5: Team Work and Cultural Intelligence

Chapter Objectives

• Define a team.
• Provide guidelines to develop team cohesiveness.
• Explain factors that contribute to team effectiveness.
• Provide strategies to assess your team behavior.
• Demonstrate cultural intelligence and the benefits of team diversity.

Introduction

Being a part of many teams can help employees with job satisfaction and give them exposure to the leadership styles within your organization. It is important to understand the basic dynamics, such as those showcased within EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., (below) to best approach tasks and, in this case, the highly positive strategy of multiple team memberships.

Example: Teamwork in the Workplace

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

In the modern workplace, it is more common that an employee is not assigned to just one team in their role. More currently, individuals are being tasked with multiple roles that allow them to work within many teams on many projects. Research done estimates that 81 to 95 percent of employees around the world serve on multiple teams simultaneously. In some cases, this alone can have a negative effect on the way that employees are able to focus on the impact on their stress levels. Leadership plays a big role in combating the negative effects of multiple team memberships, or MTM.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. employees the MTM structure on a daily basis, with its employees working on up to six different projects concurrently. The environmental consulting company based in Baltimore, MD, has to collaborate often and work in a team-based environment to balance stakeholder management and profits.

Juggling six different projects at one given time can be stressful to any employee but structuring the work within different teams gives employees a sense of autonomy so that they know specifically what piece of the project to focus on and contribute their skills to the overall group. Leaders naturally form within groups and take ownership of different tasks, which also is very helpful to both the overall success of the team and individual satisfaction of the employee. Research done with this group and others has shown that when leaders showcase empowering qualities to their employees, subsequently the employees are more proactive. Despite the fact that these individuals worked on many teams under a variety of leaders, the individuals often carried over the empowerment qualities of one leader to their other team even when the other leader was less empowering.

Group Think

Conformity and Deviance. Managers often wonder why employees comply with the norms and dictates of their workgroup even when they seemingly work against their best interests. This concern is particularly strong when workers intentionally withhold productivity that could lead to higher incomes. The answer to this question lies in the concept of conformity to group norms. Situations arise when the individual is swept along by the group and acts in ways that he would prefer not to.

To see how this works, consider the results of a classic study of individual conformity to group pressures that was carried out by Solomon Asch. Asch conducted a laboratory experiment in which a native subject was placed in a room with several confederates. Each person in the room was asked to match the length of a given line (X) with that of one of three unequal lines (A, B, and C). All the subjects who spoke first had been instructed prior to the experiment to identify line C as the line most like X, even though A was clearly the answer. The results were startling. In over one-third of the trials in the experiment, the naive subject denied the evidence of his own senses and agreed with the answers given by the unknown confederates. In other words, when confronted by a unanimous answer from others in the group, a large percentage of individuals chose to go along with the group rather than express a conflicting opinion, even though these individuals were confident their own answers were correct.

Figure 1. Classic footage from the Asch conformity study. This version includes definitions of normative and informational conformity and the powerful effect of having an ally (HeroicImaginationTV.)

What causes such conformity to group norms? And, under what conditions will an individual deviate from these norms? Conformity to group norms is believed to be caused by at least three factors. Personality, Initial Stimulus, and Group Characteristics.

Conformity to Group Norms

Personality: Personality plays a major role. For instance, negative correlations have been found between conformity and intelligence, tolerance, and ego strength, whereas authoritarianism was found to be positively related. Essentially, people who have a strong self-identity are more likely to stick to their own norms and deviate from those of the group when a conflict between the two exists.

Initial Stimulus: The initial stimulus that evokes responses can influence conformity. The more ambiguous the stimulus (e.g., a new and confusing order from top management), the greater the propensity to conform to group norms (“I’m not sure what the new order from management really means, so I’ll just go along with what others think it means”). In this sense, conformity provides a sense of protection and security in a new and perhaps threatening situation.

Group Characteristics: Finally, group characteristics themselves can influence conformity to group norms. Factors such as the extent of pressure exerted on group members to conform, the extent to which a member identifies with the group, and the extent to which the group has been successful in achieving previous goals can influence conformity.

Deviation from Group Norms

When a group member deviates from the group norms, research indicates that members often respond by increasing the amount of communication directed toward the deviant member. This communication is aimed at bringing the deviant into the acceptable bounds set by the group. A good example of this process can be seen in Janis’s classic study of the group processes leading up to the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. At one meeting, Arthur Schlesinger, an adviser to President Kennedy, expressed opposition to the plan even though no one else expressed similar doubts. After listening to his opposition for a while, Robert Kennedy took Schlesinger aside and said, “You may be right or you may be wrong, but the President has his mind made up. Don’t push it any further. Now is the time for everyone to help him all they can.” Janis elaborated on this group decision-making process and termed it “groupthink.”

