Content uploaded by Winston R. Sieck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Winston R. Sieck on Oct 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Team Competencies in Multinational Collaboration
Year Five Final Report
October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005
#05TA2-SP1-RT1
Prepared by:
Winston R. Sieck
Jennifer L. Smith
Anna P. McHugh
Klein Associates Division
Applied Research Associates
1750 Commerce Center Blvd. North
Fairborn, Ohio 45324-6362
PH: (937) 873-8166
FX: (937) 873-8258
Prepared through participation in the
Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative Technology Alliance sponsored by the U.S.
Army Research Laboratory under Cooperative Agreement DAAD19-01-2-0009.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................iv
Study 1: Survey..........................................................................................................................5
Method....................................................................................................................................6
Participants......................................................................................................................6
Procedure ........................................................................................................................9
Materials: Scale Development .........................................................................................9
Results ..................................................................................................................................12
Open Decision Process ..................................................................................................12
Team Orientation...........................................................................................................12
Leadership.....................................................................................................................13
Team Support ................................................................................................................13
Summary...............................................................................................................................14
Study 2: Vignettes.....................................................................................................................17
Method..................................................................................................................................17
Participants....................................................................................................................17
Procedure ......................................................................................................................17
Materials .......................................................................................................................17
Results ..................................................................................................................................19
Vignette 1: Marketing Strategy.....................................................................................19
Vignette 2: Strategic Planning.......................................................................................19
Vignette 3: Feasibility Testing......................................................................................19
Vignette 4: Copy Editing ..............................................................................................20
Summary...............................................................................................................................23
General Discussion ...................................................................................................................23
Theoretical Implications........................................................................................................23
Practical Implications............................................................................................................25
Calibration of Collaborative Styles ................................................................................26
Limitations and Future Directions .........................................................................................27
References ................................................................................................................................29
List of Figures
Figure 1. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Open Decision Process subscale...............15
Figure 2. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Team Orientation subscale. ......................15
Figure 3. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Leadership subscale. ................................16
Figure 4. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Team Support subscale.............................16
Figure 5. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 1, Marketing Strategy. ...21
Figure 6. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 2, Strategic Planning......21
Figure 7. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 3, Feasibility Testing. ....22
Figure 8. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 4, Copy Editing. ............22
Figure 9. Sample screenshot from the calibration tool..............................................................27
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
iii
List of Tables
Table 1. Team Competency Dimensions ....................................................................................7
Table 2. Country Index Scores and Rankings for Selected Dimensions.......................................8
Table 3. Demographic Information by Country ..........................................................................8
Table 4. Items and Factor Loadings for the Four Dimensions ...................................................11
Table 5. Correlations between Factors......................................................................................12
Table 6. Teamwork Vignettes...................................................................................................18
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
iv
Abstract
The current studies examined cultural differences in schemata associated with the competencies
required for effective team functioning. Participants (n = 163) completed a web-based survey
designed to elicit prescriptive values and descriptions of typical practice of team competencies,
using both an abstract instrument and vignettes that provided situational context. Overall, the
results indicated that notions of competent team behavior rooted in Western scholarship are
valued across a diverse set of countries, with respect to the typical practice in those countries.
However, the competencies tended to be valued more in the U.S. than in three non-Western
countries, as compared with respective practices. Surprisingly, these differences held even for
team-focused competencies that would appear to run counter to Western independence and
individualism, such as putting team goals before personal goals. Practical and theoretical
implications are discussed.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
1
Team Competencies in Multinational Collaboration
Cultural differences in group decision making, and team functioning more generally, are
increasingly recognized as essential areas of investigation (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Elron, 1997;
Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Peterson, Miranda, Smith, & Haskell, 2003). This research
trend largely mirrors corporate and government trends toward increasing reliance on
multinat ional and multicultural t eams to handle all manner of tasks, such as a mult inational
marketing team responsible for developing products for multiple-country markets or a team of
coalition planners developing options for coordinating humanitarian assistance in response to a
natural disaster. Trends toward greater use of multinational teams also imply some degree of
evolution in the ways that professionals from participating nations think about what it means to
be an effective team. The purpose of the current paper is to understand cultural differences and
cultural transformation in the context of effective teamwork.
Before addressing culture in decision-making teams, we first need to define “culture.” As
expected in any highly interdisciplinary field, there exist a variety of conceptions of culture
(Atran, Medin, & Ross, 2005). Our conception is distinctly cognitive in nature, following an
epidemiological perspective (Sperber, 1985). As such, a fundamental assumption about culture
is that members of geographically proximal groups share experiences growing up in similar, but
not identical, ecological and social contexts. These shared developmental experiences lead to
reliable distributions of individuals’ mental representations, such as concepts, values, and
schemata (Sperber & Hirschfeld, 1999). Such representational distributions, in turn, ground the
distribution of behavioral norms, expectations, interpretations, and affective reactions in a
population. Two important properties of these mental representations are that they are domain-
specific and dynamic. That is, social activities, such as “collaborative decision making” or
“teamwork,” are supported by representations that are tailored to those specific activities and
susceptible to change. The result of many individuals altering their representations that pertain
to particular contexts is adjustment in the overall distribution of representations. This is how we
conceive of cultural change in specific contexts. Maznevski and Peterson (1997) provide an
excellent example that highlights the importance of dynamic and domain-specific representations
at the individual level in the context of effective teamwork (pg. 64):
For example, a Scandinavian member of a multinational executive team may have had
experiences at an earlier career stage in “self-managed teams” in which all members were
of equal status and made decisions by consensus. If the group was effective, then the
member is likely to have a schema relating to “effective work group” that includes
elements of equal status and consensus decision making. Events that conform to or
contradict this schema are likely to be noticed and interpreted as good in the former case
and bad in the latter. One day, our hypothetical Scandinavian may notice the event of all
group members sitting together at a table. This event might be initially identified as a
“group meeting,” because it conforms with group meetings the individual has
experienced in the past. Its interpretation may evoke a set of scripts, including a norm to
promote equal time talking for each member, calling a vote to determine the level of
consensus, or pointing out when one member seems to be assuming a higher status than
others. One the other hand, if this same member notices two members of the work group
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
2
chatting in the corridor, the event is unlikely to be placed in the category of “group
meeting” and the related scripts will not be elicited.
In a multinational team, members’ countries are associated with distinct distributions of
representations that would be triggered in the group setting. How, then, do cultural differences
in representations affect the performance of decision-making teams? In research on group
decision making, heterogeneity has been associated with improved decision quality, due to
mediating factors such as increases in the considerations brought to bear on the decision, and
reductions in the antecedents of groupthink (Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Janis, 1972; Maznevski,
1994; Yates, 2003). By extension, such effects would presumably apply to culture-based
heterogeneity, in addition to within-culture distinctiveness. That is, the multinational group
brings together people that have different, relevant background knowledge, as well as different
frames for interpreting shared information (Maznevski & Peterson, 1997).
In contrast to the group decision literature, research into “team mental models” or “shared
schemata” has tended to find that greater commonalities in mental representations are associated
with improved team performance (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001). Several hypotheses have emerged
to reconcile these discrepant findings, including the nature of the task, the curvilinear
relationships between the degree of heterogeneity and team effectiveness, and dimensions of
heterogeneity (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Hambrick, Davison, Snell, & Snow, 1998). With
respect to the “dimensions of heterogeneity” hypothesis, it seems likely that the domain of the
schema or mental model is a likely determinant of heterogeneity effects on performance. For
example, a team brought together with diverse knowledge about the task environment provides a
net knowledge gain for the group. However, a team whose members possess discrepant
schemata concerning the nature of teamwork, itself, is likely to suffer from process loss.
