MANAGING CHALLENGES IN

MULTICULTURAL TEAMS$

Kristin Behfar, Mary Kern and Jeanne Brett

As a result of the increasingly global business environment, many compa-

nies are building teams that cross-national borders and/or include members
from different countries of origin. Although many of these teams are
designed to pool resources and increase operational efficiencies, the cultural
diversity of team members may create a longer learning curve for estab-
lishing effective processes than culturally homogeneous groups (Gibson &
Vermeulen, 2003). The small groups literature, for example, has documented
the propensity for process losses and conflict to increase as teams become
more demographically diverse (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Jehn,
Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Steiner, 1972; Williams & O’Reilly, 1988).
Managers and members of multicultural teams are therefore faced with the
challenge of how to access and utilize individual member’s strengths, while
at the same time minimizing coordination losses from communication
problems, language differences, varying work styles, and misunderstand-
ings. While the use of multicultural teams is a growing organizational reality
(Earley & Erez, 1997), our knowledge of how to most effectively manage
them is somewhat limited.

$
This research was supported by a grant from the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.

National Culture and Groups

Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Volume 9, 233–262
Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1534-0856/doi:10.1016/S1534-0856(06)09010-4
233
234 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

In this chapter, we explore such management issues by first comparing the

typical challenges faced by same-culture teams to those faced by multicul-
tural teams. Our purpose is to explore which kinds of challenges are com-
mon across teams in general, and which may be unique to multicultural
teams. We then focus on strategies used to address various types of mul-
ticultural team challenges. Specifically, we discuss the conditions under
which managers must intervene to address challenges, when team members
can create solutions for themselves, and when team members choose to exit.
We conclude with a discussion of opportunities for research that go beyond
our specific propositions but that were inspired by our analysis.

APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING
MULTICULTURAL TEAM CHALLENGES

There are two broad approaches in the literature to studying challenges

faced in multicultural teams. One approach is to examine the effects of
demographic differences among individual team members (e.g., gender,
ethnicity, age) on group process. This literature supports the notion that
compositional heterogeneity can be both positive and negative in terms of
successful group process (Ely & Thomas, 2001). On one hand, heterogeneity
increases the chances that a group will bring a wide range of experiences and
consider multiple perspectives in solving problems (Ancona & Caldwell,
1992; Jehn et al., 1999). On the other, heterogeneity makes it more difficult
for groups to establish effective group process. For example, it is more
difficult for heterogeneous groups to communicate and to develop work
norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). They are also more prone to
conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999). So, although the theo-
retical benefits of diversity to pool unique perspectives and resources exist,
they are more difficult to attain and sustain in practice.
The second approach to studying the challenges faced by multicultural
teams is to study how members’ cultural orientations, or dimensions of
behaviors that reflect norms in their country of origin, impact their pref-
erences for group process (e.g., Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Hofstede,
1980). For example, different cultural orientations reflect varying levels of
tolerance for uncertainty, cooperation, and confrontation of conflict – all of
which are important aspects of coordinating group process (Hofstede,
1980). People from individualistic and low-context cultures prefer direct
confrontation of conflict, while those from collectivistic and high-context
cultures prefer indirect confrontation (Brett, 2001). Multicultural team
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 235

members with stronger values for collectivism tend to be more cooperative,

productive, and empowered in self-managing work teams than team mem-
bers with weaker values for collectivism (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Teams
with members who have a strong value for hierarchy prefer having a strong
team leader, whereas teams with members who value egalitarianism prefer
participative team leadership (Leung, 1997; Tinsley & Brett, 2001).
Both of these approaches focus on understanding differences among in-
dividual team members to predict the challenges faced by teams. In this
chapter, we move away from an analysis of individual team members’
diversity and cultural orientations, and instead document culturally based,
team-level challenges and how those challenges can be addressed. That is, we
focus on identifying challenges and responses at the team level instead of
postulating which specific team composition variables created specific chal-
lenges. Our goal is to develop an understanding of how culturally diverse
teams get past their differences to get work done, rather than how their
differences can potentially get in the way of getting work done. Other than
having participants from a variety of cultures, we were not concerned with
participants’ cultural orientations as an explanation for why or how they
perceived a challenge. Therefore, we do not seek to draw conclusions parallel
to the research traditions mentioned above (e.g., the differences between
individualists versus collectivists). Instead, we seek to identify challenges that
are unique to multicultural teams, and to generate a better understanding of
the conditions under which management techniques might vary.
In the next section of this chapter, we compare the typical challenges
faced by same-culture teams to challenges typically faced by multicultural
teams. We make these comparisons based on research from two different
exploratory studies using the same methodology. The first study was based
on interviews with 40 managers who were members of multicultural teams
(Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2005). We compare these results to a second study
exploring challenges facing 65 same-culture teams (Jackson, Mannix,
Peterson, & Trochim, 2002).

