HANDBOOK

OMD 604 TEAL TEAM - HANDBOOK DRAFT

This is the rough draft. Let me know if you guys have thoughts. (Adrian) Due to globalization and emerging technological opportunities, the use of geographically dispersed teams has become commonplace in the modern day organization. People from opposite ends of the globe can collaborate with one another to achieve common goals and produce shared work. Along with being globally distributed, individual members also contribute a unique set of cultural and national background which ends up forming a culturally diverse team. The use of culturally diverse geographically dispersed teams can present organizations with a variety of both challenges and opportunities. The purpose of this handbook is to explore the ways in which cultural diversity and geographic dispersion play a role in the team’s group process and it also provides the reader with some insight into potential strategies for dealing with the challenges of these teams.
 * Introduction**

Before you dive into the issues and strategies offered in this handbook, keep in mind that each team is unique; a unique set of individuals, culture, environments, tasks, etc. The content contained in this handbook is not meant to provide an exhaustive set of information on the subject. In fact, each issue we discuss could have their own handbooks and entire books have already been written about some of them. Still, we hope to synthesize some of the information already out there and create a simple guide to dealing with this type of team. We will introduce different phases and group processes and discuss the impact that culture and geography have on each group dynamic. In addition, we incorporate case-studies to help illustrate how some of the issues play out and the different challenges that may arise. Finally, we will suggest ways to approach each issue and propose some potential strategies you may want to utilize.

As a culturally diverse geographically dispersed team ourselves, we also reflect on and incorporate some of our own group’s experience into this handbook. Our team is made up of individuals located around the globe, working out of Arizona, California, Canada, and Palestine. Influenced by our own cultural backgrounds, we each contributed different skills and perspectives to form a diverse and dynamic team. In the process of creating this handbook, we encountered a number of these challenges ourselves. Just as we have been able to do with our own team, we want others to be equip to deal with the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities that come with a culturally diverse geographically dispersed team.

Teal -- here are my drafts -- please note that they are very rough (and there are still some sections that need further development) But they give you all a better picture of what I'm working on and my direction. Feedback is apperciated! __ **Social Support** __ When we think of interacting within culturally diverse or geographically dispersed teams rarely do we think about social support. But being social animals it can be the most important aspect of our selves especially when we are faced with accomplishing tasks and meeting goals for our organizations. Social support is really our ability to read social cues and to act accordingly – thus maintaining and hopefully strengthening relationships as we do so. There are various layers of social support and structure, there are the more informal aspects of our “social” lives – entertainment, gathering with family and friends, play time – and then there is social interaction in more formal settings of structured groups of people who come together to get a job done. The focus here is more on the formal social structure, which at times are supports that shape our identity and how we interact with multinational teams. First we will look at the different cultural concepts that impact a relational interaction within an organization specifically emotional sharing and social involvement. We will then review different social roles that individuals partake in global organizations that can have a significant impact on their ability to meet their needs in a multinational team as well as the needs of the team itself. Overview of concepts: ** Developing social relationships requires, to some degree, emotional sharing. There are two basic ways in which emotions are expressed, either in an affective approach where one would be more open in displaying their emotion, whether it is joy, sadness, anger or frustration. The other side is a diffused approach, where one is more neutral in their emotional responses (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998). Certain cultures are more prone to approach emotional sharing within the work environment where they feel that it is appropriate, and at times needed, for individuals to openly express their feelings to each other and the group. Friction is caused when individuals from different cultures work together and are not aware of the cultural expectations with emotional sharing within an organization.

“Closely related to whether we show emotions in dealing with other people is the degree to which we engage others in specific areas of life and single levels of personality, or diffuse in multiple areas of our lives and at several levels of personality at the same time” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998 p 83). Specific approaches to how one views members of their organization, means the title that the individual carriers within the organization does not extend to the greater social interactions outside of the work environment. A diffused approach would take the opposite approach where the staff member’s title and influence extends beyond the organizational walls. Not understanding the expectations of how individuals view this level of engagement could negatively impact the organization’s ability to meet its goals.

There are four aspects when an individual is orienting her/him self to the environment and new culture of a multinational team; roles/role taking, habits and rituals, collected history, and social structure and enactment. When multinational teams develop the members need to reorient themselves to the group process and figure out who they are and what their purpose is within the group. “In a multinational team, this identification process necessarily takes place because the various social cues are absent or confused” (Earley and Gibson, 2002 p 139). Rituals and habits, whether individual or as a group, establish norms and rules that individuals can abide by and thus know how to interact with one another (Earley and Gibson, 2002 p 122). “As the social environment changes and evolves, and new member enter the institutional environment, rituals and habits change” (Earley and Gibson, 2002 p 123). When establishing new multinational teams the individuals and groups need to investigate and figure out the rules, or adopt new ones, to establish a working environment. When a group has a shared history it is much easier to understand the social cues and cultural values present which allows more effective and efficient communication. When individuals come together to establish a new group, like a multinational team, they thus start by creating a history together that establishes a new culture (Earley and Gibson, 2002 p 140). Social structure and enactment within a group is an ever changing process (Earley and Giboson, 2002 p 141). The structure is created through individual relationships within the group where members are dependent, to some extent, on each other thus creating a structure of relationships of social exchange. Application: ** It would be fair to say that most of us need some level of social support within our working environment as outlined above, how that is portrayed or received by an individual can vary based on the cultural environment that individual comes from. Since there are so many aspects to social support it makes it easy for certain behaviors to be misinterpreted and cause confusion which can lead to a negative impact on the group. Consider the following case study: (//Insert case study here…//) Interventions: ** How could things have been different for the above scenario? Effective Communication: In the above case it was demonstrated that ineffective communication about approaches to how individual members approach social interaction impacted the group’s ability to get work done. During the initial stages of multinational group development there should be time set aside for individuals and the group as a whole to communicate their role, expectations, and group goals. This process would establish in the beginning discussion about how group members approach various social aspects so that members would be able to adjust and negotiate. Management training: When multinational work teams are developed or companies expand to have globally dispersed work group, managers need to be trained and exposed to other cultural approaches in order to be most effective in how they approach projects and group interactions. If management isn’t aware of their influence in a mainly diffused approach in subsidiary of the organization, their interactions could impact how group members respond to the group process and accessing social support. Teal’s Experience with Social Support ** (I still need to work on this part – )