Differences in the schemata that define perceptions of effective teamwork should clearly
be considered among the dimensions of representational heterogeneity that detract from group
decision quality, and other aspects of team performance. However, depending on the resolution
of the discrepancy and resulting success for that team, one or both members may leave with
modified or broadened conceptions of effective team processes. For instance, a team including
the Scandinavian, above, and an Indian member whose schemata include the unquestioning
support of decisive leadership would clearly find themselves at odds over appropriate decision
processes of the team. The resources relegated to detecting and resolving the discrepancies are
likely to result in significant process losses. However, if the team is able to find its way toward
successful reconciliation, then the members will leave with somewhat altered representations that
expand the possibilities for conduct and interpretation of collaboration. Note that similar effects
would be expected by cultural transmission via educational exchange.
The current article examines cultural differences and cultural change in representations
associated with “team competencies” or “team performance functions” (Fleishman & Zaccaro,
1992). Team competencies refer to the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes of team
members that enable effective performance of the team (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1997). Team
competencies pertain to the team’s processes, whereas team performance refers to outcomes of
the team’s work together, including goal accomplishment, satisfaction, and perceived efficacy.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
3
Based on an extensive review of the literature on teamwork, Salas and colleagues have proposed
that there are five core team competencies required for high performance (Salas, Guthrie,
Wilson-Donnelly, Priest, & Burke, 2005; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). These competencies
include team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, adaptability, and
team orientation. Taken together, Salas refers to these as the “Big Five” of teamwork. Beyond
listing and describing these competencies, Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) suggest universality in
their applicability. For example, they propose that the focal competencies pertain regardless of
the task the team is to perform. However, they do acknowledge that specific competencies may
manifest differently depending on task demand. Furthermore, they do not restrict the Big Five’s
domain to particular demographic or cultural groups, tacitly implying universality with respect to
team composition, as well.
Nevertheless, recent research has questioned this assumption of universality, particularly
with respect to the cultural composition of the team (Klein & McHugh, 2005). The core
argument is that extant team competency taxonomies are based on research conducted in
Western and Western European cultures. Because these taxonomies do not incorporate research
from non-Western cultures, they may not generalize to cultures where members exhibit distinct
behavioral, social, and cognitive patterns (Hofstede, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner, 1998). Klein and McHugh (2005) conducted a qualitative study that has
provided initial evidence that the Big Five competencies do conflict with the values associated
with particular cultural backgrounds. For example, the Middle Easterners they interviewed
reported that they do not regard back-up behavior by teammates as a positive behavior within a
team, as it undermines the dignity and sense of self of the person being assisted. Furthermore, in
cases where the overall competency category is accepted, the specific prescriptions can be quite
different. For example, although “leadership” may be regarded as an important dimension of
teamwork across many cultures, the appropriate roles and functions of the leader may be
strikingly different. For instance, some Japanese interviewees reported that their leaders closely
monitored their work, as well as quite personal activities, such as their finances. It is hard to
imagine many Americans finding this to be acceptable leadership behavior.
It is important to clarify that Klein and McHugh’s findings have shown differences in
typical practices and prescriptive value of the competencies, but they do not address the
objective linkage between the proposed competencies and team performance. And doing so is
not trivial. It is complicated at least in part by the dynamic nature of teams and cultures. There
is a growing explicit recognition that team processes change over time, as individuals develop
group-specific roles, routines, and expectations (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2000). Hence,
universality in this case implies that teams that develop processes over time in accordance with
the proposed competencies will achieve more effective performance than teams that do not,
irrespective of the team composition or task environment. With respect to heterogeneous
backgrounds, for example, it suggests that developing these competencies will improve team
performance relative to current practice, even if the specific prescriptions diverge from the
general distribution of schemata that constitute team members’ cultural backgrounds.
Nevertheless, even if the Big Five competencies have long-term value across cultures,
understanding such potential incompatibilities is important, since they would slow or obstruct the
acceptance and adoption of competent team behaviors. Furthermore, in multicultural teaming
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
4
arrangements with a short lead time for developing solutions (e.g., disaster response), the
culturally distinct representations of the participants will have to be accounted for in defining
how the team will work together effectively. In those situations, cultural differences in the
representations associated with competent teamwork are sure to lead to process loss by
contributing to violated expectancies and negative affective reactions. As noted above, the
current research addresses cross-national differences in values for specific competencies in this
spirit. It also seeks to address potential cultural change, as described next.
Much psychological research on cultural differences has emphasized differences in goals
or values for certain behavioral tendencies (Grouzet et al., 2005; Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz,
1994), though it is also possible to examine perceived typicality of behaviors, of course.
Furthermore, we propose that investigating the relationships between prescriptive values and
typical practices can provide insight into potential changes in the distribution of representations
in a culture. The idea stems from models of innovation adoption or social change (McGuire,
1989; Rogers, 1995). Such models attempt to describe the process by which individuals or
organizations move from initial awareness of a new technology or idea, through evaluation, and
ultimately to use or non-use of the innovation. For example, five stages comprise the innovation
decision process proposed by Rogers (1995): Knowledge, Persuasion, Decision,
Implementation, and Confirmation. In these models, changes in behavior (implementation) are
generally preceded by the formation of favorable or unfavorable attitudes or values toward the
innovation (persuasion), sometimes by considerable spans of time. Hence, the relationship
between prescriptive values and descriptions of current typical practice provides an indication of
the direction that cultural change is taking. For example, if the prescriptive value associated with
a behavior tends to exceed current typical practice of that behavior, it provides an early
indication that the behavior is gaining acceptance within the culture.
Indeed, such relationships between values and practices are likely to exist among
managers on the contemporary global scene. In step with globalization and the continuing rise of
multinational corporations, business education has contributed to the proliferation of Western
conceptions of management and organizational behavior throughout the world. For example,
34% of the MBA students at the top five business schools are international students (Global
MBA, n.d.). Also, management scholarship and education as practiced in non-Western countries
is also strongly influenced by Western ideas. Furthermore, the diffusion of Western
management scholarship very likely includes many of the ideas on what constitutes competent
team practices as are captured in Salas, Sims et al.’s Big Five. If so, new knowledge on Western
team competency ideals would not be expected to replace prior representations that underlie
interpersonal and group behavior patterns. Instead, the discrepant ideas would all be stored in
distinct representations. In particular, since education tends to affect declarative knowledge and
attitudes more than behavioral routines, we propose that Western management scholarship
influences beliefs about what constitutes good teamwork more strongly than it influences actual
behavior. Indeed, some gap between prescribed values and descriptions of practice is expected
in Western countries, as well, since they have not fully realized ideals from management
scholarship. Hence, we hypothesize that judgments of the prescriptive value of Western team
competencies will tend to outstrip judgments that describe actual practice, and that this effect
will hold across countries. However, in line with Klein and McHugh’s qualitative results, we
also expect Western notions of teamwork to be valued and practiced more in Western than in
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
5
non-Western countries, since Western conceptions of teamwork are an outgrowth of Western
culture. To summarize, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: For Western and non-Western countries, judgments of the prescriptive
value of core team competencies derived from Western research will
exceed descriptive judgments of actual practice of those competencies.
Hypothesis 2: Prescriptive and descriptive judgments of the core team competencies will
be larger for Western than non-Western countries.
Study 1: Survey
In Study 1, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested via a questionnaire survey approach. First,
scale items were developed around each of five team competency dimensions, based on Salas,
Sims et al. (2005) and related research. Probe questions were also created to elicit prescriptive
and descriptive judgments for each item. The resulting questionnaire was then administered to
business professionals in four countries, and the dimensionality reassessed by factor analysis.
Scores on the final set of dimensions were then compared across the four countries in order to
test the hypotheses.