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES: COMPARING SAME-

CULTURE AND MULTICULTURAL TEAMS
Overview of Studies

Both studies1 used the same concept-mapping procedure described by Jackson

and Trochim (2002). This procedure is a card sort based text analysis method
236 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

that combines multivariate analysis with participant judgment about how to

represent structure in the data. The method can be thought of as a ‘‘partic-
ipatory content analysis’’ and a brief overview of the steps in the method
include: Statements generated by participants are written on note cards, par-
ticipants are asked to sort these cards into conceptually similar piles, then
multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis is performed to produce a
final map with categories containing the participant-generated statements.
Students enrolled in MBA programs were sampled in both studies from which
we make comparisons, and they had similar backgrounds in terms of age
(average age approximately 28) and work experience (average approximately
6 years).
The sample of MBA teams we use as the ‘‘same-culture’’ group can
be considered culturally homogenous because the majority of members were
either from the United States or had significant periods of residence
and work experience in the United States. These 65 teams consisted of
four to six members, and worked together intensely in four of their core
courses. Data were generated from these teams’ responses to an open-ended
question asking them about the challenges they faced while working
together.
The sample of MBAs we used in the multicultural teams study consisted
of 40 individuals with multicultural team experience in a variety of organ-
izational settings, including military, legal, high-tech, and business. Partic-
ipants had worked in a variety of countries on all continents except
Antarctica. Culturally, 47% were American/Canadian, 15% Latin Amer-
ican, 15% Asian (including Indian and Turkish), and 23% were European.
In order to identify typical challenges faced by these managers in their
multicultural teams, we conducted telephone interviews and asked each
participant to describe a challenging multicultural team experience as well as
how the challenge was addressed or managed.
We recognize that these two samples come from different organizational
contexts and that the teams were working on different types of tasks.
In addition, the same-culture MBA teams are highly homogenous in back-
ground, whereas the multicultural teams sample represents a wide variety
of cultures and functions. Thus, in this section we seek to identify high-level
differences rather than draw definitive conclusions about the differences
between these samples or the individuals in the teams. Both samples
generated data about typical challenges and/or problems the teams
faced while engaging in team work. These challenges are the focus of our
comparison.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 237

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES IN SAME-CULTURE

TEAMS

Concept mapping analysis (Jackson & Trochim, 2002) revealed that same-
culture teams typically faced five main challenges in working together: (1)
personality and communication conflict, (2) differences of opinion about
work, (3) deciding on a work method or approach, (4) issues with timing
and scheduling, and (5) problems with member contribution and workload
distribution. Each is described briefly below.

Personality and Communication Conflict

This category reflected interpersonal tension between members, ego clashes,

emotionally charged discussions, and anger or feelings of irritation between
team members. These conflicts were usually expressed or manifested explic-
itly and verbally with a condescending tone of voice, sarcasm, aggressive or
bullying delivery and/or language, and direct accusations. This type of
problem was also expressed implicitly and non-verbally through rolling eyes,
deep sighs of frustration, aggressive or angry facial expressions, and closed
or aggressive body language (e.g., folding arms, jumping out of a seat and
pacing, etc.). All of these behaviors were associated with aggression, tension,
and irritation and were reported as causing problems for the group in terms
of getting work done. These types of behaviors are commonly referred to as
relationship, or emotional, conflict in the teams literature (Jehn, 1995, 1997).

Differences of Opinion about Work

These challenges had to do with differing viewpoints about facts and pri-
orities for the task at hand. For example, team members had different
opinions about how to frame an argument, what to stress in building a
persuasive argument, which facts were considered true and most valid, and
how to discuss the pros and cons of each idea. Study participants mentioned
that this kind of challenge was constructive if emotion was kept out. How-
ever, if discussion was charged with emotion then this type of challenge
became disruptive (see De Dreu & VanVianen, 2001; DeChurch & Marks,
2001 for similar results). This type of challenge is often categorized in the
teams literature as task conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997).
238 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

Deciding on a Work Method or Approach

This category was similar to the ‘‘differences of opinion’’ category, but with
a more procedural focus. For example, there were differences in opinion
about how to best structure a discussion, with approaches ranging from
starting with everyone stating ideas at once, to evaluating one idea at a time,
to writing down opinions and passing them by e-mail. There were also
differences of opinion about how to approach the writing process, including
what constituted good editing or an efficient editing methodology, estab-
lishing appropriate decision rules (e.g., consensus versus voting), and how to
reconcile different problem solving and writing styles. This type of challenge
is often categorized in the teams literature as administrative or procedural
conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997).

Issues with Timing and Scheduling

These challenges also had a procedural focus, but had more to do with how
to spend team time, such as deciding how much time to spend on different
tasks and in meetings and when to spend time on different parts of the task
(e.g., beginning, middle, or end of work cycle). For example, some team
members preferred to hold group meetings for hours until the task was
accomplished, while others preferred quick meetings for the purpose of co-
ordinating (not accomplishing) work. Other teams had differences about
how to pace their work – some liked to do a lot of planning and work
methodically toward a deadline, other teams preferred to concentrate their
efforts closer to the deadline. This type of challenge is also categorized in the
teams literature as administrative or procedural conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997).

Problems with Contribution and Workload Distribution

This category had to do with concerns over members disrupting group

process, such as lack of member commitment or members not upholding
responsibilities. For example, members often arrived late to meetings or had
to leave early, they did not complete their work and stalled group progress,
or they came with low-quality work and the group had to revisit the task
rather than proceed. This caused some members to have to do more work in
order to compensate for members who did not follow through on their
commitments. This type of challenge is also categorized in the team’s
literature as administrative or procedural conflict (Jehn, 1995, 1997).
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 239

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES: MULTICULTURAL

VERSUS SAME-CULTURE TEAMS

The challenges that were mentioned by the multicultural teams were fairly
different from those described by the members of the same-culture teams.
Participants described a variety of culture-related challenges ranging from
those arising within their teams, to challenges stemming from the need to
coordinate between their team and other divisions of the organization, to
challenges stemming from the need to interact with clients, customers, and
counterparts from other cultures. Some interesting patterns, however,
emerged that indicate there are common teamwork problems that anyone
(from any culture) needs to address during teamwork. Concept mapping
analysis (Jackson & Trochim, 2002) resulted in nine categories of multicul-
tural team challenges, which we discuss below and compare to the same-
culture team results.

