Upload
natalie-owen
View
224
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Culture Counts
On the Effects of Ethnicity and Nationality on Heterogeneous Work
Groups
Astrid Podsiadlowski
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en To analyse processes within multicultural work groups or teams (description)
To determine factors which lead to successful teamwork (explication).
Goals of the Empirical Study
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en • Theoretical and empirical background
• Methods and design of empirical study
• Results
• Conclusions
Structure of the Presentation
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en • Work groups or teams are an essential part of current organisational structures.
• Work groups are getting more and more diverse.
• Group members have increasingly different national cultural backgrounds.
What are Characteristic Features of Co-operation in Multinational Organisations?
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Interdisciplinary Concept for Studying Multicultural Work Groups
Researchon Groups
Research on Culture
Research on Diversity
Research on Organisations
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
between individual persons for example within groups
(Adler, 1996; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Triandis, 1972)
between different groups by developing a group identity.
(Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner, 1978)
Diversity within Groups
Our definition of diversity reflects any attribute that humans are likely to use to tell themselves, “That person is different from me.“
(Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994, p. 772)
These perceived differences in world view, values, norms and attitudes lead to different behaviour patterns
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Mul
tiple
Cul
ture
s in
Org
anis
atio
ns Area
Nation
Industry
Region
Organisation
Suborganizations
GenderGender
ProfessionProfession
EthnicityEthnicity
ReligionReligion
Functional division
Hierarchy
Tenure
(Sackmann, 1997, S. 3)
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Types of Diversity
AttributesAgeGenderNationalityEthnicityReligionCultural ValuesPersonalityAttitudesAbilitiesSocio-ecnomic backgroundEducationFunctionProfessionOrganisationIndustryOrganisational TenureGroup Tenure
Types of Diversity
Demographic
Cultural
Values
Organisational
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Chances and Barriers in Heterogeneous Work Groups
+ Productivity(Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale, 1997)
+ Effectiveness(Thomas, Ravlin & Wallace, 1996)
+ Innovation(Hoffman, 1959)
+ Creativity(McLeod & Lobel, 1992)
+ Less group think(Hoffman, Harburg & Maier, 1962)
– More difficult communication(Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin & Peyronin, 1991)
– Less group stability(Cummings, Zhou & Oldham, 1993)
– Less group cohesion(Tsui, Egan & O‘Reilly, 1992)
– Less work contentment(Leiba & Ondrack, 1994)
– More stress(Triandis, Hall & Ewen, 1965)
Potential advantages Potential disadvantages
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
• Social Identity Theory
• Contact Hypothesis
• Similarity-Attraction Paradigm
• Tokenism
• Competition Theories
• Cognitive Problem Solving Theories
• Intercultural Communication Theories
Theoretical Explanations
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Effectiveness Within Multicultural Work Groups
Multicultural work groups
Monocultural work groups
Least effective
Most effective
On average effective
(See Kovach, 1980 in Adler, 1991, p. 135)
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Laboratory studies Field studiesN Positive effects Negative effects N Positive effects Negative effects
8 Performance Quality ofsolutions Co-operation
Performance Contentment Group attachmentContribution
9 Quality of solutions Creativity Contentment Commitment
Quality of solutions Contentment Sympathy Group attachment Attitudes towards groupInteraction Fluctuation Advancementopportunities
Cox, Lobel & McLeod, 1991; Espinoza & Garza,1985; Kirchmeyer, 1993, 1995; Kirchmeyer & Cohen,1992; Leiba & Ondrack, 1994; McLeod & Lobel,1992; Ruhe & Eatman, 1977
Goto, 1997; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Kizilos, Pelled &Cummings, 1996; Knouse & Dansby, 1999; Kovach, 1980;O'Reilly, Williams & Barsade, 1997; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin,1999; Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui, Egan & O'Reilly, 1992
5 Performance Range ofperspectives Productivity Creativity Contentment
Performance Interaction
4 Performance Contentment Cultural variety Wish for further co-operation
Discrimination
Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale, 1997; Earley &Mosakowski, 2000; Thomas, 1999; Thomas, Ravlin &Wallace, 1996; Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen, 1993
Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Elron,1997; Hofner Saphiere, 1996N
atio
nal
Cultural DiversityE
thni
c
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Mod
el o
f Wor
kpla
ce D
iver
sity
Knowledge of other culture (language, competence)
Positive intergroup attitudes
Little ethnic affirmations
History of conflict
Cultural distance(religion, language,economics, politics)
Equal status contact
Pluralistic society; authorities approve of contact
Perceived Opportunity forsimilarity positive contact+
Rewards
Intimacy, small social distance
More interaction
Network overlap
Sociotypes
Isomorphic attributions
Little culture shock
Superordinate goals
Sense of control
Accomodation or overshooting in acculturation
1 2
3
4
9
6
7
8
10
12
13
14
15 16
17
18
19
5
11
(Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994, S. 784)
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en Under which conditionsdoes which type of diversity lead
to what kind of results?