In order to select team competency dimensions, we began by reviewing the Big Five
dimensions recently proposed by Salas, Sims et al. (2005), along with the taxonomy previously
developed by Fleishman and Zaccaro (1992). The Big Five framework was selected because of
its purported comprehensiveness, and basis in an extensive review of the teamwork literature.
Fleishman and Zaccaro also attempted a comprehensive taxonomy, and their highly detailed
framework served as a check for completeness of the Big Five. The resulting set of teamwork
dimensions were then reviewed in light of the results of a previous qualitative study of cross-
cultural teamwork (McHugh, Smith, & Klinger, 2005). The study identified several Western
team processes that occurred differently or did not occur at all in non-Western cultures. Table 1
describes the correspondences between these frameworks, and the resulting dimensions. As
shown in Table 1, the following five categories emerged from an analysis of these three sources:
decision processes and situation assessment, adaptability, performance monitoring, back-up
behaviors, and motivation. A brief description of the sources and the resulting five teamwork
dimensions follows.
Salas, Sims et al. (2005) proposed five core competencies that drive team performance:
Mutual Performance Monitoring, Back-Up Behavior, Adaptability/Flexibility, Team Leadership,
and Team Orientation. These five dimensions are described further in Table 1. In addition,
Fleishman and Zaccaro (1992) proposed a taxonomy that focuses on functions that facilitate
coordination between team members and tasks. These functions occur throughout all phases of
team performance, including planning and execution. Their taxonomy, also shown in Table 1,
consists of seven team performance functions with associated activity dimensions: Orientation
Functions, Resource Distribution Functions, Timing Functions, Response Coordination
Functions, Motivational Functions, Systems Monitoring Functions, and Procedure Maintenance
Functions. Finally, McHugh et al. (2005) conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured
and scenario-based interviews to identify how members of a variety of national cultures
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
6
collaborate, including how team members work together to make decisions, solve problems, and
accomplish complex tasks. McHugh et al. (2005) identified cultural variations in teamwork
processes corresponding to each of the Big Five dimensions, as well as some dimensions not
covered by the Big Five, such as conflict management (also see Tinsley & Brett, 2001)
The dimensions that resulted from comparing these frameworks are displayed in Table 1,
and described as follows. The Decision Processes and Situation Assessment category focuses on
the roles of the leader and team member in the decision-making process and the path of
information exchange within a team. The Adaptability dimension centers on the team’s comfort
with making changes to an existing plan. The Performance Monitoring category focuses on
whether monitoring is done by all team members or only the leader. The Back-Up Behavior
category investigates whether it is appropriate for team members to assist another team member
who is having trouble completing a task. Finally, the Motivation category centers on the
importance of individual recognition and success in relationship to team recognition and success.
As can be seen, these dimensions correspond closely with the Big Five. Two exceptions
are the addition of the dimension corresponding to the team’s assessment and decision process,
and the removal of the leadership dimension. In reviewing the various categories, leadership
functions seemed to be spread throughout the dimensions, rather than constituting a category that
stands on its own. As will be seen from the factor analysis, however, leadership did in fact
emerge as a distinct factor.
Method
Participants
A total of 163 business professionals (89 males and 74 females) participated in this study.
Participants were recruited from the following nations: India (N = 41), South Korea (N = 40),
Turkey (N = 42), and the U.S. (N = 40). We recruited individuals from India, S. Korea, and
Turkey to ensure that we sampled a wide span of global cultural groups. These countries were
selected because they provide a spread of rankings on Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions of Power
Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Individualism/Collectivism (see Table 2). According to
the country index scores for Power Distance, India ranked high in levels of Power Distance,
while the U.S. ranked relatively low. In comparison, Turkey and S. Korea also had moderately
high Power Distance scores. For Uncertainty Avoidance, Turkey and S. Korea had moderately
high country index scores, and the U.S. and India had comparatively low scores. In addition, the
U.S. had the highest-ranking score on the Individualism/Collectivism dimension, while the
scores for India, Turkey, and S. Korea were lower.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
7
Table 1
Team Competency Dimensions
Selected
Dimensions Salas, Sims et al.’s (2005) Big Five Fleishman and Zaccaro’s (1992) Team
Performance Functions
Qualitative cross-cultural study
(McHugh et al., 2005)
• Decision
Processes
and Situation
Awareness
• Team Leadership: Leaders create, foster, and
maintain shared knowledge to enable effective
teamwork
• Orientation Functions: Information-
gathering and information-sharing processes
essential for mission completion
• Timing Functions: Tracking and regulating
the time until task accomplishment
• Response Coordination Functions:
Establishing coordination between member
activities
• Leadership roles and decision-
makin g processes may vary
across nations (e.g., decisions
made solely by the leader vs.
decisions made through team
consensus or voting)
• Adaptability • Adaptability/ Flexibility: The ability to
readjust actions or strategies to meet task
requirements
• Most team performance functions take on
an “adaptive” role during the execution
phase
• Comfort with adaptation
varies across cultures (e.g.,
replanning during a short
timeframe or only when there
is plenty of time)
• Performance
Monitoring
• Mutual Performance Monitoring: Members
monitor each other’s work and pr ogress
toward a goal
• Systems Monitoring Functions: Processes
for identifying and reporting performance
errors
• Procedure Maintenance Functions:
Processes ensure that the team is producing
work that is up to performance standards
• Performance monitoring
occurs differently in other
cultures (e.g., who is
responsible for monitoring—
the leader or all team
members?)
• Back-Up
Behavior
• Back-Up Behavior: The team members
decision whether to “step in” for a fellow team
member or shift work responsibilities to others
who contain the appropriate knowledge, skills,
and abilities
• Resource Distribution Functions: Processes
for assigning tasks to appropriate team
members and balancing task load across
members
• Back-up beh avior may not
occur in all cultures (e.g.,
these behaviors may conflict
with the notions of honor and
saving face)
• Motivation • Team Orientation: The tendency for team
members to work in an interdependent manner
in performing a group task, and the extent to
which team members identify with the
accomplishments of the team in relation to
their own work performance
• Motivational Functions: Processes for
establishing performance norms, task
commitment, and standards of success as
well as processes to encourage team
members to meet these standards
• Team orientation varies across
nations (e.g., team orientation
vs. explicit individualism vs.
covert individualism)
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
8
Table 2
Country Index Scores and Rankings for Selected Dimensions (Hofstede, 2001, p. 500)
India
score (rank)
S. Korea
score (rank)
Turkey
score (rank)
U.S.
score (rank)
Power Distance 77 (10-11) 60 (27-28) 66 (18-19) 40 (38)
Uncertainty
Avoidance 40 (45) 85 (16-17) 85 (16-17) 46 (43)
Individualism/
Collectivism 48 (21) 18 (43) 37 (28) 91 (1)
Individuals between the ages of 25 and 65 were recruited for this study. The average age
of the participants who completed the study is 40.17 years (SD = 9.87). A one-way ANOVA
revealed significant differences in age across countries, F (3, 159) = 6.56, p < .001. This
difference was expected based on the participation requirements. Recruiting older participants
(particularly older, female participants) in Korea for this study was challenging. They were less
likely to work full-time in business settings and to be fluent in English; consequent ly, they were
less likely to meet our participation requirements for inclusion in our sample. There were no
other significant country differences for participant demographics. A summary of the
demographic information is available in Table 3.
Table 3
Demographic Information by Country
India S. Korea Turkey U.S. Total
Male (%) 54 50 60 55 55
Average Age
(years) 39.6 35.2 41.5 44.3 40.2
Reading
Comprehension
(%)
87.8 90.0 80.9 90.0 87.1
College Graduate
or higher (%) 100 100 95.2 70 91.4
All participants had at least some college education; 59.5% of the participants had college
degrees and 31.9% had conducted post-graduate work. In addition, all participants were
employed full-time in business settings, and they all had experience working in teams at their
current place of employment.