As organizations continue to expand globally their ability to share knowledge is becoming more and more crucial to their success. With all of the advances in today’s global economy sharing knowledge might seem to be not a huge concern, but there are barriers beyond language that impact an organization’s ability to disperse information to global teams. Antal (2000) posits that sharing knowledge starts with the individual who then spreads the information to the greater organization.
 * __Knowledge Exchange__**

To understand what barriers and then interventions that can be used with knowledge exchange it is important to first understand the different types of learning that exist within different cultural environments. The two main approaches to organization learning are the phase models of organizational learning and the spiral model of knowledge creation (Antal, 2000 p 4). The phase model is exactly that – where the information is obtained and then integrated into the organization through various phases being: 1) information is acquired 2) information is distributed 3) members of organization interpret the information 4) members of organization use the information to “ensure that it is stored in the memory of the organization” (Antal, 2000 p 4). The spiral model varies from the phase model in that it too is a transformative process but goes beyond the phase model by creating new knowledge – so new knowledge is brought in and shared and then from that more knowledge is discovered and shared, and the cycle continues – like a spiral (Antal, 2000 p 5). There are various barriers that are products of the phase and spiral models but those will be discussed later on.

A great deal can be learned about an organization, especially how an organization shares its knowledge when it is geographically dispersed. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner offer four metaphors, 1) the family 2) the Eiffel Tower 3) the guided missile 4) the incubator, which offer various lenses for organizational structure as it can vary across cultures, for the goal of this section we will focus mainly on what and how information is shared (1998, p 162).
 * The family – When an organization has a structure more along the familial lines, the information that is sought after focuses on “intuitive than in rational knowledge, more concerned with the development of people than with their deployment or utilization” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998 p 169).
 * The Eiffel Tower – The Eiffel Tower organizations look at individuals within the organization as resources – thus the approach to learning is developing the skills necessary to meet the position requirements as well as trying to develop more skills to eventually move up within the organization (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998 p 174). Staff, based on their knowledge set, are often shuffled about from one position to another to meet the overarching demands of the organization
 * The Guided Missile – The learning process with this metaphor approach is based in practicality and focused on problem-solving (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998 p 178).
 * The Incubator – This metaphor describes the learning process as, “All participants are on the same wavelength, empathically searching together for a solution to the shared problem” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998 p 181). Due to the nature of incubator organizations the problems is not necessarily set and is left open to redefine (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998 p 181).

//(Insert Case study here)//
 * Application:**


 * Strengths:** Antal (2000) describes positive results for expatriate managers who come back to their “home” site after a stint abroad participating in a subsidiary of the global organization. Managers that participated in such a process discovered a great deal more about not only the “new culture” that they had been exposed to but also more about their “own” culture (Antal, 2000 p 15). Managers also discuss how their experience in gave them greater insight into not taking for granted what they previously knew – meaning that they realized that their past models and approaches were not universally applicable to all cultures (Antal, 2000 p 15). Working in multinational teams taught managers how to effectively communicate. “The expatriates talked […] about learning to listen better, to negotiate differently, and to be much more conscious that providing information is in itself not necessarily sufficient for ensuring understanding” (Antal, 2000 p 16). Expatriate managers commented on how important it was for them to understand the importance of timing. From working in a foreign environment and with different cultures the managers learned ways to speed up very slow processes and in turn slow down speeding process (Antal, 2000 p 18). Knowledge was also gained by the manager’s personal experience in the various cultures so they had more insight into how and why things were done not only in the subsidiary of the organization but also in the greater culture. Lastly managers gained relationships and further knowledge on who’s who in the organization and collateral agencies that could be potential contacts in the future.


 * B****arriers:** “Although knowledge assets in the form of organizational practices may be important for MNC successes, they often do not transfer easily” (Jensen and Szulanski 509). The difficulty in the transfer is referred to as stickiness and when there are subsidiaries in various locations throughout the world, the stickiness has a tendency to increase, which means that sharing information is a very difficult process. Stickiness can occur if the new information that is gathered is not largely supported by the organization to be used and integrated into the organization’s memory. When this occurs the information that is gained by the individual remains stuck at the source.


 * Interventions:** (need to develop – there are a few that I can pull from my resources but I need to develop my case study in order to make this applicable)


 * Teal’s experience:** (need to develop)

**__Alliance__** As identified with knowledge exchange, organizations are expanding beyond their country’s boarders to tap into the global market. Beyond organizations developing subsidiaries overseas they are also entering into partnerships with other foreign companies creating alliances in order to “rapidly expand geographical market participation, create economies of scale and critical mass, reduce risks, learn new skills and technologies, and facilitate effective resource sharing” (Park and Ungson, 1997 p 279). While the benefits of such joint ventures are hypothetically enjoyed by all organizations involved, cultural barriers often hamper alliance development and are often the roots of alliance dissolution. There are several reasons as to why an alliance between complementary agencies fails one being when “not all the partners are relevant to a given alliance’s primary value-creating activities” (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 308). Secondly the impact of three cultural socializations impact organizations participation in alliances the levels of culture are national, organizational, and professional.

An organization’s national culture “is a system of shared norms, values, and priorities that, taken together, constitute a ‘design for living’ for a people” (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 309). Sirmon and Lane propose that due to the nature of national culture – that it is learned and often deeply embedded in individual’s behavior – the differences in values and norms across national cultures often negatively impact alliance relationships (2003 p 306). Yet there are some studies that show that since there are such differences, communication actually increases among the partners in the alliance which can actually lead to better performance (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 310). These differences in results of national culture upon alliance performance indicates that the national culture actually impacts the organizational and professional cultures more which then have a great impact on the alliance relationship.

