Transcript Multikulturelle Arbeitsgruppen in Organisationen

Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Culture Counts
On the Effects of Ethnicity and
Nationality on Heterogeneous Work
Groups
Astrid Podsiadlowski
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Goals of the Empirical Study
To analyse processes within multicultural work groups
or teams (description)
To determine factors which lead to successful
teamwork (explication).
Multicultural Work Groups
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Structure of the Presentation
•
•
•
•
Theoretical and empirical background
Methods and design of empirical study
Results
Conclusions
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
What are Characteristic Features of Co-operation
in Multinational Organisations?
• 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.
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Interdisciplinary Concept for Studying
Multicultural Work Groups
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Research on Organisations
Research
on Groups
Research on
Diversity
Research
on Culture
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Diversity within Groups
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
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
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)
Hierarchy
Tenure
Suborganizations
Gender
Profession
Ethnicity
Religion
Functional
division
Organisation
Region
Industry
Nation
Area
(Sackmann, 1997, S. 3)
Multiple Cultures in Organisations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Types of Diversity
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Attributes
Types of Diversity
Age
Gender
Demographic
Nationality
Ethnicity
Religion
Cultural Values
Personality
Attitudes
Abilities
Socio-ecnomic background
Education
Function
Profession
Organisational
Organisation
Industry
Organisational Tenure
Group Tenure
Cultural
Values
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Chances and Barriers in Heterogeneous Work
Groups
Potential advantages
Potential disadvantages
+ Productivity
– More difficult communication
(Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale,
1997)
+ Effectiveness
(Thomas, Ravlin & Wallace, 1996)
+ Innovation
(Hoffman, 1959)
+ Creativity
(McLeod & Lobel, 1992)
+ Less group think
(Hoffman, Harburg & Maier, 1962)
(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)
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Effectiveness Within Multicultural Work Groups
Multicultural work
groups
Least
effective
Monocultural work
groups
On average
effective
Most
effective
(See Kovach, 1980 in Adler, 1991, p. 135)
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Cultural Diversity
Laboratory studies
N Positive effects Negative effects
Performance 
9 Quality of solutions 
Contentment 
Creativity 
Group attachment
Contentment 
Contribution 
Commitment 
Ethnic
Quality of
solutions 
Co-operation 
National
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
8 Performance 
Field studies
N Positive effects
Negative effects
Quality of solutions 
Contentment 
Sympathy 
Group attachment 
Attitudes towards group
Interaction 
Fluctuation 
Advancement
opportunities 
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 
4 Performance 
Range of
perspectives 
Productivity 
Creativity 
Contentment 
Performance 
Interaction 
Discrimination 
Contentment 
Cultural variety 
Wish for further cooperation 
Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale, 1997; Earley &
Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Elron,
Mosakowski, 2000; Thomas, 1999; Thomas, Ravlin & 1997; Hofner Saphiere, 1996
Wallace, 1996; Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen, 1993
4
3
Intimacy
Small social distance
8
16
Accomodation or overshooting
in acculturation
(Triandis, Kurowski &
Gelfand, 1994, S. 784)
15
Sense of control
14
Isomorphic attributions
13
Sociotypes
12
Rewards
Positive intergroup
attitudes
19
17
positive contact
+ Opportunity for
2
Superordinate goals
9
Pluralistic society;
authorities approve of
contact
18
Little culture shock
Little ethnic
affirmations
11
Network overlap
10
1
Perceived
similarity
More interaction
7
Equal status contact
6
Knowledge of other
culture (language,
competence)
5
Cultural distance
(religion, language,
economics, politics)
History of conflict
Model of Workplace Diversity
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Research Question
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
? ?
?
Under which conditions
does which type of diversity lead
to what kind of results?
?
?
?
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Effectiveness of Multicultural Work Groups
Dependent variables
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Independent variables
Individual
I
V
Socio-demographic data Age, gender, nationality,
ethnicity, profession, position,
Attitudes Co-operation, collectivism
Competence Languages, intercultural experience
Group
Characteristics Size, age
Means of communication Frequency and means of
interaction,
Composition Gender, education, status, personality,
profession
Future
II
National cultural diversity
a)Nationality b) Cultural distance
III
Company
Characteristics Size, industry
Location Country, region, internationalisation
IV
Contentment
Communication
Processes
Performance
 Efficiency
 Creativity
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Dependent Variables
Means and Standard Deviations
Variable
M
SD
Scale
1. Co-operation
3.3
0.40
1 = completely wrong
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.
to 4 = completely correct
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Dependent Variables
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable
M
SD
1
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
2
3
0.48*** 0.39*** 0.16
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.