Direct versus Indirect Confrontation

This category of challenge involved cultural differences in preferences for

open disagreement and confrontation in communication versus a more
consensus building approach. Teams reported facing challenges when team
members with a preference for verbally ‘‘aggressive’’ communication styles
worked with members with a preference for more ‘‘consensus building’’ in
expressing their points of view. This challenge was associated with escalating
interpersonal tension and a tendency to focus more on the delivery of a
message rather than the content of the message.
The existence of interpersonal tension expressed both verbally and non-
verbally was a similarity between the challenges experienced by both same-
culture (the personality and communication conflict category) and multi-
cultural teams. Overly aggressive delivery and non-verbal cues expressing
annoyance seemed to increase the perceptions of incompatibility in both
same- and multicultural teams. The main difference seemingly caused by
culture was in how conversation tone and direct confrontation were per-
ceived. For example, managers from individualistic, low-context cultures
tended to interpret the ‘‘consensus building’’ style of team members from
high-context, collectivistic cultures as ‘‘less efficient,’’ ‘‘passive,’’ or as at-
tempting to evade the problem (especially in willingness to report bad news).
In contrast, managers from high-context, collectivistic cultures often per-
ceived the individualistic, low-context managers’ communication style as
240 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

‘‘impatient,’’ ‘‘bullying,’’ and unnecessarily rushed and rude. In egalitarian

cultures with emphasis on participative decision making, where everyone is
contributing ideas and challenging each other to try to identify the best idea,
open questioning of opinions and ideas is less likely to be interpreted as
personal disrespect than in more hierarchical cultures (Brett, 2000;
Hofstede, 1980). So, beyond interpreting the personal idiosyncrasies of
each team members’ communication styles, multicultural teams also had to
deal with different normative cultural expectations about what constituted
an appropriate expression of disagreement as well as attributions about the
other-culture’s level of engagement in problem solving.

Norms for Problem Solving and Decision Making

This category of multicultural team challenge identified differences in pref-

erences for a more analytical problem solving and relationship building
process versus a more efficiency focused approach to decision making. For
example, some members preferred to focus on the numbers and ‘‘hard facts’’
involved in the task, while others wanted to include ‘‘soft’’ variables in
decision making (e.g., labor relations, face saving, etc.). Some preferred a
more ‘‘holistic’’ and methodological approach, while others preferred a more
linear ‘‘checklist’’ and efficiency approach (see Hall, 1976, 1983). These
challenges did not seem to escalate interpersonal tensions, as they were more
easily identified by participants as being influenced by differences in cultural
preferences for structuring work. Although teams experiencing these chal-
lenges realized they had to manage cultural differences, advocacy for one
approach versus another was not perceived as interpersonally too aggressive
or too passive because they were equated with larger cultural customs.
Establishing norms for approaching work was a challenge faced by both
the same-culture (the work method and approach category) and multicul-
tural teams. Deciding how to structure and proceed with work is part of any
team’s process. These basic task strategies are part of coordinating work,
regardless of whether the team is same-culture or multicultural. The dis-
tinction is that the same-culture teams were challenged by more routine
procedural issues such as different writing styles and how to best evaluate
ideas. The multicultural teams’ challenges were compounded by fundamen-
tal procedural differences regarding legitimate approaches to problem solv-
ing. It is possible these teams also dealt with differences in writing style and
evaluation, however, our participants indicated that their attention was
directed toward the more fundamental problems of process legitimacy.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 241

Time, Urgency, and Pace

These challenges focused on cultural differences in expectations for project

deliverable timelines, including what constituted delivering ‘‘on-time’’ versus
‘‘late.’’ The most severe of these challenges had to do with meeting deadlines
for deliverables and creating realistic timelines. For example, in some countries
a reasonable timeline was defined as six weeks, whereas in others a reasonable
timeline for the same project was six months. These challenges usually had
significant consequences because they had measurable and tangible costs (e.g.,
producing component parts, filing purchase orders, disrupting a serial process,
breaking contracts, etc.). Anger, misunderstandings, and reputation often
hung in the balance when these types of timing challenges arose and percep-
tions that the ‘‘other’’ group either had unreasonable expectations or was
working too slow or inefficiently were pervasive (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
An important part of teamwork is coordinating the efforts and outputs of
individual members, so it is not surprising that both same-culture and mul-
ticultural teams faced this challenge. Issues of work pace, or how much time
to spend on different tasks, are endemic to group tasks and an important
part of clarifying team-level task strategies (Hackman, 1990). The additional
layer of complexity added by culture seemed to be about the size of the gap
in expectations for what a reasonable timeline was (e.g., Triandis, 1976).
That is, although same-culture teams had to reconcile differences about
more benign timing issues, multicultural teams faced differences in time
orientation (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). For example, same-culture teams faced
basic challenges (from the timing and scheduling category) such as deciding
whether to spend 2 h versus 4 h in a meeting. The multicultural teams had to
address asymmetries in time estimates that differed by significant time pe-
riods. For example, some considered a reasonable deliverable date to be one
month, while others considered a reasonable deliverable date to be one year;
or in some countries teams were under pressure to report quarterly sales,
while in other countries the reporting structure was not as time sensitive.