“[…] Organizational culture provides more proximal cues for organization members’ behavior than does national culture because it provides members with an organizational identity, and facilitates collective commitments” (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 311). Sirmon and Lane discuss how alliances that have similar organizational cultures have a greater chance to have a successful alliance relationship then those that have differing organizational cultures (2003, p 311).

“A professional culture exists when a group of people who are employed in a functionally similar occupation share a set of norms, values, and beliefs relates to that occupation” (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 311). This cultural development usually occurs for individuals when they receive formal training and interaction among colleges and is “reinforced through […] professional experiences and interactions that lead to a broad understanding of how their occupation should be conducted” (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 311). Professional culture is beyond a subculture at an organization and is seen to develop outside of an organization (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 312). The difficulties arise between alliances when different professionals are required to work together but due to their professional culture there is no common ground to bring both sides together. “Second, these individuals often lack experience communicating with an auditing audience outside their professional culture. Thus communication between individuals from separate professional cultures is impaired” (Sirmon and Lane, 2003 p 312).

The difficulties and friction that arises due to culture barriers on any of the three levels impairs an alliance’s progress towards the identified performance objectives. Another barrier to successful international alliances is the amount of information sharing that occurs between alliances – as discussed in knowledge exchange, receiving information on a international level is crucial to many businesses that are expanding into that market (or trying to stay afloat in that market). Many problems arise between alliances when there is not equal sharing of information thus impeding a partner’s ability to obtain and learn the necessary information to stay competitive (Larsson, Bengtsson, Henriksson, and Sparks, 1998 p 288). The degree of transparency an organization has also impacts the trust between the partners involved in an alliance. “The degree of transparency [in an alliance] may be […] restricted by the social context, such as foreign languages, customs, and traditions that disturb communication between partners of different countries of origin” (Larsson et al, 1998 p 291). Lastly for many organizational cultures it is rarely promoted to support an outside organization to the degree of one’s own organization, thus concern for the organization’s well being is often non-existent (Larsson et al, 1998 p 291). Application ** (Insert case study here) Strategies ** Starting with management: Sirmon and Lane suggest that “managers need to carefully evaluate both the complementarities of potential partners’ resources and the fit of the professional cultures of the employees who are likely to work together in alliance” (2003 p 316). Sirmon and Lane (2003) discuss that the intervention is at the level of the professional culture due to its access and longevity – organizational and national cultures generally have developed over long periods of time and are not always accessible to manager’s influence. If a manager can be proactive with looking at the specific relationships that will occur in an alliance and ensure that on a professional culture level that there is communication and appreciation for shared resources, then there is a greater chance at the alliance’s success.

Trust is everything: A lack of trust develops across alliances when there are different cultural approaches when participating in a business relationship. Some organizations in an alliance are very trusting, transparent, and open to provide their partner with all of the information with the understanding of a reciprocal relationship. Often these situations end in dissolution because one of the partners exploits the other thus destroying any trust in the relationship. If management stepped in prior to the alliance and examined the potential partner’s culture (national, organization, and professional) and assessed for areas of competition that could arise in their own organization due to a cultural response, it might negate the future dissolution of the alliance (Park and Ungson, 1997 p 284).


 * Teal’s experience** – do you think this could work? I think I could fit it in to our process but it might be a stretch…

So – tomorrow I need to focus on my other class’s assignment. Friday I plan on looking back over mine and filling in the large gaps – mainly the case studies and teal experiences. So by Saturday (probably evening) I can have round 2 of my drafts – hopefully more complete.  I got sort of having trouble writing the introduction, but should have that up by tomorrow (Adrian). In this day and age, technology is constantly shifting the possibilities for people interact with one another. We have the ability to communicate with others across the globe and transfer information with the click of a button. We are able to communicate asynchronously through email and forums. We can organize meetings through teleconference calls or through videoconferencing. At home, at the office, or midst of travel, we now have the ability use our laptops and phones to continue working. As a result of technological advancement, we are able to organize ourselves as virtual teams and work interact in ways that were not previously possible. It is now more possible than ever to coordinate teams across the globe with a diverse range of cultural backgrounds. The “collective efficacy” (Hardin, 2007), and the overall effectiveness of these teams depend on the way in which a group facilitates the use of these different technologies. This section addresses the advantages and disadvantages of technology in virtually organized teams, including some potential strategies to effectively deal with cultural differences and geographical challenges. In order to explore some of the advantages and disadvantages of “virtual organizing” through technology, we will examine our own team process as a case-study. In the process of working together to develop this handbook, we relied on different technologies to communicate and to transfer information. The use of an asynchronous communication channel such as email or a forum allows group members to communicate without the pressures of coordinating times or location. Our team’s primary mode of communication was through FELIX, an online tool that allowed us to interact in a forum based environment. Asynchronous communication also allows individuals to edit messages they send and take time to consider the meanings of the messages they receive (Grosse). Using another online tool called Wikispaces, we were able to organize, exchange, and edit a bulk of information in one common location. Email or forums can also help overcome spoken language barriers in virtual teams where certain members prefer using written forms of communication (Grosse, Sachaf & Hara). While using this type of technology is fast and convenient in many ways, there are also challenges regarding social presence and relationship building. Without visual cues to pick up on, meanings can get misinterpreted and interactions lack some of the depth experienced in face-to-face interactions.
 * __Facilitating Technologies__**
 * Case-Study **