4
0.35*
5
-
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Value Orientations in Germany and Singapore
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Value orientations
Germany
According to Hofstede (1997): Index
(1-100)
Power distance
35
Individualism/collectivism 67
Uncertainty avoidance
65
Maskulinity/Feminity
66
According to Schwartz (2000):
M*
Conservatism
3,182
Intellectual autonomy
4,892
Affective autonomy
3,915
Hierarchy
3,182
Egalitarism
5,044
Authority
4,006
Harmony
4,682
Singapore
Rank
(1-53)
42-44
15
29
9/10
Index
(1-100)
74
20
8
48
M*
4,212
3,794
2,967
2,660
4,682
3,794
3,988
Rank
(1-53)
14
39-41
53
28
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).
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Value Orientations
Cultural Distance
based on the Cultural Dimensions
by Geert Hofstede (1997)
within the group
Relative Distance
1. Individualism/Collectivism
N
| k j  ki |
i 1
N
dj  
2. Masculinity/Feminity
dj: Relative distance of
the j-th team member
to the whole group*
Group Distance
_
3. Uncertainty Avoidance
4. Power Distance
(ki  k )

i 1 ( N  1)
N
D
With
_
N
k 
i 1
ki
N
2
D : Standarddeviation
of the whole group*
_
k : Mean value*
N: Number of group members
k j: Value of Cultural Dimension of the j-th team member
* regarding the values of the different cultural dimensions
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Socio-demographic Data I
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Sex
Women
57%
Academic
background
Men
42%
n.a.
1%
No
46%
Yes
40%
n.a.
14%
Managing
responsibilities
No
46%
Yes
40%
n.a.
14%
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Socio-demographic Data II
Variable
Age
Intercultural experience
Experience abroad
Languages
M
33.9
6.6
3,3
3
Variable
Sex
Academic degree
Managing responsibilities
Verteilung
57% women
40% with
40% with
years
years
years
lang.
Minimum Maximum
21 years 54 years
1 month 26 years
None
20 years
1 language 5 languages
n.a.
6
3
3
2
42% men
46% without
46% without
n.a.
1%
14%
14%
N = 84; underlined mean = Median; n.a. = no answer.
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Cultural Background of Interviewees
Variable
N
Characteristic
Nationality
9
Singapore, Germany, Malaysia, India, China,
Great Britain, USA, Australia, Philippines
Singapore, Germany, Malaysia, India, China,
Great Britain, Australia, Philippines, Greece,
Russi, Indonesia
Chinese, Caucasian, Malay, Mixed, Indian
Christianity, none, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism
Singapore, Germany, Indonesia, India
Country of origin11
Ethnicity
Religion
Residency
5
5
4
N = 84; order of characteristics correspond with frequency.
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Composition and History of the Group
Variable
Group size
Number of
Nationalities
Number of women
Median
6
3
Minimum
3
1
-
Maximum
29
9
4
0
16
Variable
Group age
Group
membership
M
2,2 Jahre
1,2 Jahre
Minimum
2 Monate 2 Monate -
N = 84; n.a. = no answer.
-
Maximum
13 Jahre
6 Jahre
n.a.
1
1
1
n.a.
6
3
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Group Variables and Their Effectiveness
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Group
Effectiveness
Group Age
 0,29*
Group Size
Organisational
Diversity
Percentage of Women
Future
 0,28*
Contentment
0,39**
0,29*
Efficiency
0,26*
Number of
Zahlen sind standardisierte Regressionskoeffizienten
();
0,29*
Nationalities
für p < 0,05; ** für p < 0,01; *** für p < 0,001
Cultural Distance
Numbers are standardized regression coefficients ();
for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001
Creativity
Multicultural Work Groups
Dr. Astrid Podsiadlowski
Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables
on Group Characteristics, Group Composition, and Cultural
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Distance on Contentment
Variables
Contentment
Step 1 Step 2
Group size
Group age
Heterogeneity
Women (%)
Cultural distance
r2ADJ
F
 r2
F for  r2
Durbin-Watson:
-0.30*
0.11
-0.28*
0.08
0.15
-0.11
0.07
2.87
0.11
2.87
1.84
0.07
1.89
0.03
0.91
Step 3
-0.38**
0.14
0.19
0.06
0.43**
0.20
3.52**
0.14
8.78**
* 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 Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Final Equations of Multiple, Hierarchical Regression
Analyses
Variablen
Co-operation
Collectivism
Group size
Heterogenity
Cultural Distance
Communication
Group processes
r2K
F (2,7)
Contentment
0.33**
- 0.11
- 0.11
0.07
0.28
0.35*
0.11
0.40
6.03***
Creativity
-0.13
0.13
-0.01
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.41**
0.22
3.11**
Efficiency
0.18
0.05
0.13
0.21
-0.22
0.30*
0.06
0.18
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 Podsiadlowski
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Conclusions
•
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.