When a deviant member refuses to heed the message and persists in breaking group norms, group members often respond by rejecting or isolating the deviant. They tell the deviant, in essence, that they will no longer tolerate such behavior and prefer to reconstitute the group. If the deviant is not expelled, the group must continually confront behavior that conflicts with what it holds to be true. Rather than question or reexamine its beliefs, the group finds it simpler—and safer—to rid itself of dangerous influences.

Group Cohesiveness

A fourth characteristic of teams is group cohesiveness. We have all come in contact with teams whose members feel a high degree of camaraderie, group spirit, and unity. In these teams, individuals seem to be concerned about the welfare of other members as well as that of the team as a whole. There is a feeling of “us against them” that creates a closeness among them. This phenomenon is called group cohesiveness. More specifically, group cohesiveness may be defined as the extent to which individual members of a team are motivated to remain in the group. According to Shaw, “Members of highly cohesive groups are more energetic in group activities, they are less likely to be absent from group meetings, they are happy when the group succeeds and sad when it fails, etc., whereas members of less cohesive groups are less concerned about the group’s activities" (Shaw, M. 1991)

We shall consider two primary aspects of group cohesiveness. First, we look at the major causes of cohesiveness. Following this, we examine its consequences.

Determinants of Group Cohesiveness. Why do some teams develop a high degree of group cohesiveness while others do not? To answer this question, we have to examine both the composition of the group and several variables that play a role in determining the extent of cohesiveness. These include the following:

• Group homogeneity. The more homogeneous the group—that is, the more members share similar characteristics and backgrounds—the greater the cohesiveness.
• Group maturity. Groups tend to become more cohesive simply as a result of the passage of time. Continued interaction over long periods of time helps members develop a closeness born of shared experiences.
• Group size. Smaller groups have an easier time developing cohesiveness, possibly because of the less complex interpersonal interaction patterns.
• Frequency of interaction. Groups that have greater opportunities to interact on a regular or frequent basis tend to become more cohesive than groups that meet less frequently or whose members are more isolated.
• Clear group goals. Groups that know exactly what they are trying to accomplish develop greater cohesiveness, in part because of a shared sense of mission and the absence of conflict over mission.
• Competition or external threat. When groups sense external threat or hostility, they tend to band together more closely. There is, indeed, “safety in numbers.”
• Success. Group success on a previous task often facilitates increased cohesiveness and a sense of “we did it together.”

In other words, a wide variety of factors can influence group cohesiveness. The precise manner in which these processes occur is not known. Even so, managers must recognize the existence of certain forces of group cohesiveness if they are to understand the nature of group dynamics in organizations.

Example: Maintaining Cohesiveness During Change

In the fast-moving innovative car industry, it is always important to be thinking about improving and staying ahead of the competition. For Ford and Chevrolet however, they have such popular vehicles—the F-150 and the hybrid Volt, respectively—that finding ways to improve them without taking away the qualities that make them popular is key.

With the F-150, Ford had one of the best-selling vehicles for more than 30 years, but improving upon their most popular vehicle came with its challenges. In 2015, the team wanted to introduce an economically six-cylinder EcoBoost engine, and an all-aluminum body. The team was worried about the marketplace and hoped that the customers would accept the change to their beloved truck.

The planning started 18 months before, working in parallel work teams on various parts of the project. Each team was responsible for a piece of the overall project, and they frequently came together to make sure that they were working cohesively to create a viable vehicle. The most successful piece of the dynamic for Ford was teams’ ability to share feedback. Pete Reyes expresses the teamwork mentality: “Everybody crosses boundaries, and they came back with all of the feedback that shaped what we are going to do.”

Having team cohesiveness was ultimately what brought Ford to the finish line. With over 1,000 members of the overall team, employees were able to accomplish a truly viable vehicle that weighed 700 pounds less, as well as countless other innovations that gave the truck 29 percent more fuel economy.

“We stuck to common goals . . . I don’t think I’ll ever work on a team that tight again,” stated Reyes about his team of developmental managers. As a result of their close teamwork, Ford announced third-quarter earnings of 1.9 billion, an increase of 1.1 billion from 2014.

Sources: J. Motivalli, “ 5 Inspiring Companies That Rely on Teamwork to Be Successful,” Success, February 16, 2016, https://www.success.com/5-inspiring-...be-successful/; “All-New 2015 F-150 Most Patented Truck in Ford History – New Innovations Bolster Next-Generation Light-Duty Pickup,” Ford Media Center, May 23, 2014, https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...-new-inno.html; P. Friedman, “Body of Work,” Ford Corporate Website, accessed, December 13, 2018, https://corporate.ford.com/innovatio...y-of-work.html.

What Is Work Group Effectiveness?