Other potential uses of technology include channels of synchronous communication such as teleconferencing or video conferencing. As a team we decided that in addition to posting asynchronously on FELIX, we would also occasionally communicate via teleconference. We decided a synchronous meeting would be useful in order to have some more personal interaction and to help speed up some of our organization and decision making processes. Although this type of team interaction may still be lacking compared to face-to-face interactions, a synchronous channel of communication can provide a stronger social presence than an asynchronous channel (Sachaf & Hara). One of the major challenges we faced was dealing with the coordination of synchronous meetings given our dispersed locations and different time zones. Geographic dispersion and time zone differences can limit the range of communication channels available to a team (Sachaf & Hara). With one group member was located in Palestine, our group faced the challenge of coordinating a 10 hour time difference. Although, we were able to agree on some times, the choice was not always convenient or possible for all members. As our team made use of different technologies, we figured out the channels that best fit our team need and allowed us to work together as effectively as possible. In considering strategies for working with your own team, we want to point out that every team is made up of culturally unique individuals and has unique team traits to be aware of. In choosing which technologies to use, you may want to consider factors such as geography, cultural diversity, the task at hand, and individual preferences (Sachaf & Hara). An important aspect of effective virtual teams is that individuals have the ability to be flexible and willingness to use multiple channels (Keinanen, Sachaf & Hara). Effective communication is when team members understand what was intended to be said. If effective communication is not taking place through a particular technology, then some other channels should be considered.
 * Strategies **

As previously mentioned, one of the challenges of communicating through technology is the loss of social presence. One suggestion regarding this challenge is to make a concerted effort to develop team trust and cultural understanding. Bridging differences and building trust can be achieved through a commitment to a common goal and a healthy dynamic of mutual feedback. This process may also include recognizing how the diversity strengthens the team and showing respect for other cultures and languages (Grosse). While these are important traits for any culturally diverse team, these dynamics can play a major role in overcoming the challenges of technology and maximizing its potential opportunities. 

Teal - My new drafts and reference list is below. Look forward to talking to you tomorrow.  Whether your office is in downtown Vancouver, Chicago, Manila or Delhi, in our increasingly globalized world we become closer to each other every day. Our organizations and our teams become more diverse, through diversity organizations realize the benefits of the creativity associated with new perspectives. As we build diversity in the workplace, issues related to team development become top of mind. Communication, adaptability and change become key concepts in these teams. A diverse workforce is able to bring increased problem solving capacity as the group is homogenous and brings a variety of perspectives. As William Wrigley Jr. said famously, “when two men in business always agree, one of them is unnecessary.”
 * Team Selection **

Forming a diverse team with the vision of diversity requires being equipped with a broad cultural understanding. Cultural behaviors associated with the team selection process vary between national cultures, understanding this can help to remove cultural bias. The iceberg analogy illustrates the part of the challenge associated with hiring culturally diverse talent. Only about 10% is shown in the way that the candidate presents externally. This would include their resume and the interview process. 90% of cultural behaviors are below the surface. These include how we manage time, emotional engagement and gender relations (Laroche). This example shows the importance of culture in the selection process.

To understand cultural behavior in the selection process we must first understand that individuals use the behaviors that work for them. With job applicants for example, in order to present themselves in the best light, they rely on past experience. If that past experience dictates that an ascriptive focus, family background or distinction of university attended for example, the individual will tend to make that a focus in the selection process. In some countries, candidates are considered qualified when they meat specific minimum educational requirement (for example, a specific position requires a bachelors degree in computer science or an MBA). Any candidate who meets this educational requirement is considered qualified, and the best candidate will be the one who has the broadest possible range of experience. In North America, people are qualified to do the job because they have already done it before. The ideal candidate in North America is usually someone who has done the same job for a similar organization in the past. Assumptions about the criteria for a selection decision do not always agree across cultures. Becoming culturally aware as an individual and as an organization is key to overcoming potentially undesirable cultural misunderstandings.

Consider the case of a scientist from Norway applying for a position in a nuclear research facility in Western Canada. On the front of the scientist’s CV he included a headshot photo of himself. As this is not acceptable in North America, the HR representative screening the resumes was put off by the picture. Understanding that this must be a cultural difference she inquired about the practice to another Norweigan scientist in the organization. He confirmed that particularly when applying for an academic position including a photo is a common practice.

The key to overcoming cultural misunderstanding is communication. Organizations are responsible to communicate throughout the recruitment and selection process. This should include specifics on what is required and what the organization is looking for. Specify technical and communication requirements of positions. Be clear with position descriptions to avoid misunderstandings (Laroche). Consistent communication with candidates will ensure that the individuals are able to put their best foot forward with the information that they have available.

Lastly, being a diverse organization is the best way to attract diversity. If the organization is working toward an inclusive working environment it becomes more attractive to a broader workforce. Establishing a pilot and focusing on an area to create diversity is a great way to get started. When you achieve success, celebrate it. Use that success as a springboard to diversity through the organization. ** Team **** Building **  As the world gets smaller, global teams become more predominant. Once the team has been selected, the task at hand is making a group of individuals into a team. The potential of global teams is limitless given that the right foundation is created from which the team can grow. This foundation is achieved through team building. Building the team cohesion or “teamness” is key to ensuring that the team achieves its potential.

Language training can be a crucial aspect of team building. For those teams operating in English, though some members from other language backgrounds may be qualified in English as a second language they may not be entirely comfortable reading or speaking the language. Additional language training shows sensitivity to this potential and gives team members an opportunity to build their skills in a safe environment. This will improve communication through the team as it enables everyone to be on the same page.

Cultural awareness training puts the team on a level playing field. Being aware of the cultural backgrounds of each of the team members can help the team understand the individuals needs as well as the unique attributes that they bring. What is effective in one culture may not be as effective in another. This training prepares the team to work effectively and efficiently together. Building a strong cross cultural team impacts the bottom line as the organization benefits from the productivity of a strong team.

In the current recessionary environment, organizations may be feeling the pressure to cut projects seen as soft such as cross cultural skills training. Particularly in organizations experiencing workforce reduction it is important to consider the benefit as there are less people to do the same amount of work. Though the benefit can be difficult to quantify it is of no less valuable.

Many global teams, particularly in large multinationals, are also geographically dispersed. This creates an added challenge for team building. Consideration for richness of communication enables the team to work together more effectively. We will discuss in further detail through the technology section but ultimately the team needs to have appropriate communication mechanisms available that will allow them to not only communicate regarding not just tasks but also through that communication get to understand each other including one another’s weaknesses and strengths. Using instant messaging for example with web cams and the opportunity to connect via voice adds communication depth and simulates face to face communication by adding the ability to read body language.