All participants were fluent at reading and writing English. During the recruiting
process, individuals from India, S. Korea and Turkey were asked to report their level of comfort
with reading, writing, and conversing in English on a 5-point scale anchored at Strongly
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
9
Disagree (1) and Strongly Agree (5). To be eligible to participate, the individuals had to
Strongly Agree (5) or Somewhat Agree (4) with the following statements: “I feel very
comfortable reading books, magazines, and newspapers in English without any assistance,” and
“I feel very comfortable writing in English without any assistance.” In addition, participants
were given one scenario to review, and then they were asked to answer three comprehension
questions about it. These questions provided an additional assessment of the participants’
English proficiency and of the participants’ engagement in the task. A final reading
comprehension score was calculated based on whether the participant answered two or more
questions correctly. A total of 87.12% of participants answered at least two reading
comprehension questions correctly, and there were no significant differences by country, F (3,
159) = 2.661, p = .572.
Procedure
Participants were recruited by an international market research firm. Participants in India
(Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, and Chennai) and the U.S. were recruited through an email
containing a link to an online qualification screener. Participants in S. Korea (Seoul) and Turkey
(Istanbul) were recruited by telephone solicitations. During the recruiting process, individuals
answered several screening questions to determine their eligibility to participate. Participat ion
was limited to individuals who met the following criteria: 1) between the ages of 25 and 65; 2)
employed full-time as a business person or professional; 3) experience working in teams or work
groups at current place of employment; 4) education level included at least some college; and 5)
English fluency. Individuals who were qualified to participate were assigned an identification
number and given the link to the web-based survey. The participants completed the online
surveys in English from their home or their place of business. The surveys were conducted in
English because that is commonly the language used on multinational teams, the domain of
interest here (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). The survey took approximately one hour to
complete. Incentives were mailed to the participants upon completion of the survey. The
amount of compensation for participation was comparable across all nations.
Materials: Scale Development
Initial development. Sixty-six items were developed to assess values and actual team
functioning across cultures. The items were constructed according to the following five
categories: decision processes and situation assessment, adaptability, performance monitoring,
back-up behaviors, and motivation. Participants read statements about teamwork, such as
“When a team member is having trouble completing a task, it is the other team members’
responsibility to help with the task,” and “To make a decision, the team discusses and debates
different ideas and votes to make the final decision.” For each item, participants first considered
whether, “This is an example of good teamwork” (prescription). Participants then rated their
level of agreement with the item on a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored at Strongly Disagree (1)
and Strongly Agree (7). After responses were made for all items, participants rated each item
based on their agreement with the following statement in a different section: “This is how teams
actually work in my country” (description). The items in each section were presented to
participants in a randomized order.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
10
Factor analysis. A principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation was
conducted. The prescriptive and descriptive scores were collapsed across participants, so that
each participant had two separate scores for each item. A four-factor solution resulted on the
basis of the following criteria: 1) the Eigenvalue of all four factors was greater than one, and 2)
the items in the first four factors were descriptive of a single construct.
The four factors that met the selection criteria explained 35.5% of the variance. The six
items with the highest loadings for each factor were preserved, and the rest were discarded from
the scale. The remaining items in each factor were assessed to determine whether they were
cohesive in their representation of a single construct. As a result of this review, four additional
items were eliminated, because they had a tenuous relationship with the other items. The four
factors were then named to identify the construct they represented, and these constructs are
described below (see Table 4).
Open Decision Process. The five items in Factor 1 reflect a decision-making process that
involves participation of all team members, such as through discussion, debate, and/or voting.
The highest loading item for this factor is: “The team makes decisions based on consensus of all
members.” Cronbach’s alpha is .84.
Team Orientation. The four items in Factor 2 reflect a consideration for the team’s goals,
in contrast to the goals of individual team members. The items for this factor were reverse
scored. The highest loading item for this factor is: “When working on a team, team members
look after their own best interest” (R). Cronbach’s alpha is .72.
Leadership. The three items in Factor 3 reflect the leader’s role in directing and
coordinating the activities of other members. The highest loading item for this factor is: “When
a team member is having trouble completing a task, it is the leader’s responsibility to redistribute
task assignments.” Cronbach’s alpha is .48.
Team Support. The six items in Factor 4 reflect the ability of team members to shift
workload and otherwise adjust to the situational demands of the team. The highest loading item
for this factor is: “When a team member is having trouble completing a task, it is the other team
members’ responsibility to help with the task.” Cronbach’s alpha is .71.
Table 5 contains the correlations between each subscale. All correlations were
statistically significant, except for the correlation between Team Orientation and Leadership
subscales. Interestingly, the strongest correlation was between Team Support and Open Decision
Process. Importantly, Team Support-Team Orientation, and Open Decision Process-Leadership
were not very highly correlated.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
11
Table 4
Items and Factor Loadings for the Four Factors
Items M SD Loadings
Factor 1: Open Decision Process 4.97 1.30
The team makes decisions based on consensus of all members. 4.99 1.61 0.756
To make a decision, the team discusses and debates different ideas and
votes to make the final decision. 4.97 1.63 0.747
To make a decision, the team debates the various ideas, weighs the pros
and cons of each, and ultimately votes to make a final decision about
which strategy to adopt.
5.16 1.62 0.673
Ideas are discussed and debated openly in team meetings. 5.30 1.64 0.643
All members of the team must agree with a decision before they can act
upon it. 4.42 1.85 0.633
Factor 2: Team Orientation 4.64 1.36
(R) When working on a team, team members look after their own best
interest. 4.73 1.81 0.649
(R) Team members feel that their own individual recognition and praise
is more important than the recognition of the team as a whole. 4.64 1.84 0.603
(R) Team members never help another team member finish a task. 4.68 1.96 0.592
(R) Team members do not want to help each other, because they do not
want to make other teammates embarrassed or hurt their sense of dignity
and self-worth.
4.53 1.79 0.588
Factor 3: Leadership 5.21 1.01
When a team member is having trouble completing a task, it is the
leader’s responsibility to redistribute task assignments. 5.01 1.53 0.523
It is the team leader’s responsibility to check in on members and monitor
the progress toward their goals. 5.50 1.37 0.484
The team leader should make sure that the team is making progress
toward its goals, not the members. 5.14 1.42 0.469
Factor 4: Team Support 4.62 1.05
When a team member is having trouble completing a task, it is the other
team members’ responsibility to help with the task. 4.36 1.74 0.510
The team is comfortable with making changes to the plan even when the
deadline is close. 4.12 1.70 0.454
Team members feel that the recognition and praise of the team as a
whole is more important than individual recognition. 4.90 1.69 0.354
Team members watch each other’s work in order to help when needed. 4.69 1.64 0.336
It is the team member’s responsibility to step in and offer assistance
when teammates are struggling due to higher workloads or
responsibilities.
4.99 1.52 0.320
It is the team member’s responsibility to step in and offer assistance
when they do not have the appropriate skills to complete the task. 4.69 1.60 0.260
Note. N = 326.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
12
Table 5
Correlations between Factors
Team Support Leadership Team
Orientation
Open Decision
Process
Open Decision Process .593* .242* .272* 1
Team Orientation .282* .077 1
Leadership .315* 1
Team Support 1
Note. * indicates significance at the .01 level.
Results
Once the four factors were identified and finalized, analyses were conducted to determine
country differences. Except where noted, the results presented are based on a two-factor
ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (country), and one within-subjects factor (probe
question).
Open Decision Process
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Open Decision Process are shown in Figure 1.
There was a significant country effect on Open Decision Process subscale scores, F (3, 162) =
4.556, p = .004, and a significant difference between prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1,
162) = 52.596, p < .001. The prescriptive scores were significantly greater than the descriptive
scores on the Open Decision Process subscale. Additionally, the size of the difference between
prescriptive and descriptive scores was dependent upon nationality, F (3, 162) = 3.988, p = .009.
Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to determine the country effects on
prescriptive and descriptive score differences. For the Open Decision Process subscale, Indians
reported significantly smaller differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores than all
other countries.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons tests were
calculated to further explore the country effect on prescriptive and descriptive Open Decision
Process subscale scores. Prescriptive scores did not differ significantly by country, F (3, 162) =
.396, p = .756; however, significant country differences were reported for the descriptive items,
F (3, 162) = 6.877, p < .001. On the descriptive items, Indian participants reported scores that
were significantly higher than participants in the other three nations. In addition, Korean
participants reported significantly lower scores than U.S. respondents.
Team Orientation
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Team Orientation are shown in Figure 2. There
was a significant country effect on Team Orientation subscale scores, F (3, 162) = 6.541, p <
.001, and a significant difference between prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1, 162) =
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
13
66.664, p < .001. The descriptive scores were significantly greater than the prescriptive scores
on the Team Orientation subscale. As with the Open Decision Process subscale, the size of the
difference between prescriptive and descriptive scores was dependent upon nationality, F (3,
162) = 9.615, p < .001. Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
determine the country effects on prescriptive-descriptive score differences. For the Team
Orientation subscale, participants from the U.S. had significantly larger differences between
prescriptive and descriptive scores than all other countries, and Turkish participants had
significantly larger differences than Indians and Koreans.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
determine country differences on prescriptive and descriptive subscale scores. Descriptive
scores did not differ significantly by country, F (3, 162) = 1.533, p = .208. Significant
differences were reported for the prescriptive items, F (3, 162) = 13.499, p < .001. For the
prescriptive Team Orientation subscale, Indians reported significantly higher scores than
participants in all other countries. In addition, U.S. participants reported significantly lower
scores than participants in S. Korea and Turkey.
Leadership
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Leadership are shown in Figure 3. There was a
significant country effect on Leadership subscale scores, F (3, 162) = 1.865, p = .138, and a
significant difference in prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1, 162) = 20.88, p < .001. The
prescriptive scores were significantly greater than the descriptive scores on the Leadership
subscale. However, the difference between prescriptive and descriptive scores varied
independently of nationality, F (3, 162) = .444, p = .722.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
identify country differences on prescriptive and descriptive Leadership subscale scores. There
were no significant differences for either prescriptive or descriptive scales, F (3, 162) = 2.434, p
= .067 and F (3, 162) = 2.033, p = .111, respectively.
Team Support
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Team Support are shown in Figure 4. There was a
significant country effect on Team Support subscale scores, F (3, 162) = 13.189, p < .001, and a
significant difference in prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1, 162) = 50.788, p < .001. The
prescriptive scores were significantly greater than the descriptive scores on the Team Support
subscale. Additionally, nationality significantly affected the difference between prescriptive and
descriptive scores, F (3, 162) = 5.956, p < .001. Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons
were calculated to determine the country effects on prescriptive-descriptive score differences.
For the Team Support subscale, Indians reported significantly smaller differences than Turkish
and U.S. participants, and the U.S. participants reported significantly larger differences than
Korean and Indian participants.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
determine country effects on prescriptive and descriptive subscale scores. Analyses revealed
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
14
significant nation differences for the prescriptive and descriptive Team Support subscale, F (3,
162) = 11.508, p < .001 and F (3, 162) = 10.157, p < .001, respectively. For the prescriptive
items, participants in India and the U.S. reported significantly higher scores than Korean and
Turkish participants. For responses to the descriptive items, Indian participants reported
significantly higher scores than participants in the other three countries.
Summary
A factor analysis of 66 items about team performance and team processes was conducted.
Four teamwork dimensions emerged from the data: Open Decision Process, Team Orientation,
Leadership, and Team Support. These factors are largely consistent with Salas et al.’s (2005)
Big Five dimensions. An important exception was that performance monitoring, backup
behavior, and adaptability were all captured within a single factor that we labeled “Team
Support.” Also, the nature of the decision process was an additional factor not captured in Salas’
framework. We briefly review the country comparison results by subscale, and then summarize
the findings in terms of Hypotheses 1 and 2.
For the Open Decision Process subscale, individuals across cultures reported believing
that more openness in decision processes are needed, relative to actual practice. The exception
was India, in which value and behavior judgments were quite close. For Team Orientation,
people across nations reported that team members should have more of a team orientation than
they actually do. The differences between values and practice were far greater in the U.S. than in
India, with S. Korea and Turkey falling in the middle. This effect was driven by rather striking
differences in prescriptive judgments, with the U.S. placing the strongest value on Team
Orientation. This result contrasts sharply with casual considerations of U.S. independence and
individualism, and so is discussed further in the General Discussion. As for the Leadership
subscale, participants reported valuing more direction and coordination from leaders than is
currently exhibited in practice. This pattern was seen across cultures, and there were no major
country effects. Finally, for Team Support, people across nations reported a greater value for
more support behaviors, in relation to typical behavior. This effect is most apparent for the U.S.
and least noticeable for India.
Across all countries and factors, teamwork values were more aligned with team
competencies based on Western scholarship than were the actual behaviors. There were no
effects in the opposite direction for any country. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported. With
respect to Hypothesis 2, there was a trend of higher scores in the U.S., overall, though that result
was driven more by differences in the prescriptive than in the descriptive judgments. In fact,
there was no clear overall trend of country differences for the descriptive judgments.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 1. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Open Decision Process subscale.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 2. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Team Orientation subscale.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 3. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Leadership subscale.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 4. Prescriptive and descriptive scores on the Team Support subscale.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
17
Study 2: Vignettes
In Study 1, we elicited judgments of prescriptive value and descriptions of typical
behavior about team competencies which were stated as abstract principles in a questionnaire. In
Study 2, which was conducted concurrently with Study 1, we elicited the same kinds of
judgments but in response to vignettes in which various elements of teamwork were depicted.
The idea behind the use of vignettes was that people may agree on what is important
when judging principles in the abstract, but then interpret displayed behaviors quite differently in
context. This is because there are many elements that can be attended to in a context-rich
situation, and that diversity allows for a greater range of differences in what representations are
activated or in how the situation is “read.” Hence, more complex stimuli such as vignettes
should be more sensitive to cultural differences than abstract questionnaire items. The
questionnaire, on the other hand, provides greater clarity as to the precise nature of the
dimensions on which the cultures differ.
We developed four vignettes for use in Study 2. Two of the vignettes displayed team
behaviors that are generally consistent with Western scholarship on team competency, whereas
the other two displayed team behaviors that would be inconsistent. Also, two of the vignettes
were intended to focus on the leadership style and nature of the decision process, whereas the
other two generally emphasized team orientation and team support. However, as discussed
above, the vignettes do not line up precisely with specific factors. These two dimensions were
counterbalanced in the vignette construction. In sum, four vignettes were used to determine
whether Hypotheses 1 and 2 would hold with context-rich stimuli.
Method
Participants
The participants were the same as in Study 1.
Procedure
The procedures for recruiting participants and administering the survey were the same as
in Study 1.
Materials
Participants read four vignettes, or scenarios, that described specific experiences
of people working on a team in a business setting. The vignettes were developed based on
incidents of teamwork collected during a previous qualitative study of multinational
collaboration (McHugh et al., 2005). Each of the scenarios focused on different aspects of
teamwork and team performance (see Table 6). Vignette 1 described a team making decisions
based on open debate and discussion. In contrast, Vignette 2 focused on a team that had a
hierarchical decision process with closed communications. Vignette 3 portrayed cooperative
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
18
Table 6
Teamwork Vignettes
Vignette 1: Marketing Strategy
Michael works in a software development company. He is leading a six-person marketing team. The marketing
team has a new task to do. Recently, the company designed a new type of software that allows users to create
musical scores. Michael’s team has been tasked with selecting marketing strategies for this new software. The
strategy will need to be presented to management in one week.