The first question to raise concerning workgroup effectiveness is what we mean by the concept itself. According to Hackman’s model, effectiveness is defined in terms of three criteria:

1. Productive output. The productive output of the group must meet or exceed the quantitative and qualitative standards defined by the organization.
2. Personal need satisfaction. Groups are effective if membership facilitates employee need satisfaction.
3. Capacity for future cooperation. Effective groups employ social processes that maintain or enhance the capacity of their members to work together on subsequent tasks. Destructive social processes are avoided so members can develop long-term cohesiveness and effectiveness.

What determines Work Group Effectiveness

Group effectiveness is largely determined by three factors that have been called intermediate criteria. These factors are as follows:

1. Group effort. The amount of effort group members exert toward task accomplishment.
2. Group knowledge and skill. The amount of knowledge and skills possessed by group members that are available for group effort and performance.
3. Task performance strategies. The extent to which the group’s strategies for task performance (that is, how it analyzes and attempts to solve problems) are appropriate.

Although the relative importance of each of these three intermediate factors may vary, all three are important. Without considerable group effort, appropriate skills and knowledge, and a clear strategy for task completion, groups are unlikely to be effective.

An important influence on the relative importance of these three variables is the nature of work technology. This includes the equipment and materials used in manufacture, the prescribed work procedures, and the physical layout of the work site. For example, if jobs are highly routinized, individual skills and knowledge may be somewhat less important than simple effort. On more complex tasks, however, such as research and development, effort alone will be of little help without concomitant skills and knowledge. Hence, although the relative importance of these three variables may vary with the job technology, all should be considered in any effort to understand determinants of work group effectiveness in a particular situation.

It must be recognized that these determinants of effectiveness are themselves influenced by three sets of factors. First, we must recognize a series of environmental context factors, such as the company’s reward system, training programs, job descriptions, and so forth. Second are several design factors, including group structure, member composition, and performance norms. Finally, the role of interpersonal processes—such as efforts among group members and management to reduce conflict, foster commitment, and share knowledge—must be recognized. These three sets of factors, then, are largely responsible for determining the so-called intermediate criteria that, in turn, combine with appropriate job technologies to determine workgroup effectiveness.

Team Function and Effectiveness

Teamwork has never been more important in organizations than it is today. Whether you work in a manufacturing environment and utilize self-directed work teams, or if you work in the “knowledge economy” and derive benefits from collaboration within a team structure, you are harnessing the power of a team.

In their Harvard Business Review (HBR) article “The Discipline of Teams,” Katzenbach & Smith (2005) define the five elements that make teams function effectively:

• Common commitment and purpose
• Specific performance goals
• Complementary skills
• Commitment to how the work gets done
• Mutual accountability

A team has a specific purpose that it delivers on, has shared leadership roles, and has both individual and mutual accountabilities. Teams discuss, make decisions, and perform real work together, and they measure their performance by assessing their collective work products.

Self-Assessment: How do you behave in a team?

Instructions: Think of a typical team situation in which you often find yourself (e.g., a club, study group, small team), and answer the following items as accurately as possible. Assign yourself points for each answer: Never = 1 pt.; Seldom = 2 pts.; Fairly Often = 3 pts.; Frequently = 4 pts.

In a team, how often do you:	Never	Seldom	Fairly Often	Frequently
Keep the team focused on the task at hand?
Help the team clarify the issues?
Pull various ideas together?
Push the team to make a decision or complete a task?
Support and encourage other team members?
Try to reduce interpersonal conflicts?
Help the team reach a compromise?
Assist in maintaining team harmony?
Seek personal recognition from other team members?
Try to dominate team activities?
Avoid unpleasant or undesirable team activities?
Express your impatience or hostility with the team?

Scoring the Team Behavior instrument: Add up your scores as follows for the three categories of behavior:

Task-oriented behavior: Add up items 1-4

Relations-oriented behavior: Add up items 5-6

Self-Oriented behavior: Add up items 9-12

Examine the resulting pattern in your answers. There are no correct or incorrect answers. Instead, this is an opportunity to view how you describe your own role-related activities in a team. What did you learn about yourself? How does your role in a team differ from those of other individuals?

Assessment: How Effective Is Your Team?

Instructions: Select a team to which you belong, and use this team to answer the following questions. Check “mostly yes” or “mostly no” to answer each question.

Team Effectiveness Assessment	Mostly Yes	Mostly No
1. The atmosphere is relaxed and comfortable.
2. Group discussion is frequent, and it is usually pertinent to the task at hand.
3. Team members understand what they are trying to accomplish.
4. People listen to each other’s suggestions and ideas.
5. Disagreements are tolerated, and an attempt is made to resolve them.
6. There is general agreement on most courses of action taken.
7. The team welcomes frank criticism from inside and outside sources.
8. When the team takes action, clear assignments are made and accepted.
9. There is a well-established, relaxed working relationship among the members.
10. There is a high degree of trust and confidence among the leader and subordinates.
11. The team members strive hard to help the group achieve its goal.
12. Suggestions and criticisms are offered and received with a helpful spirit.
13. There is a cooperative rather than a competitive relationship among group members.
14. The team goals are set high but not so high as to create anxieties or fear of failure.
15. The leaders and members hold a high opinion of the team’s capabilities.
16. Creativity is stimulated within the team.
17. There is ample communication within the team of topics relevant to getting the work accomplished.
18. Team members feel confident in making decisions.
19. People are kept busy but not overloaded.
The leader of the team is well suited for the job.

