectiveness, the importance of the team to them, the characteristics of effective versus ineffective team members, team processes such as conflict resolution and information gathering, the support and training provided for teams, the effect of cultural diversity on team performance, and their preferences for the cultural composition of teams. Information was also gathered in order to classify the respondent according to team type (functional or project), status (team member or team leader), cultural identity, and tenure with the team. Fifty five percent of the team members interviewed were also team leaders. The role of team leader varied somewhat across the three sites. However, these employees were clearly associated with the functions performed by the team as opposed to strictly supervisory or management activities. The types of teams to which team members belonged were classified as project teams (teams which were organised around the completion of some project or task) and functional teams (teams which were organised around the natural work group of the team member). Twenty four percent of the team members interviewed were members of a project team and 76% were members of a functional team. Respondents also were classified according to whether or not they were a member of the majority culture of the country in which the firm operated. Thirty four percent of the interviewees were members of the majority culture and 61% were minority culture members, with 4% unspecified. Twenty nine per cent of the sample had been with their team one year or less and 71% had more than a year's experience with their team. Team members were asked a number of specific questions about the functioning of their team and their attitudes about teams. Answers were tabulated according to the categories which emerged in the analysis. The results of the tabulation of these responses are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 -- Results of categorisation of team member interview responsesHow often does your team meet? Daily 21.1% Weekly 13% Fortnightly 21.1% Unspecified 23.7% What is the effect of cultural diversity on team effectiveness? No effect 34.2% Positive 13.2% Negative 23.7% Either Pos/Neg 26.3% Missing 2.6% How does your team resolve differences of opinion about how to get things done? Reach consensus 36.8% Refer to team leader 21.1% Majority rules 7.9% Try out all solutions 7.9% Refer to rules/procedure 5.3% Unresolved/No answer 21.1% How do you know if your team is doing a good job at its task? Interpersonal (Social) factors 31.6% How well we work together 68.4% Output (Task accomplishment) 86.8% Is being a member of your team important to you? Yes 52.6% No 44.7% Missing 2.6% Why is being a team member important? Personal reasons (Self-esteem/social) 36.9% Task accomplishment 68.4% Are you generally satisfied with the way your team is functioning now? Not satisfied 18.4% Satisfied 52.6% Very satisfied 26.3% Missing 2.6% How/where do you get more/better information about what your job is? Inside team (Other team members, leader) 90% Superiors 44.7% Outside team (Customers, suppliers, etc.) 60.5% If you had a choice would you be in a team with all one culture or with a mixed group? Mixed cultural group 81.6% Homogeneous (like me) 5.3% No pref/Missing 13.2% What makes a team member effective? What are they like? How do they act? Fits with team 89.5% Committed to task 68.4% Brings needed skills/knowledge 55.3% Communicates well 55.3% Cooperative 47.4% Helps others 36.8% Attendance (meetings, etc.) 15.8% Note. Some response percentages may sum to more than 100 because multiple responses from individuals were coded. In addition to the tabulations shown in Table 3, it was noted that 31.6% of the respondents mentioned the need for addition training for team members, 34.2% mentioned the need for additional management support of teams, and 44.7% mentioned language as a barrier to team effectiveness.
QuestionnairesSurvey results were analysed in order to focus on three aspects of the implementation of teams in multicultural work environments. First, the variability in the organisational context for teams, as indicated by the interview results, was examined in more detail. Next, the effect of the seven organisational context variables on team effectiveness was examined. Finally, the effects of cultural differences and of cultural heterogeneity, both directly and relative to context characteristics, on team effectiveness were examined.Organisational context. In order to examine differences among the three sites on the organisational context variables, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed, with the site location of participants as the independent variable and the seven organisational context variables the dependent variables. Consistent with the results of our interviews, a statistically significant difference existed across the three sites on the seven organisational context variables, F (Wilks' criterion) = 4.61, p < .001. Subsequent analyses of the differences across the three sites on each of the seven context variables individually suggested that Site I had a significantly more positive climate for teams and for diversity than Site A and was somewhat more positive than Site F. These results were consistent with our subjective assessment of the organisational context at the three sites, and suggest that effects of context here must be interpreted with caution, given the possibility of other unmeasured site differences. Results of these one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) are presented in Table 4.