There are many ways to market the software. Michael asks each team member to develop ideas for a strategy.
During a team meeting, each member shares his/her ideas about marketing strategies. The team members debate the
ideas that are presented. The team members discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each idea. Several members
express disagreement on the best strategy. After discussing the different viewpoints, the team members make a
decision together about which strategy to adopt.
Vignette 2: Strategic Planning
Amal is the leader of his company’s strategic planning team. The team is determining where the company
wants to be in five years, and what its priorities are. The team makes decisions about how to distribute funds across
the company over the next several years.
Currently, Amal’s team is working on a plan for how to distribute funds across the different departments for the
next year. Amal and his team have scheduled a meeting for next week to develop the plan to present to management.
Prior to the meeting, Amal speaks with each member of the team privately. He asks for their ideas about a plan
for distributing funds. He does not share these ideas with other members because he doesn’t want to embarrass
anyone. Members may feel bad if their ideas have flaws. Amal uses the information gathered from these private
discussions to make a final decision about the plan. In the meeting, he announces his decision. Though some of the
team members privately disagree with the decision he makes, everyone expresses agreement with it out loud.
Vignette 3: Feasibility Testing
Daniel works for an electronics manufacturer. He is a member of a four-person team that is testing the
feasibility of new cell phone features. The team is evaluating four features. Each team member is responsible for
studying one feature. At the end of the study, the team will compile the results and present them to management.
While Daniel is talking with one of his teammates named Seth, he finds out that Seth is behind schedule on his
task. The task is more challenging than the team had expected, and Seth might not have the skills necessary to
complete it. Management expects a report on all four features, so it is important that the task be completed.
When Daniel realizes that Seth is behind schedule on his task, he decides to help. Daniel feels it is his
responsibility to step in and offer help in cases where his teammates are struggling due to higher workloads or task
difficulty. When Daniel offers his help, Seth accepts his offer. He is very appreciative of Daniel’s help. Seth would
do the same thing if Daniel had been struggling with his task.
Vignette 4: Copy Editing
Barak is an editor at a publishing company. He works on a team with four other editors. The team is managed
by the chief editor. This week, the team has a total of ten book manuscripts to edit. Each member of the team is
responsible for editing two or three of them. The chief editor asks the team to send him a progress report mid-
week.
On Tuesday afternoon, Barak is having a conversation near the work area of one of his teammates. For a few
moments, he glances down at one of the books his teammate is editing. He wants to see how much progress his
teammate is making in comparison to himself. As he’s looking, he notices some editorial mistakes in the manuscript.
When Barak notices the possible editorial mistakes in the manuscript, he decides not to look at the manuscript
closer or to talk to his teammate about it. He believes it is the chief editor’s responsibility, and not his, to monitor
progress toward goals and the quality of the team members’ work. In addition, he wants his boss to see that he’s
performing better than his teammate is.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
19
teamwork and support behaviors. Vignette 4 depicted a team member acting in his own best
interest in a collaborative setting.
After reading each scenario, the participants first rated whether the story was an example
of good teamwork (prescriptive), and then they rated how well the story matched how teamwork
actually occurs in their country (descriptive). Then, they moved to the next scenario.
Results
As in Experiment 1, the results presented are based on a two-factor ANOVA with one
between-subjects factor (country) and one within-subjects factor (probe question), unless
otherwise noted.
Vignette 1: Marketing Strategy
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Vignette 1 are shown in Figure 5. As shown, there
was a significant country effect, F (3, 162) = 5.079, p = .002, and significant differences between
prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1, 162) = 89.564, p < .001. For Vignette 1, the
prescriptive scores were significantly greater than the descriptive scores. Furthermore, the size
of the prescriptive-descriptive difference was dependent upon nationality, F (3, 162) = 6.418, p <
.001. Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to determine the country
effects on the differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores. For Vignette 1, the
differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores were smaller for Indians than for all
other nationalities.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
identify country differences on prescriptive and descriptive items. Significant country
differences were identified for the prescriptive item, F (3, 162) = 10.079, p < .001. For the
prescriptive item, Indians reported significantly lower scores than participants in all other
countries. Descriptive scores did not differ significantly by country, F (3, 162) = 1.561, p =
.201.
Vignette 2: Strategic Planning
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Vignette 2 are shown in Figure 6. There was a
marginally-significant country effect on Vignette 2 scores, F (3, 162) = 2.501, p = .061, as well
as significant differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1, 162) = 24.436, p <
.001. For Vignette 2, the descriptive scores were significantly greater than the prescriptive
scores. However, the difference between prescriptive and descriptive scores did not depend on
nationality, F (3, 162) = 1.916, p = .129.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
identify country differences on prescriptive and descriptive items. Significant country
differences were identified for the prescriptive item, F (3, 162) = 2.03, p = .042. For the
prescriptive item, Indians reported significantly higher scores than U.S. participants. Descriptive
scores did not differ significantly by country, F (3, 162) = 1.750, p = .159.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
20
Vignette 3: Feasibility Testing
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Vignette 3 are shown in Figure 7. As can be seen,
there was a significant country effect on Vignette 3 scores, F (3, 162) = 3.363, p = .020, and
significant differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1, 162) = 75.085, p < .001.
For Vignette 3, the prescriptive scores were significantly greater than the descriptive scores.
Furthermore, the size of the prescriptive-descriptive difference was dependent upon nationality,
F (3, 162) = 5.246, p = .002. Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
determine the country effects on the differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores. For
Vignette 3, India reported smaller differences than S. Korea. India and Turkey both reported
smaller differences than the U.S.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
identify country differences on prescriptive and descriptive items. Significant country
differences were identified for the prescriptive item, F (3, 162) = 7.911, p < .001. For the
prescriptive item, S. Korea and the U.S. reported significantly higher scores than participants in
India. In addition, U.S. participants reported significantly higher scores than Turkish
participants. Descriptive scores did not differ significantly by country, F (3, 162) = 0.067, p =
.977.
Vignette 4: Copy Editing
Prescriptive and descriptive scores for Vignette 4 are shown in Figure 8. The country
effect on Vignette 4 scores was not significant, F (3, 162) = 1.286, p = .281. As with the other
vignettes, there were significant differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores, F (1,
162) = 99.31, p < .001. For Vignette 4, the descriptive scores were significantly greater than the
prescriptive scores. The size of the prescriptive-descriptive difference was dependent upon
nationality, F (3, 162) = 3.966, p < .009. Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were
calculated to determine the country effects on the differences between prescriptive and
descriptive scores. For Vignette 4, the differences between prescriptive and descriptive scores
were smaller for India than for Korea and the U.S.
One-way ANOVAs with Fischer LSD post hoc multiple comparisons were calculated to
identify country differences on prescriptive and descriptive items. Significant country
differences were identified for the prescriptive item, F (3, 162) = 3.181, p = .026. For the
prescriptive item, participants from India and Turkey reported significantly higher scores than
participants in S. Korea and the U.S. Descriptive scores did not differ significantly by country, F
(3, 162) = 0.924, p = .431.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean Score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 5. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 1, Marketing Strategy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean Score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 6. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 2, Strategic Planning.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean Score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 7. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 3, Feasibility Testing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
India S. Korea Turkey U.S.
Country
Mean Score
Prescriptive Descriptive
Figure 8. Prescriptive and descriptive scores by country for Vignette 4, Copy Editing.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
23
Summary
The country comparison results are summarized by vignette, and then discussed in
relation to Hypotheses 1 and 2.