Source: Adapted from A. J. DuBrin from The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).

Scoring the Team Effectiveness instrument: The Team Effectiveness instrument measures the relative effectiveness of a team to which you belong. Count the number of times you answered “mostly yes.” The larger the number, the more productive and satisfied the members should be. There are no norms for this exercise, so you might wish to create your own norms by comparing scores among others in your class who have completed this instrument for the teams they belong to. Look at the range of scores, and then describe the characteristics of each team. Are there any common characteristics that distinguish the teams with the highest scores? The lowest scores? Why do these differences occur?

You could also use this questionnaire to compare teams to which you belong. If you were the leader of one of these teams, what would you do to make the team more effective? Why hasn’t this been done already?

Figure 2. Finance Team Smart managers understand that not all of a company’s influential relationships appear as part of the organization chart. Consider a publishing company that might have a lead finance head for each team, such as adult fiction, nonfiction, young adult, and children’s book divisions. A finance team working group would help spread best practices and lead to more cohesive operations for the entire organization. (Credit: Creator: FatCamera | Credit: Getty Images https://images.app.goo.gl/MUbxZ6A48A8L7HB46)

What makes a team truly effective?

According to Katzenbach and Smith’s “Discipline of Teams,” there are several practices that the authors have observed in successful teams: Establish urgency, demanding performance standards, and direction.

Practices of Successful Teams

Establish urgency

Teams work best when they have a compelling reason for being, and it is thus more likely that the teams will be successful and live up to performance expectations. We’ve all seen the teams that are brought together to address an “important initiative” for the company, but without clear direction and a truly compelling reason to exist, the team will lose momentum and wither.

Demanding performance standards

Select the roles for members according to their skill and skill potential, not for their personality. This is not always as easy as it sounds for several reasons. First, most people would prefer to have those with good personalities and positive attitudes on their team in order to promote a pleasant work environment. This is fine, but make sure that those individuals have the skill sets needed (or the potential to acquire/learn) for their piece of the project. The second caveat here is that you don’t always know what skills you need on a project until you really dig in and see what’s going on. Spend some time up front thinking about the purpose of the project and the anticipated deliverables you will be producing and think through the specific types of skills you’ll need on the team.

Pay particular attention to first meetings and actions. This is one way of saying that first impressions mean a lot—and it is just as important for teams as for individuals. Teams will interact with everyone from functional subject-matter experts all the way to senior leadership, and the team must look competent and be perceived as competent. Keeping an eye on your team’s level of emotional intelligence is very important and will enhance your team’s reputation and ability to navigate stakeholders within the organization.

Create a team charter. Many times the people in meetings and teams rush through “ground rules” because it felt like they were obvious—and everyone always comes up with the same list. It is so critical that the team takes the time upfront to capture their own rules in order to keep the team in check. Rules that address areas such as attendance, discussion, confidentiality, project approach, quality of work expectations, and conflict are key to keeping team members aligned and engaged appropriately. The following 1-minute video by project management specialist, David Barrett gives a quick overview of how to create a team charter. For more information about developing a team charter, read Barrett's article Do You Kick Off Your Projects with a Team Charter? You Should.

Figure 3. D. Barrett (2016) "Barrett on the Team Charter." (https://youtu.be/3cGSo0OOvzA)

Direction

Set and seize upon a few immediate performance-oriented tasks and goals. What does this mean? Have some quick wins that make the team feel that they’re really accomplishing something and working together well. This is very important to the team’s confidence, as well as just getting into the practices of working as a team. Success in the larger tasks will come soon enough, as the larger tasks are really just a group of smaller tasks that fit together to produce a larger deliverable.

Challenge the group regularly with fresh facts and information. That is, continue to research and gather information to confirm or challenge what you know about your project. Don’t assume that all the facts are static and that you received them at the beginning of the project. Often, you don’t know what you don’t know until you dig in. I think that the pace of change is so great in the world today that new information is always presenting itself and must be considered in the overall context of the project.

Spend lots of time together. Here’s an obvious one that is often overlooked. People are so busy that they forget that an important part of the team process is to spend time together, think together, and bond. Time in person, time on the phone, time in meetings—all of it counts and helps to build camaraderie and trust.

