Objectives:
The objectives of this case study are to conceptualize the divergence, convergence and attribution factors of multicultural teams, and to observe the possible impact of cultural differences on team performance.
The sub-objectives are:
ٛThe observations on 6 multicultural teams.
ٛThe graphical representations of this conceptual model
ٛCultural synergy and the changes after the team is adjourned
Approach:
From the points of departures with support from the literature review, the research method consists of two parts. One is from Hofstede cultural dimensions, and the other is from assessments of individual dimensions on topics of individualism, collectivism, locus of control, self-efficacy, empathy, self-leadership, team role, and team player inventory.
The first part is to observe the cultural difference base on these dimensions within and among multicultural teams. Assume people works better in “the preferred coordination mechanism” (Hofstede, 1991) with limited complexity. These cultural dimensions suggest a member’s preferred conditions.
The second part is to measure the individual level and to correlate this assessment with individual outcomes, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs. This approach avoids some assumptions required to apply as Hofstede cultural dimensions. However, this will assume that cultural frame is a form of declarative awareness that respondents can “report”. Nonetheless, cultural aspects can be subtle and implicit practices of social structures, and some practices are intertwined into everyday life or become part of living. The members probably are not aware of these. The direct assessment approach does not consider these sets of underlying subtleties.
In observational (non-experimental) studies, no attempts are made to control or influence the variables of interest. The results are analyzed using statistical and graphical methods. Below are some methods:
I. Basic Frequency Analysis:
Data Analysis: (frequency analysis, charts and raw data) See Appendix A &
C.
II. Scatter Diagram
A scatter diagram is a graphical presentation of the relationship between
two quantitative variables.
III. Graphs
Steps:
The research uses 6 steps to develop a concept to form a conceptual model of a multicultural team.
There are 38 students in International Organizational Behavior class by Professor Gary Hu at National Sun Yat-Sen University, in fall semester 2005. These students are from 13 different countries that including Canada, France, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Philippine, Poland, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, US and Vietnam.
With 13 students having Taiwanese cultural background is the largest segment, followed by Philippine and Vietnam both with 5 students, and Netherlands with 4 students. The rest ethnic groups are less than 4 people in total. These 38 students are divided into 6 teams, working on a team project regarding a specific country. The textbook used in this class is International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior 4th Edition by Nancy J. Adler. The class is conducted in English. The objectives of the course according to course syllabus are:
a. To understand the impact of culture on organizations, describes the ways in which cultures vary, how that variance systematically affects organizations, and how people can recognize, manage, and effectively use cultural variance within their own work environment.
b. To leverage cultural diversity, presents an integrated approach to managing in multicultural work environments, investigates cross-cultural problem solving and organizational development, presents the dynamics of multicultural teams, reviews approaches to leading, motivating, and decision making from a global perspective, and summarizes global approaches to resolving conflict and to negotiating.
c. To manage global managers, presents a series of issues that are unique to global management, addresses the human resource management dilemmas involved in managing one’s life and career while moving across international borders.
As a result, these students are more open-minded on cultural difference already.
1. The first step is to find out each team members’ nationality and apply Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of each country. For example, in TEAM V, there are members from South Korea, Philippine, Sweden, Taiwan, U.S and Vietnam. For TEAM V member, apply values of PDI equals 31, IDV is 71, MAS is 5 and UAI is 29 from the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
2. The second step is to give questionnaires to these people. There are total of 7 questionnaires are given out. They are Individualism-Collectivism Scale, Identifying Your Locus of Control, Assessing Your General Self-Efficacy, Assessing Your Perspective-Taking (Cognitive Empathy), Assessing Your Self-Leadership, Team Role Preference Scale and Team Player Inventory. The description and purpose of each questionnaire are as follows:
a) Individualism-Collectivism Scale: The source of this scale is: T. Singelis, H.
Triandis, D. Bhawuk, and M. Gelfand. (1995)
A score of 8~22 is low individualism, 23~30 is moderate individualism, and 31~40 is high individualism. Likewise, a score of 8~22 is low collectivism, 23~30 is moderate collectivism, and 31~40 is high collectivism.
Directions:
“Individualism refers to the extent that you value independence and personal uniqueness. Highly individualist people value personal freedom, self-sufficiency, control over their own lives, and appreciation of their unique qualities that distinguish them from others.”
“Collectivism refers to the extent that we value our duty to groups to which we belong, and to group harmony. Highly collectivist people define themselves by their group membership and value harmonious relationships within those groups.”
b) Identifying Your Locus of Control: The source of this scale is: Copyright Paul Spector. (1988).
A score of 16~42 is internal locus, 43~69 is in-between locus, and 70~96 is external locus.
Directions:
“Individuals who feel that they are much in charge of their own destiny in the workplace have an internal locus of control.”
“Individuals who think that events in their work life are due mainly to fate/luck or powerful others have an external locus of control.”
c) Assessing Your General Self-Efficacy: The source of this scale is: G. Chen, S. M. Gully, and D. Eden. (2001)
A score of below 24 is low self-efficacy, 24~27 is below average, 28~31 is average, 32~34 is above average, and above 34 is high self-efficacy.
