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