Exploit the power of positive feedback, recognition, and reward. Positive reinforcement is a motivator that will help the members of the team feel more comfortable contributing. It will also reinforce the behaviors and expectations that you’re driving within the team. Although there are many extrinsic rewards that can serve as motivators, a successful team begins to feel that its own success and performance is the most rewarding.

Collaboration is another key concept and method by which teams can work together very successfully. Bringing together a team of experts from across the business would seem to be a best practice in any situation. However, Gratton & Erickson, in their article "Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams," found that collaboration seems to decrease sharply when a team is working on complex project initiatives. In their study, they examined 55 larger teams and identified those with strong collaboration skills, despite the level of complexity. There were eight success factors for having strong collaboration skills:

• “Signature” relationship practices
• Role models of collaboration among executives
• Establishment of “gift” culture, in which managers mentor employees
• Training in relationship skills
• A sense of community
• Ambidextrous leaders—good at task and people leadership
• Good use of heritage relationships
• Role clarity and task ambiguity

Stages of Team Growth

If you have been a part of a team—as most of us have—then you intuitively have felt that there are different “stages” of team development. Teams and team members often start from a position of friendliness and excitement about a project or endeavor, but the mood can sour and the team dynamics can deteriorate very quickly once the real work begins. In 1965, educational psychologist Bruce Tuckman at Ohio State University developed a four-stage model to explain the complexities of team development. The original model was called Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development, and he added the fifth stage of “Adjourning” in 1977 to explain the disbanding of a team at the end of a project. The four development stages of the Tuckman model are: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing.

Tuckman's 4 Stages of Team Development

1. The Forming stage begins with the introduction of team members. This is known as the “polite stage” in which the team is mainly focused on similarities and the group looks to the leader for structure and direction. The team members at this point are enthusiastic, and issues are still being discussed on a global, ambiguous level. This is when the informal pecking order begins to develop, but the team is still friendly.
2. The Storming stage begins as team members begin vying for leadership and testing the group processes. This is known as the “win-lose” stage, as members clash for control of the group and people begin to choose sides. The attitude about the team and the project begins to shift to negative, and there is frustration around goals, tasks, and progress. As shown in Figure 4.3, the team begins to struggle and usually experiences a brief period of downward movement.
3. After what can be a very long and painful Storming process for the team, slowly the Norming stage may start to take root. During Norming, the team is starting to work well together, and buy-in to group goals occurs. The team is establishing and maintaining ground rules and boundaries, and there is a willingness to share responsibility and control. At this point in the team formation, members begin to value and respect each other and their contributions.
4. Finally, as the team builds momentum and starts to get results, it is entering the Performing stage. The team is completely self-directed and requires little management direction. The team has confidence, pride, and enthusiasm, and there is a congruence of vision, team, and self. As the team continues to perform, it may even succeed in becoming a high-performing team. High-performing teams have optimized both task and people relationships—they are maximizing performance and team effectiveness. Katzenberg and Smith, in their study of teams, have created a “team performance curve” that graphs the journey of a team from a working group to a high-performing team.

Figure 4. Team Performance Curve A graphical representation plots the performance curve of a team during their transition from a working group to a high-performing team. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC-BY 4.0 license)

The process of becoming a high-performing team is not linear. Similarly, the four stages of team development in the Tuckman Model are not linear, and there are factors that may cause the team to regress to an earlier stage of development. For example, if a team member is added to the group, it may change the dynamic and be disruptive enough to cause a backward slide to an earlier stage. Similarly, if a new project task is introduced that causes confusion or anxiety for the group, then this may also cause a backward slide to an earlier stage of development. Think of your own experiences with project teams and the backslide that the group may have taken when another team member was introduced. You may have personally found the same to be true when a leader or project sponsor changes the scope or adds a new project task. The team has to re-group and will likely re-Storm and re-Form before getting back to Performing as a team.

How team diversity enhances decision-making and problem-solving

Decision-making and problem-solving can be much more dynamic and successful when performed in a diverse team environment. The multiple diverse perspectives can enhance both the understanding of the problem and the quality of the solution. Team activities and projects that intentionally bring diverse individuals together create the best environments for problem-solving.

Diversity is a word that is very commonly used today, but the importance of diversity and building diverse teams can sometimes get lost in the normal processes of doing business. Let’s discuss why we need to keep these principles front of mind.

In the Harvard Business Review article “Why Diverse Teams are Smarter” (Nov. 2016), David Rock and Heidi Grant support the idea that increasing workplace diversity is a good business decision. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean. Similarly, in a global analysis conducted by Credit Suisse, organizations with at least one female board member yielded a higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board.