Directions:
“Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that he or she has the ability,
motivation, and resources to complete a task successfully. This particular scale is called a “general” self-efficacy scale because it estimates a person’s self-efficacy in a broad range of situations. The average general self-efficacy score varies from one group of people to the next. For example, managers tend to have a somewhat higher general self-efficacy than do young undergraduate psychology students.”
“Score on the general self-efficacy range from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicate that you have a higher general self-efficacy.”
d) Assessing Your Perspective-Taking (Cognitive Empathy): The source of this scale is M. Davis. (1980)
A score of 7~15 is low perspective taking, 16~25 is moderate perspective taking, and 26~35 is high perspective taking.
Definitions:
“ Empathy refers to a person’s understanding of and sensitivity to the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others. The “understanding” part of empathy is called perspective taking or cognitive empathy. It represents an intellectual understanding of another person’s situational and individual circumstances”
“Perspective taking is an important part of the perceptual process because it makes us more aware of the external causes of another person’s performance and behavior. It also improves the communication process by helping us to put the words of other people in their proper context.”
“ A higher score indicates a higher level of perspective taking (also called cognitive empathy). The average score in recent studies across several Canadian and U.S. groups of people is approximately 20. Also, women tend to score about 1.5 points higher than man on this perspective taking scale.”
e) Assessing Your Self-Leadership: The source of this scale is from C. Manz.
(1992)
A score of 18~64 is low score, 65~72 is average score, and 73~90 is high score.
Definitions:
“Self-leadership is the process of influencing yourself to establish the self-direction and self-motivation needed to perform a task. It recognizes that individuals mostly regulate their own actions through various behavioral and cognitive (thought) activities. The six
components of self-leadership measured in this scale are personal goal setting, mental practice, designing natural rewards, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement, and cueing strategies.” A score of 3~7 is low score, 8~12 is average score, and 13~15 is high score.
“Personal Goal Setting: Self-leadership includes the practice of setting your own performance-oriented goals and, more specifically establishing specific, challenging, and relevant goals. A higher score indicates a higher level of personal goal setting.”
“Mental Practice: (called mental imagery) involves mentally rehearsing future events. Mental practice includes thinking through the activities required to perform the task, anticipating obstacles to goal accomplishment, and working out solutions to those obstacles before they occur. Mentally walking through the activities required to accomplish the task helps us to see problems that may occur. A higher score indicates a higher level of mental practice.”
“Designing Natural Rewards: is the process of altering tasks and work relationships to make the work more motivating. This might involve changing the way you complete a task so the activity is more interesting. Or it might involve making slight changes in your job duties to suit your needs and preferences. A higher score indicates a higher level of designing natural rewards.”
“Self-Monitoring: is the process of keeping track of your progress toward a goal. It includes consciously checking at regular intervals how well you are doing. A higher score indicates a higher level of self-monitoring.”
“Self-Reinforcement: is the practice of rewarding yourself after successfully completing a task. It occurs whenever you have control over a reinforcer but don’t “take’ the reinforcer until completing a self-set goal. A higher score indicates a higher level of self-reinforcement”
“Cueing Strategies: relates to the process of self-managing the antecedents (cues) of behaviors on behavior modification. In self-leadership, cueing strategies are self-set or self-controlled antecedents rather than introduced and controlled by others. A higher score indicates a higher level of cueing strategies.”
f) Team Roles Preferences Scale: The source of this scale is from S. McShane.
(2005)
A score of 3~7 is low preference, 8~11 is moderate preference, and
12~15 is strong preference.
Definition:
“The Team Role Preferences Scale estimates your preferred roles in meetings and similar team activities. Some roles helps focus the team on its objectives, such as giving and seeking information, elaborating ideas, coordinating activities, and summarizing the discussion or past events.”
“Encourager: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to praise and support the ideas of other team members, thereby showing warmth and solidarity to the group. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 10.25.”
“Gatekeeper: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to encourage all team members to participate in the discussion. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 10.0”
“Harmonizer: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to mediate intra-group conflicts and reduce tension. The average score in a sample of MBA students is 9.85.”
“Initiator: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to identify goals for the meeting, including ways to work on those goals. The average score in a sample of MBA student is 9.79.”
“Summarizer: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to keep track of what was said in the meeting (i.e., act as the team’s memory). The average score in a sample of MBA students is 8.44.”
g) The Team Player Inventory: The source of this scale is from T. Kline.
(1999)
A score of 10~20 is low preference for teamwork, 21~39 moderate preference for teamwork, and 40~50 is strong preference for teamwork.
Definition:
“The Team Player Inventory estimates the extent to which you are positively predisposed to working on teams. Some people would like to work in teams for almost everything, whereas other people would like to keep as far away from teams as possible. Most of us fall somewhere in between.”
3. The third step is to collect the questionnaires and input the scores from the questionnaires. Quantitatively analyze the data by finding out the average, upper scores, lower scores, and range within the team and the class. (See Appendix A &