Table 4 -- Effect of site location on organisational contextMeans Dependent Variable Site I Site F Site A F Upward influence 10.20a 8.70b 8.33b 11.85** Support for Teams 8.11a 8.40a 6.18b 12.58** Team self-management 11.00a 10.05ab 9.55b 3.52* Team rewards 6.80a 6.20ab 5.88b 4.12* Support for diversity 10.97a 9.85b 9.18b 8.71** Team status N/S N/S N/S .15 Team training 10.88a 9.35b 7.47c 18.68** Differently subscripted means within rows are significantly different at p<.05. * = p<.05 ** = p<.01 We next examined the relationship between the seven organisational context variables and the team composition variables with the process and outcome criteria of team effectiveness. Descriptive statistics for these variables are presented in Table 5 and correlations among the variables are presented in Table 6 at the individual level, and Table 7 at the group level. For variables measured at the individual level, group level correlations were obtained by averaging individual level responses.
Table 5 -- Descriptive Statistics for Study VariablesVariable Mean SD Cohesiveness 7.00 1.91 Commitment to Team 16.91 4.07 Emotional Conflict 7.24 3.09 Individual Satisfaction 18.12 4.02 Management Support for Diversity 10.51 2.36 Management Support for Teams 7.84 1.81 Organisational Citizenship 10.98 2.50 Perceived Similarity 17.71 5.37 Satisfaction with Process 10.00 2.97 Self-management 10.80 2.82 Status in the Team 3.63 .97 Status of the Team 3.57 .99 Substantive Conflict 8.49 2.59 Team Rewards 6.58 1.93 Team Spirit 11.29 2.44 Training 9.98 3.07 Trust 10.95 2.48 Participative Climate 9.69 2.44 Table 6 -- Intercorrelations of organisational context and individual difference variables with team process variables: Individual level.Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Organisational Variables: Management support for diversity .33 .33 -.15 .40 -.05 .37 .33 .22. 38 .43 Management support for teams .30 .12 -.39 .18 -.19 .27 .17 .20 .23 .26 Self-management .50 .51 -.22 .49 -.13 .44 .48 .11 .47 .63 Status of team .37 .40 -.21 .33 -.12 .44 .45 .16 .35 .36 Team rewards .28 .40 -.12 .47 -.09 .40 .45 .16 .39 .43 Training .30 .30 -.07 .41 -.11 .32 .25 .23 .47 .50 Participative climate .22 .13 -.12 .33 -.08 .20 .21 .06 .22 .30 Composition variables: Perceived Similarity .40 .26 -.24 .30 -.18 .39 .35 .16 .39 .43 Status in team .32 .29 -.25 .31 -.06 .34 .30 .12 .31 .30 Note. r>.13 significant at p<.05 and r>.18 significant at p<.01. N = at least 194 for all pairs. Process Variables 1 Cohesiveness 2 Commitment to team 3 Emotional conflict 4 Organisational citizenship 5 Substantive conflict 6 Team Spirit 7 Trust Outcome Variables 8 Performance 9 Individual satisfaction 10 Satisfaction with process Table 7 -- Intercorrelations of organisational context and individual difference variables with team process variables: Group level.Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Organisational Variables: Management support for diversity .57 .56 -.43 .59 -.45 .51 .55 .39 .53 .51 Management support for teams .46 .47 -.47 .27 -.29 .31 .37 .31 .33 .43 Self-management .49 .42 -.42 .24 -.15 .37 .31 .28 .29 .60 Status of team .59 .63 -.48 .57 -.28 .75 .61 .40 .56 .59 Team rewards .59 .53 -.42 .58 -.34 .56 .59 .39 .54 .54 Training .55 .55 -.30 .47 -.27 .46 .63 .35 .49 .66 Participative climate .31 .37 -.36 .26 -.31 .15 .42 .20 .18 .41 Composition variables: Perceived Similarity .53 .38 -.33 .38 -.33 .34 .43 .36 .53 .39 Status in team .46 .47 -.49 .26 -.34 .46 .44 .27 .26 .46 r>.30 significant at p<.05 and r>.39 significant at p<.01. N = 41. Process Variables 1 Cohesiveness 2 Commitment to team 3 Emotional conflict 4 Organisational citizenship 5 Substantive conflict 6 Team Spirit 7 Trust Outcome Variables 8 Performance 9 Individual satisfaction 10 Satisfaction with process As shown in Table 6, all of the organisational context variables were significantly and positively correlated with the two individual outcomes of satisfaction with the team and with the team processes at the individual level. The majority of context variables were also significantly and positively correlated with the process outcomes of cohesiveness, commitment to the team, organisational citizenship behaviour, team spirit, and trust. Also, the context variable of management support for teams was significantly and negatively correlated with substantive conflict, and three of the context variables were significantly and negatively correlated with emotional conflict. As regards the performance of teams as assessed by supervisors, Table 7 shows that five context variables as assessed by team members on the questionnaire (management support for teams, team rewards, management support for diversity, the status of the team, and amount of team training) were significantly and positively correlated with team performance, as assessed by management. These results suggest broad based effects of organisational characteristics on team processes and effectiveness. Team composition. As