Figure 5. The Benefits of Diversity for Teams. Teams made up of diverse members tend to perform better than teams of similar backgrounds. Here, the Women of Color in Technology work on a project. The tech industry has been criticized for the lack of diversity among its ranks, and groups like the Women of Color in Technology are looking to change that. (Credit: WOCin Tech Chat/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0))

Additional research on diversity has shown that diverse teams are better at decision-making and problem-solving because they tend to focus more on facts, per the Rock and Grant (2016) article. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that people from diverse backgrounds “might actually alter the behavior of a group’s social majority in ways that lead to improved and more accurate group thinking.” It turned out that in the study, the diverse panels raised more facts related to the case than homogenous panels and made fewer factual errors while discussing available evidence. Another study noted in the article showed that diverse teams are “more likely to constantly reexamine facts and remain objective." They may also encourage greater scrutiny of each member’s actions, keeping their joint cognitive resources sharp and vigilant.

Being a member of a diverse team can help you become more aware of your own potential biases—entrenched ways of thinking that can otherwise blind you to key information and even lead you to make errors in decision-making processes.” In other words, when people are among homogeneous and like-minded (nondiverse) teammates, the team is susceptible to groupthink and may be reticent to think about opposing viewpoints since all team members are in alignment. In a more diverse team with a variety of backgrounds and experiences, the opposing viewpoints are more likely to come out and the team members feel obligated to research and address the questions that have been raised. Again, this enables a richer discussion and a more in-depth fact-finding and exploration of opposing ideas and viewpoints in order to solve problems.

Diversity in teams also leads to greater innovation. A Boston Consulting Group (Lorenzo, R. Yoigt, N., Schetelig, K., Zawadzki, A., Welpe, I., & Brosi, P., 2016) article entitled “The Mix that Matters: Innovation through Diversity” explains a study in which BCG and the Technical University of Munich conducted an empirical analysis to understand the relationship between diversity in managers (all management levels) and innovation. The key findings of this study show that:

• The positive relationship between management diversity and innovation is statistically significant—and thus companies with higher levels of diversity derive more revenue from new products and services.
• The innovation boost isn’t limited to a single type of diversity. The presence of managers who are either female or are from other countries, industries, or companies can cause an increase in innovation.
• Management diversity seems to have a particularly positive effect on innovation at complex companies—those that have multiple product lines or that operate in multiple industry segments.
• To reach its potential, gender diversity needs to go beyond tokenism. In the study, innovation performance only increased significantly when the workforce included more than 20% of women in management positions. Having a high percentage of female employees doesn’t increase innovation if only a small number of women are managers.
• At companies with diverse management teams, openness to contributions from lower-level workers and an environment in which employees feel free to speak their minds are crucial for fostering innovation.

When you consider the impact that diverse teams have on decision-making and problem-solving—through the discussion and incorporation of new perspectives, ideas, and data—it is no wonder that the BCG study shows greater innovation. Team leaders need to reflect upon these findings during the early stages of team selection so that they can reap the benefits of having diverse voices and backgrounds.

Best practices for working in a multicultural team

As globalization has increased over the last decades, workplaces have felt the impact of working within multicultural teams. The earlier section on team diversity outlined some of the highlights and benefits of working on diverse teams, and a multicultural group certainly qualifies as diverse. However, there are some key practices that are recommended to those who are leading multicultural teams so that they can parlay the diversity into an advantage and not be derailed by it.

People may assume that communication is the key factor that can derail multicultural teams, as participants may have different languages and communication styles. In the Harvard Business Review article “Managing Multicultural Teams,” the authors point out four key cultural differences that can cause destructive conflicts in a team (Brett, Behfar, Kern, 2007).

Key Cultural Differences in a Team

Direct versus indirect communication. Some cultures are very direct and explicit in their communication, while others are more indirect and ask questions rather than pointing out problems. This difference can cause conflict because, at the extreme, the direct style may be considered offensive by some, while the indirect style may be perceived as unproductive and passive-aggressive in team interactions.

Accents and fluency. When team members don’t speak the same language, there may be one language that dominates the group interaction—and those who don’t speak it may feel left out. The speakers of the primary language may feel that those members don’t contribute as much or are less competent.

Differing attitudes toward hierarchy. Some cultures are very respectful of the hierarchy and will treat team members based on that hierarchy. Other cultures are more egalitarian and don’t observe hierarchical differences to the same degree. This may lead to clashes if some people feel that they are being disrespected and not treated according to their status.

Conflicting decision-making norms. Different cultures make decisions differently, and some will apply a great deal of analysis and preparation beforehand. Those cultures that make decisions more quickly (and need just enough information to make a decision) may be frustrated with the slow response and relatively longer thought process.

Developing Cultural Intelligence

Cultural differences can become points of contention for everyday team activities (decision-making, communication, interaction among team members) if there isn’t adequate understanding of everyone’s culture. It is important to remember that there is more than one correct way to do something. By working with those who have different communication styles, attitudes toward hierarchy, and decision-making practices we can develop our cultural intelligence and learn more effective ways to accomplish things.