In order to build a true team build boundaries and bridges around the team not the individual. Use culture training to understand the individual’s background and then allow the team to become a whole unit in and of themselves. Assist the team in establishing a foundation, organizationally, culturally and technologically.

Organizationally, enable the team to develop the necessary relationships within the organization. Free up time from subject matter experts whos input they will require. Ensure that the communication channels are open from the team to the necessary members of the organization and from the feeders in the organization in to the team. Culturally, do the training. Keep conscious of any issues with a cultural root in the team. Deal with issues as they arise. Expect issues to arise. Technologically, develop rich communication media for the team to interact with, this is particularly important with teams who are geographically dispersed as they do not have the benefit of face to face interaction on a day to day basis.

Dedicate time to team building. Do not just give the team the tools and tell them to go at it. Investing in a cross cultural team, just as in any team in the early stages, will pay dividends. In terms of team building exercises: focus on a common challenge allowing opportunity to use diverse skill sets

In the case of newly acquired talent from diverse cultural backgrounds, who is responsible for adapting their working style? Should the new hires in the new cultural setting be expected to adapt completely to the ways of the organization and the culture to which they have thrown themselves into, or should the team work to adapt to the newcomers? In an ideal world the new team ecology would fuse to make something better than the sum of its parts. Failing that Laroche gives a baseline, the newcomer should be responsible for 80 percent of the adaptation and the existing employees 20 percent.” *Laroche)  The Japanese do not like shaking hands, bow when greeting each other and do not blow their nose in public. Brazilians form unruly bus lines, prefer brown shoes to black and arrive two hours late at cocktail parties. Greeks stare you in the eye, nod their heads when they mean no and occasionally smash plates against walls in restaurants. The French wipe their plates clean with a piece of bread, throw pastry into their coffee and offer handshakes to strangers in bistros. Brits tip their soup bowls away from them, eat peas with their forks upside down and play golf in the rain. (Richard D. Lewis)
 * Leadership & Management **

While we may find social behaviors differing by national culture amusing when we experience them as a traveler, an exciting role in strange lands – managing across cultures can be a more challenging experience. As globalization has permeated the very core of organizational life in North America, managing across cultures has become a common experience. Globalization impacts the economics, politics and technology of the way we do business; some organizations are more skilled than others at demonstrating cultural intelligence in light of these changing factors. Earley and Ang define cultural intelligence as a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts (Earley & Ang). Achieving cultural intelligence is the constant challenge for leaders and managers in our global work environment.

Commonly individuals are ethnocentric. As such we expect others that we encounter to be like ourselves, act the way that we do, dress the way that we do and be motivated the same way that we are. Thomas and Inkson, call this the game of “Be like me”, we all expect others to act according to our own cultural beliefs. When cultural differences become apparent, leaders may pass incorrect judgments about the individual exhibiting them. Cultural intelligence is being sensitive to the judgements within ourselves that keep us from seeing the individual a clear light. Cultural intelligence is not only being sensitive to our own judgments about other cultures but examining our own cultural assumptions and the way that they impact our behavior. Trompenaars emphasizes this in //Riding the Waves of Culture//, understanding our own culture is a journey not a step. just as the fish can not see the water, as individuals we can not see the culture that permeates our being. Find the common thread across your team. Enable the team to act with a compelling vision for the future. Uncover the passions of your team and harness them to improve the organization. Consider the needs of individual contributors. Part of true cultural intelligence is recognizing the individual and the needs that they have. Be available. Be sensitive.

Demonstrating cultural intelligence is the duty of the Manager as it establishes trust within the team. Being able to lead the team with knowledge of the cultural dimensions enables individuals to feel understood and safe in the environment There is no prescription for how to become a successful Manager across nations. The acquisition of the knowledge necessary to demonstrate cultural intelligence is a challenge for the international manager which can be resolved through training programs and independent study. Create knowledge of cultural dimensions within the business. See to constantly improve cultural intelligence. Adapt your intelligence to the situation.

International management challenges include finding the right balance of workforce segments. In the talent crunch of the mid 2000s it became clear that there were untapped labour segments, these include new immigrants, part time workers and post retirement workers. This presents an opportunity to get creative. Seek out the segments that will work for your organization. Find foreign partners with which to collaborate.

Questions for Teal  References
 * <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Tense that we are using – first person vs. third person
 * <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">My sourcing is messed because many of my sources I accessed online so no page numbers
 * <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman;">Fontaine, G. (2002). Teams in Teleland: Working Effectively in Geographically Dispersed Teams “in” the Asia Pacific. //Team Performance Management, 8(5/6), 122-133//. []**

[] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman;">12. **Fontaine, G. (2004). A sense of presence and self-reported performance in international teams. //Psychological Reports, 95, 154-158//.** 16. Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J. & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. //Sloan Management Review//, 40, 21-32. 21. __Laroche, L. & Rutherford, D. (2006).__ //Recruiting, Retaining and Promoting Culturally Different Employees//__. Butterworth-Heinemann.__ <span style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman;"> Thomas, David C., and Kerr Inkson. " Chapter 7 - Leadership Across Cultures ". //Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business//. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. © 2004 . Books24x7. < //<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">http://common.books24x7.com/book/id_7318/book.asp //  > (accessed March 18, 2009 ) <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman;"> Shapiro, Debra L., Mary Ann Von Glinow , and Joseph L. C. Cheng (eds). //Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives, Advances in International Management, Volume 18//. Emerald Group Publishing. © 2005 . Books24x7. < //<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">http://common.books24x7.com/book/id_17766/book.asp //  > (accessed March 18, 2009 ) <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman;"> Joyce's Sections - I realize this is too long for Decision Making and i can definitely cut down. After i worked on my case study, i had to remove it due to space constraints... it seems we will have limited space to incorporate these sort of additions.