For Vignette 1, people across cultures reported valuing the open debate process more
than it actually occurs in practice. This effect was smaller for India than other countries. For
Vignette 2, individuals across nations reported that private meetings and sole leader decision
making should be done less than it actually is. This effect did not depend on culture. For
Vignette 3, people across countries reported that member-to-member support behaviors (without
leader intervention) should occur more than it actually does. This effect was strongest for the
U.S. and weakest for India, with S. Korea and Turkey in between. For Vignette 4, people across
cultures reported that team members try to benefit by allowing other team members to fail, more
often than it should occur. The effects were strongest in the U.S. and S. Korea, and the weakest
effect was in India.
As in Study 1, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Teamwork values were more aligned with
western team competencies than were actual behaviors, across all countries and vignettes. There
were no effects in the opposite direction for any country. Again, consistent with Study 1, there
was a trend of higher scores in the U.S., with the result being driven more by differences in the
prescriptive rather than the descriptive judgments. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
General Discussion
The studies reported in this article provide consistent evidence that Western prescriptions
of competent teamwork are valued across a diverse set of countries, with respect to the current
team practices in those countries. Overall, the gap between values and actual practice of team
competencies tended to be the largest in the U.S. and the smallest in India. These differences
seemed to be driven largely by U.S. respondents assigning higher values to the teamwork
dimensions. When looking at prescriptive and descriptive judgments separately, there were no
clear overall patterns of difference in the descriptive ratings across the countries. There was,
however, an overall tendency for U.S. respondents to place more value on team orientation and
team support than respondents from the three non-Western cultures. Also, when considering the
vignettes (but not the scale items), Indian respondents appeared to endorse open decision
processes less than the other three countries.
Theoretical Implications
There are several theoretical implications of the current studies. First, there are
implications for taxonomies of team competencies. Salas, Sims et al. (2005) conducted an
extensive review of the teamwork literature, and proposed five core competencies that lead to
effective team performance. In Study 1, we found four factors that were reasonably consistent
with the Big Five, though two exceptions were noteworthy. First, three of the Big Five,
Performance Monitoring, Back-Up Behavior, and Adaptability, were captured within a single
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
24
factor, “Team Support,” in Study 1. Second, “Open Decision Process,” was suggested as an
additional factor of interest.
A second theoretical implication has to do with the relation between domain-general
values for social-interaction patterns (e.g., independence/interdependence), and values that apply
to the specific domain of team interactions. One possibility is that a direct mapping exists from
the general to the specific, so that anticipation of cultural differences in specific situational
contexts can be reasonably performed using the domain-general values. The current results for
team orientation and team support provide striking evidence against the validity of the direct
mapping approach. Specifically, one might suspect that individuals from interdependent
cultures would be more inclined to value and exhibit a team orientation than those from
independent cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998).
Indeed, interdependent cultures tend to encourage the subordination of personal interests to the
goals of the larger work group, in addition to encouraging cooperation, group harmony, a
concern with group welfare, and an equal distribution of rewards. Independent cultures, on the
other hand, place more emphasis on self-orientation, self-sufficiency, individaul autonomy, the
pursuit of personal goals that may or may not be consistent with the group’s goals, competition,
and individual-based rewards (e.g., Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Based on these
characteristics, it would be logical to expect members of collectivistic cultures to value team
orientation and team support behaviors more than members of individualistic cultures.
However, the data in the current study indicate the opposite. The most independent
participants (those from the U.S.) value team orientation and team support behaviors more than
the more interdependent members of non-Western countries. Though puzzling, this finding is
consistent with recent work investigating differences in team-related behaviors across cultures
(McHugh et al., 2005). Interviews with participants from India and China revealed an interesting
tension between team orientation and a sense of individual rivalry. Every participant interviewed
from India, and many of the participants from China, discussed the presence of intense
competitiveness and rivalry in their work teams. The majority of participants acknowledged the
merits of working together and putting the goals of the group at the forefront. Yet, they also
expressed the desire to outperform their teammates. It was particularly important to them that
their team leader or manager was aware of how they distinguished themselves from their
teammates. Though this competitiveness was described as having a strong presence in
teamwork, both Indian and Chinese participants also acknowledged that it is relatively covert and
seldom discussed openly.
In addition to team orientation, McHugh and Smith found evidence that team support
behaviors may not be valued within collectivistic cultures to the extent that one might expect.
Interviews with Middle Easterners, in particular, have indicated that support behaviors within a
team might be an uncommon or an uncomfortable practice. One potential explanation for this
seeming contradiction might be related to the notion of honor or "face" that is interwoven
throughout collectivistic cultures (Feghali, 1997; Patai, 2002). Team members may refrain from
exhibiting support behaviors such as performance monitoring or back-up behavior due to a
concern that it could dishonor their colleague or cause him/her to lose face or dignity. This
would be particularly likely in situations where a team member’s aid might suggest that the
individual being supported is somehow incapable of performing the task without assistance.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
25
Much fruitful psychological research has been conducted with the intent to characterize
cultural differences in terms of a small number of dimensions. This approach has obvious
appeal, since it promises that a little information can yield a wide range of inferences about the
behavior of people from other cultures. Reducing the complexity of cultural knowledge in this
way is attractive, but the general predictive value is not apparent and may be quite limited. The
current findings suggest that aspects of mental representations pertaining to the specific
application domain of interest should be assessed instead.
Practical Implications
The current studies have revealed that a degree of cross-cultural consensus appears to be
forming regarding what counts as good teamwork. With respect to current practices, respondents
in four diverse countries expressed team values in a direction that is consistent with Western
management scholarship on team functioning. Nevertheless, national differences in team
competency values do exist, and such discrepancies can result in practical consequences for team
performance, especially if they are not recognized. How, then, can such differences be
ameliorated?
One potential approach is to develop cultural sensitivity in managers to such differences
through training and education. For instance, managers could receive instruction on national
profiles concerning team competency values, along with potential recommendations for dealing
with these value differences. There are, however, several problems with this approach. One
problem is that the promotion of such national values can lead to stereotyping, as well as a static
conception of culture. Since, for example, cultural values are not uniformly shared among a
society’s members (Rohner, 1987), and the spread can be quite large, predictions about a team
member’s values based on their nationality are most likely to be incorrect. The problem is
compounded by the fact that cultures change over time. Another problem is that the emphasis
and manifestation of team competencies is expected to be task specific, even if universality of
the overall dimensions is granted (Salas, Sims et al., 2005). Hence, there is a need to ground the
details of competent team interactions in the specific situation that the team is facing, something
that generic training on national differences in competency values does not permit.
An alternative approach is to develop interventions that aid in the creation of “hybrid” or
“third” cultures (Casmir, 1992; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). A hybrid culture refers to the
culture that develops after the team has formed, based on mutual interactions. The team’s initial
interactions lead to the emergence of simplified sets of shared mental representations, including
rules and expectations for interactions and task accomplishment, and perceptions of the members
and team itself. Schemata and values would both be included among the emergent shared mental
representations. Note that the idea of a hybrid culture possesses a domain-specific connotation;
it addresses the question of how will a particular multinational team, embedded in a specific
situation, interact, make decisions, and get work done. The general idea, then, is to influence the
initial interactions of such teams in a way that promotes the emergence of effective hybrid
cultures. In a qualitative study, Earley and Mosakowski (2000) found that high-functioning
multinational teams were more likely to decide on ground rules or procedural matters up front in
the first meeting, whereas lower performing teams never developed clear, consistent rules for
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
26
engagement. From the standpoint of the current research, in addition to devoting initial meeting
time to matters of procedure, a fair portion of that time ought to be spent discussing team
competencies, or addressing the question of “What does a high-performing team look like in this
situation?” There is also a value in unpacking that question in terms of the dimensions explored
here, since team members would be less likely to assume there would be no disagreement with
something as fundamental as team support, for example. Furthermore, since members from
some cultures might well be uncomfortable airing divergent views (and no “hybrid” procedure
has as yet been developed by the team), one possibility is to have them fill out a questionnaire or
survey such as in Study 1 prior to the meeting. The leader could then decide on how best to
handle the divergence (e.g., open in a full meeting, or with individuals prior to a full meeting).