Cultural intelligence is a competency and a skill that enables individuals to function effectively in cross-cultural environments. It develops as people become more aware of the influence of culture and more capable of adapting their behavior to the norms of other cultures. In the IESE Insight article entitled “Cultural Competence: Why It Matters and How You Can Acquire It” (Lee and Liao, 2015), the authors assert that “multicultural leaders may relate better to team members from different cultures and resolve conflicts more easily. Their multiple talents can also be put to good use in international negotiations.” Multicultural leaders don’t have a lot of “baggage” from any one culture, and so are sometimes perceived as being culturally neutral. They are very good at handling diversity, which gives them a great advantage in their relationships with teammates.

Best Practices to Develop Cultural Intelligence

In order to help employees become better team members in a world that is increasingly multicultural, there are a few best practices that the authors recommend for honing cross-cultural skills.

• Broaden your mind. Expand your own cultural channels (travel, movies, books) and surround yourself with people from other cultures. This helps to raise your own awareness of the cultural differences and norms that you may encounter.
• Develop your cross-cultural skills through practice and experiential learning. You may have the opportunity to work or travel abroad—but if you don’t, then getting to know some of your company’s cross-cultural colleagues or foreign visitors will help you to practice your skills. Serving on a cross-cultural project team and taking the time to get to know and bond with your global colleagues is an excellent way to develop skills.

Understanding Our Global Colleagues

If you are a part of a global team, there are many challenges that confront you even before you talk about people dynamics and cultural differences. You first may have to juggle time zone differences to find an adequate meeting time that suits all team members. (One manager used to have a team call with Chinese colleagues at 8 p.m. her time, so she could catch them at 8 a.m. in China the next day!)

Language challenges can also pose a problem. In many countries, people are beginning to learn English as one of the main business languages. However, people don’t always speak their language the same way that you might learn their language in a book. There are colloquialisms, terms, and abbreviations of words that you can’t learn in a classroom—you need to experience how people speak in their native countries.

You also need to be open-minded and look at situations from the perspective of your colleagues’ cultures, just as you hope they will be open-minded about yours. This is referred to as cultural intelligence. It is important to check yourself and your own culture every so often and to think about those elements that you take for granted (e.g., gigantic meat portions) and try to look at them from the eyes of another culture. It really makes us smarter and better partners to our global colleagues around the world.

In the HBR article “Getting Cross-Cultural Teamwork Right,” (Neeley, 2014) the author states that three key factors—mutual learning, mutual understanding, and mutual teaching—build trust with cross-cultural colleagues as you try to bridge cultural gaps. With mutual learning, global colleagues learn from each other and absorb the new culture and behaviors through listening and observation. In mutual understanding, you try to understand the logic and cultural behaviors of the new culture to understand why people are doing what they do. This, of course, requires suspending judgment and trying to understand and embrace the differences. Finally, mutual teaching involves instructing and facilitating. This means trying to bridge the gap between the two cultures and helping yourself and others see where different cultures are coming from in order to resolve misunderstandings.

Understanding and finding common ground with your global colleagues isn’t easy, and it takes patience and continuous improvement. In the end, however, you will find it one of the most rewarding and enlightening things you can do. The more we work to close the multicultural “gap” and make it a multicultural advantage, the better off we will be as professionals and as people.

Once you have a sense of the different cultures and have started to work on developing your cross-cultural skills, another good practice is to “boost your cultural metacognition” and monitor your own behavior in multicultural situations. In a situation where you are interacting with multicultural individuals, you should test yourself and be aware of how you act and feel. Observe both your positive and negative interactions with people and learn from them. Developing “cognitive complexity” is the final best practice for boosting multicultural skills. This is the most advanced, and it requires being able to view situations from more than one cultural framework. In order to see things from another perspective, you need to have a strong sense of emotional intelligence, empathy, and sympathy, and be willing to engage in honest communications.

In the Harvard Business Review article “Cultural Intelligence,” (Earley, P. & E. Mosokawski, E., 2004) the authors describe three sources of cultural intelligence that teams should consider if they are serious about becoming more adept in their cross-cultural skills and understanding. These sources, very simply, are head, body, and heart. One first learns about the beliefs, customs, and taboos of foreign cultures via the head. Training programs are based on providing this type of overview information—which is helpful, but obviously isn’t experiential. This is the cognitive component of cultural intelligence. The second source, the body, involves more commitment and experimentation with the new culture. It is this physical component (demeanor, eye contact, posture, accent) that shows a deeper level of understanding of the new culture and its physical manifestations. The final source, the heart, deals with a person’s own confidence in their ability to adapt to and deal well with cultures outside of their own. Heart really speaks to one’s own level of emotional commitment and motivation to understand the new culture.