Differences in Work Norms and Behaviors

This category identified cultural differences about acceptable workplace

behavior and expectations for the separation of personal and business time.
The more benign of these challenges stemmed from national customs. The
custom of taking a siesta, for example, presented challenges for meeting
deadlines and organizing schedules. There were also etiquette norms in
different countries, such as not eating during meetings, different perceptions
242 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

of being ‘‘on time,’’ and norms for not interrupting others with questions.
The more serious challenge was in differing normative expectations for
separating versus not separating business and social time. For example,
what constituted ‘‘billable hours’’ or how to protect personal time away
from work (e.g., what constituted too many social events). This issue usually
escalated interpersonal tension because it induced perceptions about unfair
requirements or raised questions about a person’s commitment to the team.
The same-culture teams did not face these challenges with as much force
as the multicultural teams. Same-culture teams had problems with members
arriving to meetings late or failing to complete work on time (from the
contribution and workload category), but this was more of a violation of
team expectations rather than having cultural roots. For example, in the
same-culture teams there was usually one way to interpret a member ar-
riving late to a meeting: the latecomer does not value the time of other
members and is wasting or disrupting team time. In the multicultural teams,
there were differing perceptions. For example, our participants from Latin
America and Turkey described an on-time arrival to events as rude whereas
German and Dutch participants described late arrival to events as offensive
(Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1976). The more complex time-related challenge
faced by the multicultural teams was differing expectations for separating
personal and business time. For example, team members from more col-
lectivistic cultures expected that personal time after work hours would be
spent building relationships with clients and other team members, or that all
team members would stay at work and maintain a united front until the
team’s work was completed. In contrast, team members from more indi-
vidualistic cultures expected to put in their work effort only between com-
monly agreed upon work hours (typically an 8–12 h work per day) and to
leave work when their part of the task was complete.

Violations of Respect and Hierarchy

This set of challenges was caused by differing respect for status, the chain of
command, and business practices that created unorthodox power differen-
tials. The most serious violation of respect and hierarchy was not respecting
the chain of command – usually involving inappropriate contact by junior
managers from a low power-distance culture with senior management from
a high power-distance culture (Hofstede, 1980). These violations were
acutely visible and associated with important consequences (e.g., losing a
contract), so senior management usually intervened with dramatic symbolic
displays of respect for the other party such as sending a top-level executive
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 243

to the other country with an apology. Unorthodox reporting relationships

created by special organizational projects also posed status threats to re-
porting relationships. This typically included members from high power-
distance cultures being put on a project requiring them to report to a
younger, lower ranked person (often from corporate headquarters).
Our same-culture teams did not report experiencing these challenges.
This is most likely because the teams studied were from the same organ-
ization, composed of similar age members, and all had equal status. It is
possible that these status/respect-related challenges (especially around age
or tenure-related issues) might arise in same-culture teams with status
differences.

Inter-Group Prejudices

The challenges in this category stemmed from pre-existing (and non-work

related) hatred, anger, and distrust seeping into the workplace. The most
common problems were from pre-existing prejudice and discrimination
along divisions of gender, religion, and ethnicity. Sexism, primarily directed
at women by other-culture male superiors, was a problem that the partic-
ipants in our study were never able to resolve. These challenges ranged from
outright quid pro quo sexual harassment to more subtle and directed crit-
icism of women by male managers. Resentment over observing religious
practices (e.g., missing Friday work days due to prayer requirements or not
being able to have certain foods in the break room) were things team
members learned to accept, primarily because organizations created official
policies to respect these differences. However, resentment over what was
perceived to be a ‘‘privileged’’ status granted by these policies never really
dissipated. More commonly, there were serious stereotypes and prejudices
between the groups from countries with histories of political conflict or
when there were current clashes of ideology between countries.
These challenges of sexism, ethnic hatred, and religious differences were
never mentioned by the same-culture teams. Again, this was primarily a
function of the same-level, homogenous MBA sample we used. Another
reason for this may have been that the same-culture teams we studied had
inwardly focused tasks (as opposed to client or venture shared tasks) where
the pre-existing prejudices and stereotypes that plagued multicultural teams
would be unlikely to be activated. Racially homogeneous teams working in
a racially heterogeneous environment might experience these same inter-
group types of challenges as the multicultural teams we studied.
244 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

Lack of Common Ground (Language and Credit)

This category contained challenges stemming from behaviors or business

practices that interfered with coordinating work, but that were not based on
innate prejudices (e.g., sexism or racism). That is, the challenges arose from
behavior and practices that enhanced the perception of distance between
team members – not from pre-existing prejudices that generated mistrust.
For example, teams reported that challenges with language fluency often
lead to unfairness in practice. Often, more fluent members got a dispro-
portionate amount of credit because they were better able to articulate their
thoughts in client meetings than those who were using their second or third
language. Alternatively, less technically competent members were often
given the more prestigious work assignments because of their accents. One
participant, for example, employed at a London-based British bank
expressed frustration that those who spoke proper Queen’s English were
given ‘‘fast track’’ appointments and face-time with clients despite the fact
that others without that accent may have been more qualified.
The same-culture teams did not report experiencing these problems. The
same-culture team members all spoke fluent English. The additional com-
plexity of managing multicultural teams seemingly stems from the indirect
messages resulting from language differences. Team members who are all
fluent and proficient in the same language can contribute equally to con-
versations and articulate their points (without being held back by language
processing delays), therefore there is no special privilege or status granted
based on language ability.