// The organizational and social environment in which the decision maker finds himself determines what consequences he will anticipate, what ones he will not; what alternatives he will consider, what ones he will ignore. // -- J. March & h. Simon (1958m p. 139)
 * Decision Making**

Decisions come about as a result of mental process that leads to specific and alternative courses of action. While some of these decisions stem from our logical framework many are derived from our deeply engrained cultural programming. Literature commonly calls them ‘personal and cognitive biases’. Many tools are available to help us understand our and better ‘frame’ our decision making style. Most notably, the Myers-Briggs indicators are used to study how personal style influences a decision maker’s course of action. In our increasingly globalized world making decisions need to factor in several aspects. Dr. David Thomas reminds us that ‘The Elements of the global manager’s environment can be divided into four cateories: economic, legal, political and cultural’(p. 10). This suggests that prior to making decisions on a global basis a manager entering a ‘strange land’ must acquire the knowledge and skills on a multi-faceted country-specific issues. While economic, legal and political realities are tangible and easily acquired, cultural aspects are much harder to define and hence pose a significant challenge to international managers. [reference Cultural Intelligence (CQ) – chistopher Earley] Geographically dispersed managers face a variety of decisions on a daily basis. Making choices are normally done automatically because of deeply engrained norms and values the individual manager possesses. This handbook argues that when confronted with making a new decision an international manager needs to examine deeper and alterative dimensions as they related to the his/her new environment.

To help us do the unpacking and better understand the various aspects of how we relate to other people and cultures several frameworks have been developed. The one that perhaps received the most research attention is Hofstede’s (1980) study where he extracted four dimensions that help us understand various national cultural norms. They include:

(1) //Power distance// – the degree to which members of a group accept the right of others to exert authority over them. (2) //Uncertainty avoidance// – the degree to which a society develops plans and systems which attempt to reduce uncertainty. (3) //Individuality versus collectivism// – the degree to which members of a society define and focus their identity on self or in relation to a social unit like family, clan, or tribe. (4) //Feminism versus masculinism// – the degree to which a society stresses “feminine” values such as caring for others, supporting the needy, providing for minorities or disadvantaged groups, as against “masculine” values such as providing for self, being aggressively concerned with the welfare of only one’s own, no expression of caring for the weak and needy etc.

In their book, Riding the Waves of Culture, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner established a similar dimension referring to it as the //Communitarism versus Individualism//. Their model includes the following: Cultures and not purely fall under a particular dimension as they all encompass elements of each. In the case of the Middle East -- a recognized Communitarian culture for example – decision making tends to take a more top-down approach were absolute authority is expected from the top leadership. Nonetheless, some of these definitions remain very useful in helping define the common and conflicting dimensions of national cultures.
 * Universalism versus Particularism (rules versus relationships)
 * Communitarianism versus Individualism (the group versus the individual)
 * Neutral versus Emotional (the range of feelings expressed)
 * Diffuse versus Specific (the range of involvement)
 * Achievement versus Ascription (how status is accorded)

As most are aware, the first step of making a decision is normally ‘problem definition’. Thomas argues that “//Managers from cultures with a// doing //or problem solving orientation such as the United States might identify a situation as a problem to be solved well before managers from// being //or situation-accepting cultures such as Indonesia and Malaysia”.// (p. 95). Additionally, the amount of information required prior to making a decision varies among various cultures. For example, East Asians have a more holistic approach to decisions and consider more information than do Americans (Choi, Dalal, Kim-Prieto & Park, 2003). Research also indicates that people from individualist cultures are more likely to evaluate a variety of alternatives than those from collectivist cultures. (those last 3 sentences relate to problem solving as well). To make decisions a manager needs to be ‘rational’. The research of Thomas indicates that while rationality is heavily related to cognitive limitations, cultural aspect also come to play. He argues that for some cultures it is important to appear rational (eg. US) when making their decisions while others weigh more value on the intuitiveness of the decision making process (Japan). (Thomas, 2008). Reasoning in Individualistic cultures therefore would be free from contradiction, while contradiction may be embraced in communitarian settings were decision makers may be able to relate to both sides of the argument and further seek compromise in solving problem.

The level of confidence in the decision making process is also culturally bound. Yates argues that collectivists (communitarians) display greater confidence in the viability of their decisions. In contrast, individualists might demonstrate less certainty by considering more possible negative outcomes of their decision. For example, referring to a 2001 Greer & Stephens study, he confirmed that “when asked to list possible reasons why their decision might be wrong, Chinese respondents produced far fewer reasons than U.S. respondent”. (Thomas, 2008, pg.100)

Finally, the time required to make a decision is also culturally related. Individualist cultures, such as in the US, will vest decision-making authority to a few seniors, while, communitarian cultures will involve a variety and more inclusive group – regardless of seniority – in the decision making process. This also relates to the **time orientations** of cultures, where some (like the Arab world) are more lax about time than in cultures that relate decisiveness to how quickly one makes a decision.

Cultural distinctions are not only nationally bound but are also clearly visible within organizations. For example a participatory decision making culture may be more prevalent in some organizations than in others. For example, some believe that non-profits tend to be more inclusive in their decision making than the corporate top-down culture although there are some trends that indicate a slight shift (need a reference here). Imagine your self entering a new culture and asked to participate or lead a decision making process. (I imagined myself in China). It seemed too daunting of a task and I felt my feet tremble with uncertainty. After all, I know nothing of the Chinese way or thinking and working. Although I visited China on one occasion this did not encourage me; instead it added to my fear as I recollected my challenges as a tourist trying to get around and obtain some food. Doing business must be even more challenging. What is it then that multi-national teams need to do in order to mitigate the impact of //ecoshock// (Fontaine, 2005)? While globalization and the use of innovative technologies have created many shared communication cultures, many behavioral norms remain engrained in the rich and long-established cultures in which they originated and developed. These must be addressed.
 * Strategies and Skills **

To start, when entering a new culture, avoid unilateral decision making. Numerous research has proved the superiority of group over individual decision making and confirmed that the group process results in new ideas and insights that prove valuable to all. (Johnson and Johnson, p. 271). These same authors also confirm that ‘ In general, more homogeneous groups make less effective decisions than heterogeneous groups. The more heterogeneous the group the more frequent the conflict among group members and the greater group productivity (p. 299). **So, adopt an attitude that avoids unilateralism and embraces diversity in the decision making process**.