shown in Table 6, the similarity of the team members, as perceived by members, was significantly related to all of the process and outcome measures of team effectiveness. The strongest relationships were with participants' satisfaction with the team processes and the cohesiveness of the team. These results are consistent with the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971). Participants' perceived status in the team was also significantly related to all process and outcome variables with the exception of substantive conflict (Table 6). Table 7 also notes the significant positive group level relationship between perceived similarity within the team and team performance as assessed by management. We next turned our attention to possible differences resulting from the national culture of participants, as predicted by a socio-cultural view of team composition effects. To examine these differences, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the three cultural clusters (Asian, Polynesian, Anglo-European) as the independent variables, and with the process and outcome criteria of team effectiveness as dependent variables. A statistically significant difference was found across the three cultural clusters, F (Wilks' criterion) = 2.87, p<.001. To further analyse the difference among cultural clusters, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on each of the criteria of team effectiveness. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 8.
Table 8 -- Effect of national culture on team effectiveness measuresMeans Dependent Variable Asian Polynesian Anglo-European F Satisfaction 18.86ab 19.59a 17.57b 3.93* Process Satisfaction 10.46ab 10.95a 9.65b 3.23* Emotional Conflict N/S N/S N/S 2.38 Substantive Conflict 7.39a 8.70b 8.65b 3.30* Cohesiveness N/S N/S N/S 2.38 Organisational Citizenship 1.00a 12.27b 10.62a 7.11** Commitment to team 18.21a 18.17a 16.31b 4.31* Trust N/S N/S N/S .51 Team Spirit 11.75ab 12.11a 10.97b 3.07* Team Performance N/S N/S N/S .62 * = p<.05 ** = p<.01 Means with different subscripts, within rows, are significantly different at p<.05. As shown in Table 8, Polynesians reported significantly higher satisfaction with their team, satisfaction with the team process, higher organisational citizenship behaviour, and team spirit than Anglo-Europeans. Polynesians also reported more organisational citizenship behaviour than Asians. Anglo-Europeans reported significantly less commitment to the group than did either Asians or Polynesians, while Asians reported significantly lower substantive conflict. These results are generally consistent with the work related values and attitudes of Polynesians as reported in previous research (AhChong & Thomas, 1995) and of the other two cultural clusters along the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism (Erez & Earley, 1993; Hofstede, 1980). To further examine the possibility that cultural differences might be manifested through the culture-linked perceptions of status of individuals in the team, we conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with cultural cluster (Asian, Polynesian, Anglo-European) as the independent variable and status in the group as the dependent variable. The means for the three groups were 3.25, 3.68, and 3.69 respectively , F = 2.56, p <.10. Post hoc analysis indicate that Anglo- Europeans reported significantly higher status in the group than did Asians, p<.05. This result was consistent with our observation of team functioning in which Asian members seemed to defer to Anglo-Europeans. Additionally, perceived similarity in the team was significantly and positively correlated with status in the team, r = .23, p<.001, as would be consistent with a relationship between national culture and status. Interaction effects. As we had predicted that effects of composition would be somewhat dependent on organisational context variables, we next tested the interaction effects of context variables with composition variables by regressing outcomes on both main effects, followed by their interaction term. As virtually none of the suggested interactions approached significance, only one result of these tests is reported here. There was some tendency for Polynesians, as an ethnic group, to be relatively impervious to organisational conditions. The most consistent significant findings in this regard were in relation to training. Although both Anglo- Europeans and Asians as groups were sensitive to a lack of training, in that they performed fewer organisational citizenship behaviours and expressed less individual satisfaction, Polynesians showed no differences in satisfaction or organisational citizenship behaviour based on level of training based on level of training provided by the organisation. Parameter estimates (betas) for the interaction terms in the two regression models were -.70, t = -2.34, p<.05 and -.65, t = -2.08, p<.05 respectively. This finding is consistent with other results