Fluency (Accents and Vocabulary)

This category described challenges caused by negative reactions to accents

and the different meanings of some words. The more serious challenges
stemmed from members equating lack of fluency with lack of intelligence.
This was common within teams and with clients or customers, and was
usually associated with increased interpersonal tension. Within teams, less
fluent members were commonly shown less respect or treated with more
impatience because they were more difficult to understand. With customers
or clients, it was common for managers to receive complaints equating diffi-
cult accents with low-quality customer service. A less serious challenge was
when team members used words with different connotations across cultures.
For example, one team of Indian accounting auditors used the word ‘‘as-
sessment’’ in their communications to their American counterparts. In India
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 245

this indicates a pending investigation, in the United States this means that a
fine has already been levied. Similarly, one manager wrote a letter of rec-
ommendation describing an employee as ‘‘ambitious.’’ To the manager this
was a positive attribute, however, in the employee’s culture this word had the
connotation of being overly political and backstabbing.
The same-culture teams did not face these fluency or language problems.
In considering the challenges from this category and the previous category
together, language issues definitely seemed to add a layer of process com-
plexity that go beyond just being able to communicate with each other –
language differences create the need for multicultural teams to deal with
perceptions of unfair privilege, status, appropriately granting credit for
work, and how to allocate work (e.g., based on skill and qualifications
versus who has the ‘‘right’’ accent, see Beyene, 2005, for a good overview of
language problems in multicultural teams).

Thought you had Agreement? Implicit versus Explicit Communication

This category contained challenges about differences in interpreting the level

of commitment behind agreements. For example, in America ‘‘yes’’ means
‘‘I agree,’’ in Japan ‘‘yes’’ often means ‘‘Yes, I am listening’’ (Triandis,
1976). Similarly, when previously agreed upon issues were revisited, some
‘‘checklist-oriented’’ managers perceived this as signaling a lack agreement –
and thus experienced a great deal of frustration – and other ‘‘holistic’’
managers perceived this as a simple procedural norm.
The same-culture teams did not struggle with these issues. First, they were
primarily working in a face-to-face environment (although they did occa-
sionally work over e-mail, a face-to-face meeting was readily available and
there were no associated travel costs). In addition, since the same-culture
teams were based in the United States, there were no distinguishing cul-
turally based preferences for procedures.

Summary

The challenges faced by the multicultural teams were more complex and
often invoked more serious consequences than the challenges faced by the
same-culture teams. Part of this is a function of the samples used for com-
parison. There were, however, four main similarities the teams shared as
outlined in Table 1a. These similarities represent fundamental, perhaps
universal, aspects of teamwork. At the same time, they demonstrate the
additional complexity caused by cultural differences.
246 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

First, perceptions of disrespect generated by stylistic differences in pub-

licly expressing or confronting different perspectives were either the direct or
indirect causes of anger and perceived incompatibility in both types of
teams. The complexity added by culture extended beyond the personality
differences experienced in same-culture teams. Different cultural preferences
for confrontational versus consensus-building communication lead to attri-
butions of either being indecisive and passive or being overly aggressive and
bullying. Second, both types of teams experienced challenges around how to
structure group process. The multicultural teams had to overcome different
ideas about what constituted a legitimate approach to decision making
(holistic versus checklist), whereas the same-culture teams had to overcome
more simple individual style issues. Third, both types of teams had to create
and adhere to timelines in accomplishing and coordinating work. The same-
culture teams had to deal with more simple issues about how to manage
meetings, whereas the multicultural teams faced larger asymmetries around
what constituted a fair and legitimate period for accomplishing work.
Fourth, both types of teams had to create agreements about appropriate
team and workplace behavior. The same-culture teams had to address dis-
ruptive individual behavior such as being late to meetings. The multicultural
teams had to address more fundamental issues such as how to separate work
versus personal time and work around observing cultural customs.
The unique culture-based challenges originated either from pre-existing
stigmas among team members or from team behaviors that increased the
salience of in-group versus out-group distinctions (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
Table 1b outlines these five main challenges. Violations of respect and hi-
erarchy pervaded teams where members were either unfamiliar with nor-
mative communication protocols or the structure of special project teams
violated reporting relationships. Inter-group prejudices such as sexism,
different perceptions of religious practices, and tension among team mem-
bers from politically conflicting countries often spilled over to the workplace
in the form of being hyper critical, overtly devaluing one party’s contribu-
tions, or socially ostracizing one or more members. Language and fluency
issues also created unique challenges beyond having difficulty understanding
one another and misunderstandings of certain words. Perceived favoritism,
devaluation of intelligence, and perceptions of unfair work assignments were
directly related to different levels of fluency among members. Finally, teams
were greatly challenged by differing perceptions of having reached a secure
agreement, and the commitment they could expect from those agreements.
These teams had to deal with the frustration and anger that resulted from a
seeming inability to reach negotiated agreements.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 247

Table 1a. Multicultural Team Challenges Not Unique to Multicultural

Teams and Responses to those Challenges.
Multicultural Team Challenge Multicultural Team Response

Direct versus. indirect confrontation: Stylistic
differences in publicly expressing and/or
confronting different points of view,
resulting in escalation of interpersonal
tension
Norms for problem solving and decision
making: Differences in preference for a
more slow-paced analytical problem
solving and relationship building process
versus a more efficiency focused approach
Time, urgency, and pace: Differences in time
estimates to deliver products and the
definition of ‘‘on-time’’ delivery
Differences in work norms and behaviors:
Differences about what is acceptable
workplace etiquette stemming either from
national customs or national norms for
separating personal time and work time
Team adapts: if the other style cannot or will
not adapt. Members learn to work within
their differences
Manager intervenes: to refocus group on the
superordinate goal, to smooth over
interpersonal tensions, or serve as the final
decision maker
Team adapts: if it is able to blame cultural
influences rather than individual
preferences. Allows different approaches to
co-exist, even uses different approaches to
get different perspectives on the problem
Manager intervenes: to impose structure
when team is blocked by such differences
Team adapts: if it recognizes it cannot change
culturally based time structure like siestas,
religious holidays, and nationally
mandated vacations
Manager intervenes: to make a final decision
about how long work should take
Team adapts: if it can blame etiquette
violations on culture, ‘‘didn’t know any
better;’’ and socializes member whose
norms are different
Manager intervenes: when offender will not
be socialized, to set expectations about
norms for attendance, lateness, etc., and to
monitor or enforce adherence to those
expectations

In the next section, we discuss five broad conditions under which mul-
ticultural teams are able to address these challenges for themselves – and
four broad conditions under which multicultural teams require the inter-
vention of a manager.

STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING MULTICULTURAL

TEAM CHALLENGES
The strategies we report in this section for managing multicultural team
challenges come directly from interview participants. Note that ‘‘managed’’
248 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

Table 1b. Challenges and Responses Unique to Multicultural Teams.

Multicultural Team Challenge Multicultural Team Response

Violations of respect and hierarchy: Challenges
stemming from different expectations for
respecting hierarchy and other status
indicators
Inter-group prejudices: Challenges stemming
from innate or pre-existing stigma,
prejudices, and judgments spilling over into
the workplace
Lack of common ground (language, credit):
Challenges stemming from perceived
favoritism or lack of recognition for
contribution based on how or how well
members expressed themselves
Fluency (accents and vocabulary): Challenges
caused by negative reactions and/or
misunderstandings due to language issues
such as heavy accents and words with
different connotations
Thought you had agreement? Implicit versus
explicit communication: Challenges
stemming from differences in interpretation
about the level of commitment and/or
agreement reached
Team adapts: if unorthodox practices can be
‘‘blamed’’ on special situations. Team
member exits if this can not be done
Manager intervenes: to show respect where
violations have occurred
Team adapts: (i.e., accepts prejudice) because
cannot change organizational policy
Manager intervenes: to create a very
deliberate and structured process of getting
work done that may use subgroups
Team adapts: if offensive practices can be
‘‘framed’’ as providing some type of
advantage for the team. If not
interpersonal tension escalates and requires
managerial intervention
Manager intervenes: to assign work according
to principles that team may consider unfair,
but which move task accomplishment
forward
Teams adapts: if it is able to recognize how
words with double meanings originated
from differences in social or legal systems
Manager intervenes: to stop the escalation of
interpersonal tension by rejecting the idea
that a lack of fluency indicates lack of
competence
Team adapts: when it is able to recognize
cultural root of the problem such as ‘‘yes’’
did not mean ‘‘yes I agree’’, it means ‘‘I am
listening’’
Manager intervenes: to encourage or enforce
that parties listen to each other. Manager
takes over and essentially imposes
agreement on the team

does not necessarily mean ‘‘resolved,’’ or that the team’s outcome was suc-
cessful. The methods of the interview study do not allow for a formal eval-
uation of resolution effectiveness. The management strategies reported here
are what teams and their managers did to address the challenges they faced.
We categorize the management strategies identified by the participants in
three general approaches: adaptation, intervention, and leave or exit.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 249

Adaptation

Adaptation refers to the team adjusting to a challenge without managerial

intervention. Teams seemed best able to adapt under five broad conditions.
A common theme among these conditions was that the teams were able to
attribute the cause of the challenge to external cultural factors that were
‘‘bigger’’ than the team or individual members personalities.

Adaptation Condition #1
First, when there was a ‘‘home court advantage,’’ teams seemed to be able to
adapt. For example, when teams would meet in the home country of some
of the members, it was common for members of that culture/country to
numerically dominate meetings or to have high-status members attend only
those meetings. Minority members were often able to ‘‘write off’’ and accept
majority dominance as due to a numerical advantage rather than perceive it
as overly aggressive – and to attribute high-status attendance of these
meetings only in the interest of saving travel costs and time. However, some
teams adapted by correcting for the numerical majority with attendance or
‘‘invitation only’’ rules for meetings that might be easily dominated by a
subgroup.

Adaptation Condition #2
On a related note, when there was a dominant numerical coalition (regard-
less of location) with an aggressive communication style, less-aggressive
team members reported adapting by being more vocal and assertive in sup-
port of their same-culture teammates (or those with a similar culturally
based profile) than they ordinarily would have been if the dominant ma-
jority did not exist. In this way, they were able to help each other get ‘‘air
time’’ during meetings and react to the dominance without an escalation of
interpersonal emotion.

Adaptation Condition #3
A third condition that fostered team-initiated adaptation was when mem-
bers realized they could not ‘‘beat’’ the other style. This commonly arose
when the typical Western ‘‘checklist’’ approach to decision making clashed
with the Eastern ‘‘holistic’’ approach to decision making. Those with a more
‘‘checklist’’ approach realized they could not force a meaningful agreement
without adapting to the more holistic approach. For example, Western
participants often reported that the ‘‘holistic’’ approach could be, and often
was, used as a tool to stall and frustrate them into agreement. They reported
250 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

either learning to be patient or learning how to use the style to their ad-
vantage. One participant, for example, described how his team would either
withhold information or under-bid on initial negotiation issues because they
knew once the next issue was addressed, all previous agreements would be
revisited.

Adaptation Condition #4
A fourth condition for adaptation occurred when teams could blame the
source of the problem on a factor such as national customs (e.g., taking a
siesta), country-specific work practices (e.g., different accounting practices),
or when a mandate came from headquarters (e.g., this helped team members
‘‘explain away’’ violations in status in project-based reporting relationships).
This made it easy for teams to recognize that challenges stemmed from a
source larger than the team or any of the individuals in it, therefore making
it easier not to take differences personally.