With this new attitude established, you will need to study and understand the peculiarities of this new culture. Read as much as you can a talk to as many people who have experienced working and/or living in this particular culture. Their insights will be invaluable. Be careful however of their generalizations, maintaining an open mind is just as important.

Equipped with attitude and knowledge, you will then be faced with the challenge of figuring out which decision making methods is more appropriate to your context and new environment. With that you need to develop your cultural intelligence. Earley and Mosakowski suggest a multitude of **strategies** to cultivate cultural intelligence. Most importantly they suggest participating in a CQ enhancement program. This is highly suggested for team globetrotting members.

To counter conflicting norms for decision making, like how quickly and how much analysis is required prior to making decisions, Brett et al, suggest that ‘//the best solution seems to be to make minor concessions on process – to learn to adjust to and even respect another approach to decision making. For example American Managers have learned to keep their impatient bosses away from team meetings and give them frequent if brief updates//. //A comparable lesson for managers from other cultures is to be explicit about they need – saying, for example. ‘we have to see the big picture before we talk details//” (Jeanne Brett, et al, pg. 5)

Additionally for decision makers to the following (derived from Johnson and Johnson, p.285): Geographically dispersed teams face an additional challenge of lacking sufficient face-to-face promotive interaction, however they should be encouraged to take full advantage of the electronic technology to help them arrive at better decision making. For example, email exchanges among the group will allow all the time to think through and elaborate on the issue at hand and is a useful tool for sharing points of view. Video conferencing and interactive audiovisual internet based platforms such as Skype could be an effective alternative for group discussions and decision making. Our team was definitely communitarian in it decision making. Consensus was sought and //power distance// was low. Decision making felt shared with hierarchy present. Setting up a weekly facilitator helped distribute the decision making task to all involved. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> This is more on general management / team building - got carried away a bit.. we could scrap it all together (I have the pdf file of this article if anyone needs it) <span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A study conducted by Jeanne Brett, Kristin Behfar, Mary C. Kern, identifies four problems that hinder a team's success: 1) direct versus indirect communication, 2) trouble with accents and fluency, 3) differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and 4) conflicting norms for decision making. They also argue that if a manager can identify the root cause of the problem early on, he/she is more likely to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. These are some of the **strategies** they suggest: 1) adaptation (working with and around cultural difference), 2) structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team to reduce friction), 3) managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and 4) exit (removing a team member when other options have failed). They also argue that there is no ideal strategy as all depends on the particular circumstances. __Generally though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity__. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams. (Jeanne Brett, Kristin Behfar, Mary C. Kern, 2006).
 * 1) **Decision by Authority without discussion** – as stated above this is not a preferred method for culturally diverse teams or any team for a matter of fact. This method should be used only when time is too scarce, or in authoritarian cultures when they expect the leader to make the decision. This method may also become necessary at times when other group members lack information allowing them to contribute to the decision-making process. //Communitarian// cultures will be offended by this method of decision making.
 * 2) ** Expert Member ** – This may not be a good method to use for //Diffuse// and //Communitarian// groups. In an A//scription// oriented culture, a problem will also arise if the ‘expert’ happens to be female.
 * 3) ** Decision by Authority after discussion ** – this seems to be a method that balances out the other more extreme approaches. However, it does come with its disadvantages. Cultures with low //power distance// may feel that their involvement need not stop at the consultation stage as they see themselves fully participating in the decision making process.
 * 4) ** Majority control ** – through voting -- this is a method where //individualistic// and //specificity// -oriented cultures thrive. Additionally non-profits seem to shy away from this method preferring the building of agreement on the decision among the whole group.
 * 5) ** Consensus ** – while taking more time, seems to be the best option, especially for intercultural work teams. It is the method that produces high quality decisions by capitalizing on available resources and in turn elicits the commitment of all members to uphold the decision. Specificity cultures (eg Netherlands) will most likely not have the patience for building consensus and would not be too comfortable with it.
 * Decision making and Teal Team: **

Joyce's next conflict management- 2nd draft <span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> // We need to **reconcile** differences, be ourselves but yet see and understand how the other’s perspectives can help our own //. -- (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, pg. 204).
 * <span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">Conflict Management **

Most organizations spend enormous time, energy and money dealing with conflict. In fact, Thomas and Schmidt (1976) found that between 20% and 25% of managers’ time is spent directly dealing with conflicts. Johnson and Johnson (2006) argue that while conflicts are pervasive within most organizations and are frequently mismanaged, they can prove very constructive if deliberately structured. Yet a few organizations seem to want to stimulate controversy in their environments. Nonetheless conflict in the workplace is a fact of life and when resolved effectively it can lead to personal and professional growth.

Geographically dispersed inter-cultural teams are certainly not immune from facing conflict. Not only do they undergo the normal challenges facing home-based teams, but their challenges are compounded as they struggle the virtual nature of conflict as well as it intricacies resulting from the rich and diverse cultures surrounding them in their ‘strange lands’.

We however, should not assume that culture will be an obstacle in reaching an agreement when negotiators come from different cultures. On the contrary, cultural differences present opportunities for learning that can enrich and enable the negotiation process (Wanis-St.John, pg. 118). Inter-cultural dynamics are an important way to understand the implications of culture on conflict management as people hold dramatically different views of themselves and their relationships. Culture defines the values and interests at the core of each conflict, which in turn shapes people’s perception of themselves and others, as well as the style by which one handles conflict (Rabie, 1994). Literature revealed a multitude of theories (eg. Hofstede, 1980) that help us identify inter-cultural traits and allow us to better identify the differences of how cultures handle conflict. We have found Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1998) to take these theories to the next level as they remind us of the importance of ‘managing’ and seeking to “integrate and reconcile” values of the seemingly opposite cultures. They prompt us to recognize that diversity exists as much //within// as //between// cultures. Nonetheless, their five cultural dimensions (elaborated in the Decision Making section of this handbook) provide another opportunity to examine ways different cultures handle conflict. The table below details how various cultural dimensions affect the perception and behavior of individuals and group as they handle conflict.