showing this "easy going" trait in Polynesian culture. In examining the interactions between the study variables, despite our earlier speculations for the most part not receiving support, we did note one other pattern that is worthy of an exploratory discussion, especially as it is consistent with the findings regarding Polynesian culture described above. When we explored a potential relationship between perceived similarity and outcomes, we noted that these relationships in some cases differed by ethnic group. For the outcomes of organisational citizenship behaviour, conflict, team spirit, and individual satisfaction, the perceived similarity between the respondent and the rest of the group had an impact primarily for Anglo-Europeans and Asians. Polynesians did not seem to be concerned with similarity between themselves and the rest of the group, and did not respond differentially on that basis, whereas for Anglo- Europeans and Asians, similarity enhanced responses on these dimensions. Parameter estimates (betas) for the interaction terms in the four regression equations were as follows: satisfaction = .80, t = 2.83, p < .01, team spirit = .92, t = 3.27, p<.01, conflict = -.71, t = -2.35, p<.05, organisational citizenship = .64, t = 2.16, p < .05. These results are exploratory and should, therefore, be considered in that light.
DiscussionResults of interviews suggested that the sites under study were typical of many organisations in different stages in the process of implementing team forms of structure. Survey results from team members confirmed significant differences across the three sites on organisational context variables. Team members at Site I perceived the environment for teams and the environment for diversity as significantly more positive than the other sites. This result was consistent with the manager interviews in that Site I managers indicated that power had been transferred to the team in a real sense, and that a feeling that all employees were valued was a part of the organisational climate. In contrast, managers at the other two sites indicated that, in general, there was somewhat limited support from management for teams, limited training for teamwork, and more interest, support, and training from management in the initial start-up of teams. The general feeling at these two sites was that teams had not quite taken the control and responsibility they had initially been envisioned to take, and that management was prone to revert to more autocratic forms of control in a crisis. Also, training and support for cultural diversity seemed to be basically absent in any tangible form at these sites. Not surprisingly, perceptions of a more supportive organisational context were positively related to team member satisfaction with the team and with the processes employed by the team. Additionally, most of the organisational context variables were positively related to the processes that facilitate the capability of the teams members to work together. As noted above, perhaps most important is that the performance of the teams, as assessed by management, was found to be positively related to five specific elements of organisational context. That is, members of high performing teams reported higher levels of management support for teams, higher levels of support for diversity, a higher status for their team, that their rewards came from team activity, and that they had received higher levels of training. These results suggest that the larger organisational context in which teams operate must be considered in implementing teams in culturally diverse workplaces. That is, teams do not operate in isolation, but in the larger organisation of which they are a part. Interestingly, the organisation that took their team approach most seriously had also given the most attention to cultural diversity. We might speculate that there is a fundamental consistency between organisational contexts which are supportive of teams and those which support diversity. While cultural diversity is important to team functioning, it seems that organisations and their members must be seriously committed to the team approach to recognise this at a conscious level. Interview results regarding the cultural composition of teams suggested that, with some exceptions, people were relatively unaware of direct effects of cultural composition. This is consistent with our view that culture exercises indirect influences on group process and function. Also, interview results suggested that more than half of the respondents believed that cultural diversity would have either positive or negative, or negative effects on group performance. This finding indicates that the interviewees were not optimistic about the outcomes of diversity, and is consistent with prior research on attitudes about the effect of cultural diversity (Adler, 1983). However, at the same time, most interviewees indicated a preference for working on a mixed culture team. Some