Adaptation Condition #5
Finally, teams were able to adapt when they were able to set norms to
eliminate offensive or disruptive behavior (e.g., setting a common language
standard, agreeing not to tell political jokes, setting guidelines for notifying
about lateness, etc.).

Intervention

Many challenges identified by interviewees described incidents that required

managerial intervention. Managerial intervention refers to the active in-
volvement of a manager or leader in dealing with the challenge. Managerial
intervention was required under four broad conditions, which have the
common theme of decreasing interpersonal tension and increasing percep-
tions of fairness.

Intervention Condition #1
First, when emotions or behaviors distracted team members or disrupted the
process of getting work done, manager intervention was necessary. This
commonly happened when aggressive communication styles were perceived
as insulting or disrespectful, when the goal clarity of the team began to fade
(often as a result of interpersonal tension and blame), and frustrations
stemming from different perceptions about commitments behind agree-
ments escalated.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 251

Intervention Condition #2
Second, when language issues resulted in perceptions of disrespect or in-
justice, managerial action was required. For example, lack of fluency was
often equated with lack of skill, customers often equated difficult accents
with a lack of concern for customer service quality, and more fluent mem-
bers often received a disproportionate amount of recognition because they
were better able to articulate their thoughts to clients. In these cases, man-
agers intervened to recognize and remind team members and customers of
team member qualifications and to set norms that encouraged team mem-
bers to seek clarification during communication (rather than pretend to
understand accents out of politeness). Many participants mentioned that
this type of norm setting intervention was more successful than, for exam-
ple, giving team members dialect training.

Intervention Condition #3
Third, managerial intervention was required when irreconcilable differences
became apparent, such as when pre-existing prejudices spilled over into
work behaviors or when serious violations of status were committed. These
events required strong structural intervention by a manager to rebuild trust
through carefully controlled and monitored group process. For example,
one participant we interviewed was part of a four-country peace-keeping
military operation where one of the military groups was considered ‘‘low
status,’’ but had the most expertise for the task at hand. The commanding
officer recognized this problem and decided to create task forces composed
of one member from each country to work on elements of the task. Officers
interacted with their multicultural subgroups and then returned to their
respective same-culture base camps. Not surprisingly, they compared expe-
riences, and the expertise of the ‘‘low-status’’ members slowly became rec-
ognized. Only through a carefully controlled set of circumstances were the
groups able to work beyond their prejudices.

Intervention Condition #4
Finally, managers tended to intervene when there was a challenge with a
considerable and measurable consequence (either financial, human resource,
or relationship). This usually happened when there were differences about
how to set timelines and what constituted an ‘‘on time’’ deliverable. Again,
these differences tended to increase interpersonal emotion, lead to compe-
tition or sabotage in the teams, communicate a lack of respect, or cause a
‘‘loss of face’’ – all forces for which managerial intervention was necessary
to correct.
252 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

Leave or Exit

Finally, if neither adaptation nor managerial intervention were possible or

effective, team members relied on a third strategy – they left the team. This
strategy was most commonly applied to larger system challenges that team
members were not willing to ‘‘take on’’ such as sexism or racism. Team
members also decided to exit if they felt the team was not willing to, or
effective at, accommodating them.

DISCUSSION

This chapter set out to identify how multicultural teams manage or address
the additional layer of complexity they often encounter due to cultural
differences. Although multicultural and same-culture teams face similar
procedural and interpersonal challenges, the sources and consequences of
multicultural teams’ challenges are more complex. Our analysis of the chal-
lenges, and the approaches that team members and managers took to deal
with these challenges, has left us with a set of propositions to be formally
tested in future research. In the previous section, we outlined conditions
under which teams addressed their management challenges through (1) ad-
aptation, (2) managerial intervention, or (3) leaving or exiting the team. This
section translates these conditions into testable propositions.

Adaptation

Adaptation occurred in response to a variety of different challenges that had

a common underlying characteristic: the challenge can be characterized as
arising from factors beyond individual team members’ control. When team
members recognized that for whatever reason (e.g., cultural embeddedness,
a headquarters mandate, or national customs) the challenge was beyond
their control, teams were able to avoid escalation of interpersonal tension by
attributing their differences to an ‘‘external source’’ rather than an individ-
ual motive or personality. This allowed them to engage in creating solutions,
norms, or procedures that minimized the impact of cultural differences
without a manager’s intervention. In some instances it appears that this
‘‘external blame’’ mechanism may give multicultural teams a better way of
managing some problems than same-culture teams who do not have culture
as an excuse. Same-culture teams were more likely to attribute challenges to
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 253