Research Question
?
??
??
?
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Effectiveness of Multicultural Work Groups
Future
Content-ment
Perfor-mance
Efficiency
Creativity
Individual
Group
Characteristics Size, age Means of communication Frequency and means of interaction, Composition Gender, education, status, personality, profession
Independent variablesIndependent variables Dependent variablesDependent variables
Characteristics Size, industryLocation Country, region, internationalisation
Socio-demographic data Age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, profession, position, Attitudes Co-operation, collectivismCompetence Languages, intercultural experience
National cultural diversitya)Nationality b) Cultural distance
Company
II
I
III
IV
V
CommunicationProcesses
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Dependent VariablesMeans and Standard Deviations
Variable M SD Scale
1. Co-operation 3.3 0.40 1 = completely wrong to 4 = completely correct
2. Collectivisma 4.1 0.51 1 = not at all important to 6 = very important
3. Heterogenityb 3.0 0.53 1 = very heterogeneous to 5 = very homogeneous
4. Communicationc 3.6 0.52 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
5. Group processesd 4.0 0.53 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
a) = 0.88 b) = 0.78 c) = 0.72 d) = 0.76.
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Dependent VariablesMeans, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 45
1. Contentmenta 5.2 0.94 -
2. Creativityb 3.5 0.59 0.56*** -
3. Productivityb 2.5 0.79 0.00 0.24 -
4. Efficiencyb 3.3 0.75 0.37** 0.34** 0.40*** -
5. Futurec 0.48*** 0.39*** 0.16 0.35* -
a) Kunin-Scale from 1 = not at all satisfied to 7 = very much satisfied b) Ratingscale from 1 = not very good to 5 = very good c) Z-transformation; horizontal figures (1 - 5) are correlation coefficients (r); * for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001.
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Value Orientations in Germany and Singapore
Value orientations Germany SingaporeAccording to Hofstede (1997): Index Rank Index Rank
(1-100) (1-53) (1-100) (1-53)Power distance 35 42-44 74 14Individualism/collectivism 67 15 20 39-41Uncertainty avoidance 65 29 8 53Maskulinity/Feminity 66 9/10 48 28
According to Schwartz (2000): M* M*Conservatism 3,182 4,212Intellectual autonomy 4,892 3,794Affective autonomy 3,915 2,967Hierarchy 3,182 2,660Egalitarism 5,044 4,682Authority 4,006 3,794Harmony 4,682 3,988
M*: Arithmetic mean on a scale ranging from –1 = opposed to my values, 0 = not important to +7 = of supreme importance; values should be assessed ”as a guiding principle of my life” (Schwartz, 1994, S. 99).
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
1. Individualism/Collectivism
2. Masculinity/Feminity
3. Uncertainty Avoidance
4. Power Distance
Relative Distance
Group Distance
With
N: Number of group membersk j: Value of Cultural Dimension of the j-th team member
Value Orientationsbased on the Cultural Dimensions by Geert Hofstede (1997)
Cultural Distancewithin the group
N
i
ijj N
kkd
1
| |
N
i
i
N
kkD
1
2_
)1(
)(
N
i
i
N
kk
1
_
dj: Relative distance of the j-th team memberto the whole group*
* regarding the values of the different cultural dimensions
D : Standarddeviation of the whole group*
: Mean value*_
k
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Socio-demographic Data I
Men42%
n.a.1%
Women
57%
Yes40%
n.a.14%
No46%
Yes40%
n.a.14%
No46%
Sex Academic background
Managing responsibilities
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Socio-demographic Data II
Variable M Minimum Maximum n.a.