Use the following quick assessment to diagnose cultural intelligence, based on these cognitive, physical, and emotional/motivational measures (i.e., head, body, heart).

Assessing Your Cultural Intelligence
Score your responses using a 1 to 5 scale. 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree
	Before I interact with people from a new culture, I wonder to myself what I hope to achieve.
	If I encounter something unexpected while working in a new culture, I use that experience to build new ways to approach other cultures in the future.
	I plan on how I am going to relate to people from a different culture before I meet with them.
	When I come into a new cultural situation, I can immediately sense whether things are going well or if things are going wrong.
	Add your total from the four questions above.
	Divide the total by 4. This is your Cognitive Cultural Quotient.
	It is easy for me to change my body language (posture or facial expression) to suit people from a different culture.
	I can alter my expressions when a cultural encounter requires it.
	I can modify my speech style by changing my accent or pitch of voice to suit people from different cultures.
	I can easily change the way I act when a cross-cultural encounter seems to require it.
	Add your total from the four questions above.
	Divide the total by 4. This is your Cognitive Physical Quotient.
	I have confidence in my ability to deal well with people from different cultures than mine.
	I am certain that I can befriend people of different cultural backgrounds than mine.
	I can adapt to the lifestyle of a different culture with relative ease.
	I am confident in my ability to deal with an unfamiliar cultural situation or encounter.
	Divide the total by 4. This is your Emotional/Motivational Cognitive Quotient.

Adapted from “Cultural Intelligence,” Earley and Mosakowski, Harvard Business Review, October 2004

Scoring the Cultural Intelligence instrument: Add your total from the four questions above. Divide the total by 4. Generally, scoring below 3 in any one of the three measures signals an area requiring improvement. Averaging over 4 displays strength in cultural intelligence.

Cultural intelligence is an extension of emotional intelligence. An individual must have a level of awareness and understanding of the new culture so that he can adapt to the style, pace, language, nonverbal communication, etc. and work together successfully with the new culture. A multicultural team can only find success if its members take the time to understand each other and ensure that everyone feels included. Multiculturalism and cultural intelligence are traits that are taking on increasing importance in the business world today.¹⁴ By following best practices and avoiding the challenges and pitfalls that can derail a multicultural team, a team can find great success and personal fulfillment well beyond the boundaries of the project or work engagement.

GENERAL TIPS

• Teams function effectively when they share these traits: common commitment and purpose, specific performance goals, complementary skills, commitment to the work, and mutual accountability.
• Storming is a normal stage of team development.
• Meeting frequently, having a team contract with measurable criteria, and frequent performance assessments are tools to creating a high-functioning team.
• Diversity in teams leads to greater innovation
• Homogeneous and like-minded (nondiverse) teammates are susceptible to groupthink because all team members are in alignment.
• Members of a diverse team are more aware of their personal biases.
• Assessing your cultural intelligence and overcoming any biases can lead to success in school and on the job.
• Successful teams are aware of how their cultural differences might affect communication.

References

Brett, J., Behfar, K., Kern, M. (2007) “Managing Multicultural Teams”, Harvard Business Review.

Earley, P.C. & Mosakowski, E. (2004) "Cultural Intelligence," Harvard Business Review.

Feldman, D. (Jan 1984). “The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms,” Academy of Management Review, 47–53.

Graves, J. (1978) “Successful Management and Organizational Mugging,” in J. Paap ed., New Directions in Human Resource Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hackman, J. and C. Morris, (1975). "Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45-99.

Hare, A. P., Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1965). Small groups: Studies in social interaction. Alfred A. Knopf.

Jackson, J. & Harkins, S. (Nov. 1985). “Equity in Effort: An Explanation of the Social Loafing Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1199–1206.

Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (2005) “The Discipline of Teams”, Harvard Business Review

Latane, B., Williams, K. & S. Harkins, S. (June 1979). “Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 822–832;

Lorenzo, R., Yoigt, N., Schetelig, K., Zawadzki, A., Welpe, I, Brosi, P. (2017).“The Mix that Matters: Innovation Through Diversity”, Boston Consulting Group.

McDavid, J. W. & Harari, H. (1968). Social Psychology: Individuals, Groups, and Societies. New York: Harper & Row, 478.

Miles, R. (1980). Macro Organizational Behavior. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman

Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (2), 185–193.

Neeley, T. (2014) "Getting Cross-Cultural Teams Right," Harvard Business Review.

Rock, D & Grant, H. (2016) “Why Diverse Teams are Smarter”, Harvard Business Review.

Sh aw, M. (1991) Group Dynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 97.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 (6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

This work "Team Work & Cultural Intelligence" is a derivative of "Organizational Behavior" by J. Stewart Black & David S. Bright used under a CC BY 4.0 license. "Team Work and Cultural Intelligence" is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by Mary P. Richards.