social desirability response bias may have occurred with regard to questions regarding work group preferences, or it is possible that members saw some positive social characteristics, rather than work-oriented benefits, in working on diverse teams. Survey results with regard to composition effects provided findings consistent with the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), and thus may provide support to the idea that social desirability response bias was in part responsible for the interview results. That is, the perception of similarity of team members was positively related to all of the criteria of team effectiveness, including individual satisfaction, and to team process variables. Results associated with an examination of the responses of the three distinct cultural clusters (Asian, Polynesian, Anglo-European) clearly indicated that the different cultural clusters reacted to the implementation of teams differently. Significantly, Polynesians were more positive about the team environment than were Anglo-Europeans. This finding may have been generated by the similarity of work group norms with Polynesian cultural norms (AhChong & Thomas, 1995). Also, Anglo-Europeans were less likely to indicate commitment to the group, consistent with their more individualistic orientation, while Asians indicated lower substantive conflict, consistent with a collectivist culture's norm for the maintenance of group harmony. These results also fit with the notion that cultural norms "spill over" into the work group context and effect team functioning. Exploratory results also indicated differences in ethnic groups' responses to the work environment. Anglo-Europeans and Asians both were more sensitive to perceived similarity among team members, while Polynesians typically responded equivalently in high and low similarity teams with regard to organisational citizenship behaviour, substantive conflict, team spirit, and individual satisfaction. Survey and interview results did not always present exactly the same picture of member responses to teams. Questionnaire data tended to indicate a stronger effect of culture on outcomes of interest. For example, language was the only clearly recognised cultural factor influencing group process and function in the interviews. Forty-four percent of the respondents indicated that language was a factor inhibiting team effectiveness. Language problems might be expected to surface as the most salient aspect of cultural diversity effects. Upon probing, most interviewees agreed that members of different cultures had "different ways of getting things done." The fact that other aspects of cultural heterogeneity did not emerge in the interviews may underscore the notion that culture exerts its influence at such a deep level that people are not aware of its impact (Triandis, 1983). This study was subject to some important limitations which must be kept in mind in evaluating the results. First, sites differed in terms of the context characteristics, and thus, results are subject to other unidentifiable, unmeasured site differences. Of course, some of the most important differences are likely captured here, but we cannot with any confidence state that we have identified them all. Second, the response rate, although adequate for most research of this type, fell short of providing us with the data needed to calculate actual cultural heterogeneity and individual relative differences in culture within the groups. Thus, we relied on perceived similarity. While perceived similarity is arguably the most important aspect of the construct, we were not able to assess actual cultural diversity. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that both organisational context and cultural composition influence the effective implementation of work teams, although these factors do not seem to interact strongly in producing their effects. For managers faced with culturally diverse work teams, effectiveness seems to depend in part on an organisational environment characterised by high levels of management support for teams and for diversity, by teams with high organisational status, and by team members who receive their rewards from team activity, and who are well trained. Additionally, a commitment to activities which support teams seems very consistent with support for cultural diversity. Future research should address composition effects primarily in and of themselves, with a view toward assessing all the possible mechanisms by which they occur. Which cultures are represented, and the perceived similarity of the team, do seem to have effects on the reaction of team members to team implementation. Cultural heterogeneity and relative cultural distance of team members, and their status in the team are other potentially important conduits for culture's influence. Cognitive and motivational catalysts for these effects should also be identified before we can adequately understand this phenomenon.
