Managing

Multicultural
Teams
SECTION F GROUP 13
 • Direct vs Indirect
communication
Barriers • Accents and Fluency
• Attitude towards
Hierarchy
• Decision-making norms

• Adaptation
• Structural Intervention Interventions
• Managerial Intervention
• Exit
BARRIER #1: Action Reaction Approach
DIRECT VS -American Manager -Boss appreciates -Adapt instead of
INDIRECT confronts Japanese -Embarrassed violating norms
COMMUNICATION team about flaws team shuns the
manager
-Ask indirect
questions
REASONS
Western Culture Other Cultures

• Direct and Explicit • Indirect Communication,

• Meaning is on surface meaning embedded
• Listener doesn’t need to • Cross-cultural negotiation
know context or the • Non westerner can
speaker understand westerner but
• Negotiators: Ask vice versa isn’t true
preferences and priorities • Negotiators: Infer
clearly preferences and priorities
from changes or the lack
of them
BARRIER #2: Perception
Conflicts
TROUBLE WITH Non-native accent Incompetent Demotivation
ACCENTS AND Lack of Fluency
Translation issues
Disinterested
Accord Low
Incorrect
assessment
FLUENCY Language status
Issues
Barrier
EFFECTS

Negative
• Expertise of non-fluent
members ignored
• Frustration/ interpersonal
conflicts causing anxiety Positive
• Organization pays the price • Exploit linguistic diversity
• Collude against competitors
BARRIER #3:
DIFFERING Hierarchical
Appropriate
team culture
ATTITUDES Person from
Hierarchical
TOWARD culture Egalitarian team
Humiliated
HIERARCHY AND culture

AUTHORITY
CONFLICTING CULTURES
Asked questions out
of humility but was
Mexican-
perceived as American
ignorant employee

American team
complains to
US – Korean management
Korean about the lack of
Negotiation cooperation by
Korean sub-
ordinates
 US
BARRIER #4: Quick decisions Understand full
CONFLICTING Relatively less scope

NORMS FOR
analysis Analysis – Paralysis

DECISION Adjust and respect

approach
Vocal and explicit
about need

MAKING

Others
 Representative Enabling
Problem conditions

Attribute challenge
Decision-making
to culture
differences
Don’t want to
Communication
STRATEGY #1:
involve higher level
differences
managers

ADAPTATION
Exceptionally aware Acknowledge
team members cultural gaps openly
and work around
Negotiation takes them
time

Complicating
Best Strategy
Factors
ADAPTATION

• Requires less managerial time and team members learn in the process
• American working with Israeli team members - adapted by imposing structure and respecting
culture
- American adapted the French system of involving everyone in the decision-making process
- US & UK team agreed to accommodate each other’s decision-making processes and culture -
“FUSION”
 Representative Enabling
Problem conditions

Emotionally affected Sub-teams with

team- fluency or mixed cultures and
prejudice issues expertise

STRATEGY #2: Inhibited by status

difference
Subdivide tasks

STRUCTURAL
INTERVENTION Sub-groups can
strengthen existing
differences Deliberate
reorganisation or
Subgroup solutions reassignment
have to fit back
together
Complicating
Best Strategy
Factors
STRUCTURAL INTERVENTION

• Works when obvious subgroups demarcate the team or if team members are proud, defensive, threatened, or
clinging to negative stereotypes of one another.
• Create smaller working groups of mixed culture to get information that you can’t from the team as a whole.
• Risk – Buffers people not working well. Putting the pieces of work done by subgroups back together requires
mediator.

- Manager handling multicultural team resolved conflicts stemming from status differences and language tensions.
- Team met face to face twice a year. To remove hierarchal issue, he hired consultant in the meeting instead of
him taking the lead.
- Japanese female consultants didn’t speak in large groups or in front of male superiors. Breaking group in small
groups and changing the memberships frequently helped them open up and contribute.
 Representative Enabling
Problem conditions

Embarrassment due Escalated problem

to violation of
hierarchy Team reached a
stalemate
STRATEGY #3: Absence of ground
rules causing Manager willing to
MANAGERIAL conflict intervene

INTERVENTION Team becomes

dependent on
Make decisions
manager
without the team’s
involvement
Team members
sidelined or
resistant
Complicating
Best Strategy
Factors
MANAGERIAL INTERVENTION

• Managerial intervention required when manager behaves like an arbitrator or a judge, making a final
decision without team involvement, neither the manager nor the team gains much insight into why
the team has stalemated.
• Managerial intervention to set norms early in a team’s life can really help the team start out with
effective processes.

- American refinery-safety expert – China: Manager informed American counterpart and through
lower level employees, approach Chinese counterpart to resolve the issue.
- Software development – Manager was upfront about the language fluency and made sure that her
teammates accept their level of fluency and conveyed that what mattered to her was expertise.
 Representative Enabling
Problem conditions

Team members Permanent teams

unable to adjust and
contribute Emotions beyond
the point of
Irreconcilable intervention
STRATEGY #4: differences in
opinions
EXIT
Voluntary or
Talent and training
involuntary removal
costs are lost
of a team member

Complicating
Best Strategy
Factors
THANK YOU