A description of a calibration tool based on the survey and dimensions from Study 1 is
presented next. Although similar cultural calibration tools may exist, what makes the current
tool unique is that it focuses precisely on the dimensions most relevant to developing high-
performing teams.
Calibration of Collaborative Styles
As we envision it, the calibration tool provides a snapshot of team members’ cultural
collaboration profiles. The profile is constructed based on individual responses to the teamwork
values assessment instrument. The profile contains scores on each of the four critical teamwork
dimensions that were identified during this study: Open Decision Process, Team Orientation,
Leadership, and Team Support. Once the team members complete the assessment instrument,
the cultural calibration profiles are calculated, and a chart depicting the results is made available
to the leader.
This chart enables the leader to identify cultural differences in team members’ beliefs
about what counts as good teamwork, which may hinder team functioning. Behavioral
implications of these differences are also provided. Based on this information, the leader can
identify specific points of friction among the members about team functioning. The tool may
also recommend interventions that the leader can implement to overcome existing cultural
barriers and improve team performance.
The calibration tool is flexible and can be used in variety of ways depending on the needs
of a particular team. For example, the leader can review the chart and develop interventions
without sharing the results with the entire team. This method may be best for ad hoc teams
working under a tight deadline, because there would not necessarily be time to work through the
issues as a group. An alternative application of this tool is to share the results with the entire
team and hold a group discussion about the cultural differences. The leader could facilitate the
meeting as team members share their expectations about team functioning. This technique has
the added benefit of promoting the construction of a hybrid culture across the team. As team
members work through their differences, they tend to develop new beliefs and practices that all
team members can use in the specific confines of the current team. This tool should be
especially useful for teams where member rotations are commonplace, since leaders tend to have
less time to understand their assigned team members in those settings. Finally, this tool may also
be used before the team forms as a guide for staffing and team assignment.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
27
Figure 9. Sample screenshot from the calibration tool.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study has shed light on cultural differences in mental representations of team
competencies, ways in which they differ from general cultural values, and how they might be
detected and supplanted with hybrid team cultures. However, there are some limitations of the
current study that need to be discussed. One problem is that this and similar past studies have
started with Western conceptions of team competency taxonomies and addressed the question of
whether the listed competencies apply across cultures. Although that tact has yielded fruitful
results, it leaves a potential gap in the full range of competencies that might be considered. In
particular, team member interactions that would be considered highly competent in non-Western
cultures, may not be well represented. One widely-recognized concept that would surely be
included among the competencies of team members in most non-Western teams, for example, is
the concept of face (Tjosvold, Hui, & Sun, 2004). Such omissions may well reconcile apparent
anomalies in the current findings. For example, it may be taken for granted that non-Westerners
often do not voice disagreement, or have a difficult time doing so. However, it is quite possible
that the issues of open conflict are more subtle, and that non-Westerners favor open discussion
and debate, consistent with the current findings. Instead of being “anti-debate,” it might be
better to think of non-Westerners as balancing debate with another critical factor, that of
maintaining “face" of themselves and their teammates. Other competencies that are valued by
non-Westerners, but that get less attention in Western management scholarship, may be missed
as well. Such additional factors should be addressed in future research in order to develop a
more complete assessment instrument and calibration tool. Furthermore, the dimensions of
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
28
decision process and conflict management were compressed in the current study, and should be
expanded to include more detail in a subsequent iteration. A final potential issue has to do with
the current emphasis on mental representations, values and schemata in particular. Both are
clearly important for facilitating multicultural collaborations. However, a broader framework
would also include demeanour and language as important attributes that are culturally
determined (Hambrick et al., 1998). For example, eye contact and interruption patterns may well
lead to frustration or mistrust, and also remain at a tacit level. Furthermore, overall facility with
the team’s language, or even slight differences in the meanings attached to terms can cause
considerable disruption that detracts from the team’s performance. Nevertheless, although
teamwork values and schemata do not represent multinational collaboration issues at all levels of
analysis, they do provide an excellent starting point for developing a hybrid culture. With the
development of higher-level shared mental representations, a broad framework is established for
the detection, negotiation, and reconciliation of differences that arise at the lower levels.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
29
References
Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Ross, N. O. (2005). The cultural mind: Environmental decision
making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review,
112(4), 744-776.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1997). Teamwork competencies: The interaction of team
member knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In H. F. O'Neil (Ed.), Workforce readiness:
Competencies and assessment (pp. 151-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Casmir, R. (1992). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural
communication. Communication Yearbook, 16, 407-428.
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49.
Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams within multinational corporations: Effects of cultural
heterogeneity. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 393-412.
Feghali, E. (1997). Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 21(3), 345-378.
Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions.
In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 31-56).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Global MBA rankings 2005. (n.d.). Retrieved January 17, 2006, from The Financial Times
website: http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan, R. M.,
Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents
across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800-816.
Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. (1998). When groups consist of
multiple nationalities: Towards a new understanding of the implications. Organization
Studies, 19(2), 181-205.
Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members
of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
62, 401-407.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
30
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in
decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas & Associates (Eds.), Team
effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204-261). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Klein, H. A., & McHugh, A. P. (2005). National differences in teamwork. In W. B. Rouse & K.
R. Boff (Eds.), Organizational simulation (229-252). New York: Wiley.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor. Journal of
Management, 20, 403-437.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2000). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The
influence on shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 273-283.
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making
groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531-552.
Maznevski, M. L., & Peterson, M. F. (1997). Societal values, social interpretation, and
multinational teams. In C. S. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross-cultural work groups
(pp. 61-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McGuire, W. J. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. E. Atkin
(Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 43-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McHugh, A. P., Smith, J. L., & Klinger, D. (2005). Cultural variations in collaborative work.
Paper presented at the The 7th International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think
differently...and why. New York: The Free Press.
Patai, R. (2002). The Arab Mind. Long Island: Hatherleigh Press.
Peterson, M. F., Miranda, S. M., Smith, P. B., & Haskell, V. M. (2003). The sociocultural
contexts of decision making in organizations. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.),
Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research (pp. 512-555). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Klein Associates 05TA2-SP1-RT1
31
Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. (2001). Why do 'great minds' think alike? Antecedents of team
member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 107-120.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4 ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rohner, R. (1987). Culture theory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 8-51.
Salas, E., Guthrie, J. W., Wilson-Donnelly, K. A., Priest, H. A., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Modeling
team performance: The basic ingredients and research needs. In W. B. Rouse & K. R.
Boff (Eds.), Organizational Simulation (pp. 185-228). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36(5), 555-599.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding of national
differences. In U. Kim & H. C. Triandis & C. Kagitcibasi & S. C. Choi & G. Yoon
(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85-119).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sperber, D. (1985). Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations.
Man, 20, 73-89.
Sperber, D., & Hirschfeld, L. (1999). Culture, cognition, and evolution. In R. A. Wilson & F. C.
Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. cxi-cxxxii).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tinsley, C. H., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Managing workplace conflict in the United States and
Hong Kong. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 360-381.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Sun, H. (2004). Can Chinese discuss conflicts openly? Field and
experimental studies of face dynamics in China. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4),
351-373.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture (2 ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Yates, J. F. (2003). Decision management: How to assure better decisions in your company. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