ReferencesAdler, N.J. 1983. Organizational development in a multicultural environment. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 19(3): 163-184. Adler, N.J. & Ghadar, F. 1990. International strategy from the perspective of people and culture: The North American context. In A.M. Rugman (Ed.), Research in global strategic management: International business research for the twentyfirst century (pp.179-205). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Bettenhausen, K.L. & Murnighan, J.K. 1991. The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural changes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 20-35. Blalock, H. M. 1957. Percent non-white and discrimination in the south. American Sociological Review, 22: 677-682. Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Bond, M.H., Leung, K., & Wan, K.C. 1982. How does cultural collectivism operate? The impact of task and maintenance contributions on reward distribution. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13: 186-200. Brislin, R. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 75: 3-9. Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, A.C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-850. Chatman, J. 1991. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459-484. Cox. T. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. DeMuese, K.P. & Liebowitz, S.J. 1981. An emperical analysis of the team building research. Group and Organization Studies, 6: 357-378. Erez, M. & Earley, P.C. 1993. Culture, self-identity and work. New York: Oxford University Press. Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E.C., & Argote, L. 1986. Current thinking about groups: Setting the stage for new ideas. In P.S. Goodman, (Ed.), Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gutek, B. A. 1985. Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J.R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G.R. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of applied Psychology, 60: 159-170. Haythorn, W.W. 1968. The composition of groups: A review of the literature. Acta Psychologica, 28: 97-128. Haythorn, W. W. 1953. The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 276- 284. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14: 75-89. Jackson, S.E. 1992. Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 138-173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. & Peyronnin, K. 1991. Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675-689. Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489- 501. Leung, K. & Bond, M. 1984. The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 793-804. Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., & Adkins, C.A. 1989. A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 424-432. Mullen, B. 1987. Self-attention theory: The effects of group composition on the individual. In B. Mullen and G.R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 125-46). New York: Springer-Verlag. Nieva, V.F., Fleishman , E.A., & Rieck, A. Team dimensisons: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships. Unpublished report by Response Analysis Corp., Washington, D.C. 1978. Pearce, J.A. & Ravlin, E.C. 1987. The design and activation of self regulating work groups. Human Relations, 11: 751-782. Ravlin, E.C. & Meglino, B.M. 1987. The effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 666-673. Ravlin, E.C. & Meglino, B.M. 1993. The influence of value congruence on performance of routine and non-routine tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA. Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Ronen, S. & Shenkar, 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10: 435-454. Rosenbaum, M.E., Moore, D.L., Cotton, J.L., Cook, M.S., Hieser, R.A., Shovar, M.N., & Gray, M.J. 1980. Group`productivity and process: Pure and mixed reward structures and task interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39: 626-642. Schutz, W. C. 1955. What makes groups productive? Human Relations, 8, 429-465. Shea, G.P. & Guzzo, R.A. 1987. Groups as human resources. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris ( Eds.), Research in human resources and personnel management ( Vol. 5, pp. 323-356). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Steiner, I.D. 1972. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Sundstrom, E., DeMeure, K.P. & Futrell, D. 1990. Workteams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45: 120-133. Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 23: 65-93. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7- 24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Thomas, D.C. & Ravlin, E.C. 1995. Responses of employees to cultural adaptation by a foreign manager. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 133-146. Thomas, D.C., Ravlin, E.C., & Wallace, A. 1994. Effect of cultural diversity in management training groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX. Triandis, H.C. 1983. Dimensions of cultural variations as parameters of organizational theories. International Studies of Management and Organization, 12(4): 139-169. Tsui, A.S. & O'Reilly, C.A. III. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads Academy of Management Journal. 32: 402-42 Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180. Wagner, H., Hibbits, N., Rosenblatt, R.D., & Schulz, R. 1977. Team training and evaluation strategies: State of the art. Technical report 771-1, Human Resources Research Organisation, Alexandria, VA. Watson, W. E. & Michaelson, L.K. 1988. Group interaction behaviors that affect group performance on an intellective task. Group and Organization Studies, 13: 495-516. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. |