Individual interests override group interests in the negotiation process; they value autonomy and authority.
 * Individualists** ||
 * Collectivists** ||
 * Collectivists** ||

Conflict is an inevitable reality that is confronted willingly and with no hard feelings

Welcome impartial external mediators and accept their impartial evaluation of the situation. || Value their groups’ homogeneity and will go at length to maintain its unified standpoint in negotiations.

Conflict is perceived as sign of failure, and hence they will do their utmost to avoid it.

Will not appreciate external mediators – they are perceived as intruders. They will appreciate an fellow group member and expect him/her to provide advice and counsel and restore team harmony. || **Achievement-oriented** || **Ascription -oriented** || Respected negotiators could be anyone with high level of expertise and track record.

Will negotiate as a group

Will more likely reject or at least question superior’s views (Crookes and Thomas, 1998, p.585)

Will assert that one’s opinion and thoughts are of equal value to others. || Status of negotiating team is important. Older, male negotiators are respected more.

Will designate an authoritative representative to negotiate on their behalf

Will show absolute respect to superior.

Behavior could be oriented towards deference, giving and maintaining face. || **Neutral** || **Affective** || Will not reveal their thinking and will remain calm, collected and restrained. || Will show greater emotions, gestures and true feeling and opinions; their communication style will highlight eye contact and maybe touch. || //While these don’t necessary pose direct problems, issues may arise as a result of how one judges the behavior of the other. Raising one’s voice, for example, can be very offensive to someone from an Affective culture.// || **Specificity** || **Diffuse** || Will want to ‘cut the chase’ and get down to the core issues. They prefer direct face-to-face communications and avoid diplomatic jargon.

They possess low tolerance to ambiguity and expect the negotiation process to spell out issues and expectations first hand

They will demonstrate high levels of assertiveness. || Will show relative evasiveness of the issue at hand; their aim is often related to restoring harmony prior to engaging in substance. They value diplomacy.

They have an ability to tolerate deviance from agreed upon terms

They will show modesty and expect it to be reciprocated. Lack of such reciprocation could be problematic and misinterpreted as detachment from the outcome (Wanis-St John) || **Universalists** || **Particularists** || will want to ‘go by the book’ to resolve a dispute. A deal is a deal and they tend to exercise little flexibility. || will demonstrate more flexibility as they emphasize the relationships staying intact. To them the negotiation process is a process rather than having a beginning and an end. || **Sequential** || **Synchronic** || Time is essential to them. They do not want to waste it on small talk. If a meeting is set to resolve a conflict or negotiate a deal, they want to stick to the schedule. || They are lax about time and would want to invest in ‘getting to know’ the other side prior to engaging in heavy duty negotiations. They are happy postponing the meeting if time was not sufficient. ||


 * Team Teal** did not encounter any noticeable conflict throughout the OMD course. This may be due to the fact that we started early with clear communications on expectations, roles and timelines. We recognized our shared goal was to complete and had no defectors throughout the process. Phone conversations helped bring life and personality into our group and build further trust and respect for one another. Authority was distributed by designating weekly facilitators and ideas were shared and openly debated and compromise seemed to be preferred over conflict.


 * Strategies and Skills**

For geographically disbursed teams, managing conflict is exasperated by distance and lack of physical face-to-face communications, and hence requires special attention and intricate management skills. While we know that conflict can never be totally prevented, we know that we can do a few things to alleviate it. Research suggests that ‘//successful resolution [of conflict] is linked to satisfaction with the cross-cultural interaction process//’ (Earley and Gibson, 2002, pg. 43). Such satisfaction is only achieved through constructive conflict practices. Here are some reminders that may help.
 * 1) **Know where you stand in terms of your own culture**. Starting with yourself is key to understanding the differences emerging from others around you. So, think of your individual culture and ‘what makes you tick’. Are you an individualist or diffuse-oriented? Think about not only what you are, but why you think and believe in a particular way.
 * 2) **Place good relationship as your first priority and separate people from the problems**. Recognize that in many cases the other person is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences exists behind conflictive positions.
 * 3) **Recognize and understand the other culture**. This will take time and should not be underestimated. Some ideas that will help you understand other cultures is to watch movies and read books about the other ‘strange land’. Also, simply engaging in general conversation about the differences in norms, behaviors and expectations, early on, will highlight that differences so exist and will make dealing with a particular dispute more manageable.
 * 4) **Before stereotyping behaviors, always check your assumptions**. Earley and Gibson (2002) reference previous research and ascertain that members of multicultural teams make distinctions between others’ belief systems resulting in judgments of similarity or difference which in turn result in a perceived status hierarchy of members. So, you may think a particular behavior (eg raising one’s voice) came about because someone was angry only to discover that the cause was due to another interpretation.
 * 5) **Share your thoughts and ask questions when confused.** This is particularly true for a new employee entering into a new organizational culture. Their ways for resolving disputes may be very different from what he/she are accustomed to.
 * 6) **Understand each other’s preferred communication style and try to reach a compromise**. Much of the issues surrounding conflict emerge because of miscommunication and inappropriate forms of interactions. (for example some cultures have not yet adjusted to email messages and may think of them as being too formal - they may even feel offended). Also, **consider issues language** and translating communiqué’s if need be; set ground rules that all will adhere to (no accusing, name-calling, etc..); **encourage face-to-face communications** when possible and use video conferencing or internet based video communication (eg. Skype) to hold meetings; also
 * 7) **Listen carefully and be empathetic to the other side and pay attention to the interests being presented**. Maintain an open-mind knowing that you also could be wrong. Be ready to compromise.
 * 8) **Respect and Trust the other side**. While trust does not happen overnight, it is an objective that you need to work towards.
 * 9) **Brainstorm possible solutions and be open to third-party mediation**. Explore options together and welcome the idea of finding a solution jointly.