Age 33.9 years 21 years 54 years 6
Intercultural experience 6.6 years 1 month 26 years 3
Experience abroad 3,3 years None 20 years 3
Languages 3 lang. 1 language 5 languages 2
Variable Verteilung n.a.
Sex 57% women 42% men 1%
Academic degree 40% with 46% without 14%
Managing responsibilities 40% with 46% without 14%
N = 84; underlined mean = Median; n.a. = no answer.
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Cultural Background of Interviewees
Variable N CharacteristicNationality 9 Singapore, Germany, Malaysia, India, China,
Great Britain, USA, Australia, Philippines
Country of origin11 Singapore, Germany, Malaysia, India, China, Great Britain, Australia, Philippines, Greece, Russi, Indonesia
Ethnicity 5 Chinese, Caucasian, Malay, Mixed, Indian
Religion 5 Christianity, none, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism
Residency 4 Singapore, Germany, Indonesia, India
N = 84; order of characteristics correspond with frequency.
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Composition and History of the Group
Variable Median Minimum Maximum n.a.
Group size 6 3 - 29 1 Number of 3 1 - 9 1Nationalities
Number of women 4 0 - 16 1
Variable M Minimum Maximum n.a. Group age 2,2 Jahre 2 Monate - 13 Jahre 6
Group 1,2 Jahre 2 Monate - 6 Jahre 3
membership
N = 84; n.a. = no answer.
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Group Variables and Their Effectiveness
Numbers are standardized regression coefficients (); for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001
Zahlen sind standardisierte Regressionskoeffizienten (); für p < 0,05; ** für p < 0,01; *** für p < 0,001
Group Effectiveness
Group Age
Group Size
Organisational Diversity
Percentage of Women
Number of Nationalities
Cultural Distance
Future
Contentment
Efficiency
Creativity
0,29*
0,28*
0,39**
0,29*
0,26*
0,29*
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables on Group Characteristics, Group Composition, and Cultural
Distance on Contentment Contentment
Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3Group size -0.30* -0.28* -0.38**
Group age 0.11 0.08 0.14
Heterogeneity 0.15 0.19
Women (%) -0.11 0.06
Cultural distance 0.43**
r2ADJ 0.07 0.07 0.20
F 2.87 1.89 3.52**
r2 0.11 0.03 0.14
F for r2 2.87 0.91 8.78**
Durbin-Watson: 1.84* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Numbers in the upper part of the table are standardized regression coefficients ().
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
Final Equations of Multiple, Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Variablen Contentment Creativity Efficiency
Co-operation 0.33** -0.13 0.18
Collectivism - 0.11 0.13 0.05
Group size - 0.11 -0.01 0.13
Heterogenity 0.07 0.15 0.21
Cultural Distance 0.28 0.15 -0.22
Communication 0.35* 0.20 0.30*
Group processes 0.11 0.41** 0.06
r2K 0.40 0.22 0.18
F (2,7) 6.03*** 3.11** 2.62*
Numbers in the upper part of the table are standardized regression coefficients ();* for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001
Multicultural Work Groups Dr. Astrid PodsiadlowskiL
udw
ig-M
axim
ilia
ns-U
nive
rsit
ät M
ünch
en
• Ethnic and national cultural diversity have different effects on work groups.
• The different types of diversity (demographic, cultural and organisational) have to be separated to be able to assess processes and outcomes of heterogeneous work groups.
• While heterogeneity in education, status and profession improves efficiency, the number of nationalities positively influences creativity.
• There is a need to distinguish between the different outcomes of work groups into measures of performance, well-being and viability.
• The more nationalities in a group the more creative they are whereas cultural distance improves contentment.
• Cultural distance contributes significantly to explaining contentment in a positive direction.
Conclusions