individual personality, with concomitant risks of increased emotional con-

flict. Therefore, our first proposition stipulates that when multicultural team
members can classify a challenge as caused by a larger ‘‘external source’’
rather than as a ‘‘personal affront,’’ they will be more successful in inde-
pendently managing that challenge.
A1. When team members are able to attribute the cause of a challenge to
factors beyond their control, they are able to successfully adapt their
practices without the intervention of a manager.
This proposition is embedded in attribution theory and is enhanced by
research that has studied attributions across cultures. Attributions are
causal interpretations of events (Kelly & Michela, 1980). They answer the
social interaction question, Why did this event occur? that is extremely im-
portant when interpreting novel or equivocal events and motivating sub-
sequent behavior (Brett & Gelfand, 2005). There are two dimensions of
causal attributions, situational and dispositional, that have different impli-
cations for change, and that occur with differential frequency across cul-
tures. People making causal attributions about events, including others’
behaviors, frequently make the fundamental attribution error – they un-
derestimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the impact of
dispositional factors (Ross, 1977). Ironically, in individual motivational or
learning situations it is the attribution of setbacks and negative outcomes to
situational factors that inhibits change (Kelly & Michela, 1980). Something
like ‘‘since I did nothing wrong, I’ll just do the same thing again in the next,
hopefully more supportive environment.’’ Yet, in multicultural teams the
attribution of challenges to situational factors beyond team members’ con-
trol – that is, the attribution of causation to situational factors – seems to
facilitate change. The presence of multicultural team members from cultures
that tend to make more situational attributions than is typical in the U.S.
(Morris & Peng, 1994) may also facilitate this phenomenon.
Although in theory adaptation can take many different guises (Janssens &
Brett, 2005), in the research cited here the pattern of adaptation was pri-
marily one of some members of the group conceding to the approach taken
by others. This mainly occurred when there was a numerical majority or
dominant coalition, when team members accepted the reality posed by a
particular situation, or when it became clear that one preference could not
‘‘beat out’’ a more engrained or persistent preference (e.g., the Eastern
‘‘holistic approach’’ for problem solving versus the Western ‘‘checklist’’
approach for problem solving). Again, as stated in Proposition A1, these
forms of adaptation seemed to be associated with an ability to ‘‘blame’’ a
254 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

source bigger than individual team members. However, team members

seemed to be more willing to adapt when they recognized that (a) not only
was the source of the problem bigger than the team, but also (b) that stim-
ulating a change in the other party’s behavior was impossible, therefore
making it necessary to find middle ground in order to get work done. For
example, American managers often reported feeling frustrated by the East-
ern ‘‘holistic’’ problem-solving approach, yet they realized that using tactics
to force their ‘‘checklist’’ approach (e.g., trying to impose written documents
to secure increments of agreements, or imposing ultimatum time deadlines)
were rarely successful in moving agreements forward. Similarly, when team
members with a less confrontational communication style were outnum-
bered by members with a more confrontational communication style, they
tended to adapt by expressing more verbal support for their similar- or
same-culture team members than they otherwise would have felt comfort-
able doing. Therefore, building on Proposition A1, we propose that when
team members realize they are up against a highly embedded or engrained
cultural difference, they will recognize the need to adapt their own behavior
in order to create functional team work processes or norms.
A1a. When some team members simply will not change their behaviors,
the rest of the group will adjust to work with those behaviors.
This second proposition is consistent with the research on social motives
and behavior in prisoner’s dilemma games, in that it recognizes that initially
unsuccessful attempts to cooperate with the other party will result in an
adaptation or behavioral change. For example, research suggests that a
strategy driven by a cooperative motive is more fragile or changeable than
one driven by an individualistic motive (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a,b;
McClintock & Liebrand, 1988; Schlenker & Goldman, 1978). Kelley and
Stahelski (1970b) proposed that cooperative players would be more likely to
shift from cooperation to competition when confronted with an opponent
making competitive choices, than an individualistic player would be likely to
shift from competition to cooperation when confronted with an opponent
making cooperative choices. They suggested this asymmetric behavior
occurs because cooperative players are more sensitive than individualistic
players to the social motives of others (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970b; Van
Lange, 1992). Cooperative players encourage cooperation by signaling their
cooperative motive with an early cooperative move, but if their cooperative
signal is not reciprocated, they are quick to shift their strategy to avoid
exploitation. Thus, cooperative players are facile at shifting their strategy
depending on the actions of the other player (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970a,b).
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 255

There is evidence of these shifts in other literatures as well. For example,

Weingart, Brett, and Olekalns (2004) show that in four person mixed-motive
negotiation groups, cooperatively oriented team members adjusted their use
of integrative and distributive strategy in response to the social motive
composition of the group. Adair and Brett (2005) show that in negotiations
between people from high- and low-context communication cultures, com-
munication patterns parallel those of same-culture low-context negotiations
more than those of high-context negotiations. They explain their findings by
suggesting that low-context communication which is direct and context free
is the lowest common denominator for understanding; that people from
low-context communication cultures do not have the history and contextual
knowledge to be able to correctly interpret high-context communication, so
high-context communicators adapt.

Management Intervention

Managerial intervention took a variety of forms in addressing the multi-

cultural team challenges discussed in this chapter, but there seemed to be a
common characteristic to the challenges that were approached in this way.
Managerial intervention was necessary to resolve interpersonal tension in
order to ‘‘save face’’ of members in the team. For example, sometimes
managers used the power of their positions and made substantive decisions
that unblocked the group and let it move forward. This was particularly
important when teams had reached an impasse about procedures, agree-
ments, responsibilities, and timelines. Other times managers imposed strong
process control or structure on the multicultural team. This seemed impor-
tant when there were pre-existing prejudices, a severe lack of trust, or a lack
of respect among members. Structures worked sometimes because they
buffered warring team members from one another, and sometimes because
they forced team members to see beyond their cultural stereotypes and
understand each other’s value to the team. Managers also tried to reduce
emotional tensions in the group by taking specific group members aside to
talk, by reminding the group of its superordinate goal, and by conveying
respect and legitimacy to certain group members. Each of these tactics
served to restore perceptions of justice, reduce interpersonal tension, and
help members recover from the indignities they perceived. Therefore, our
third proposition is

MI1. When face needs to be saved, managerial interventions into team

processes are necessary.
256 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

This proposition is consistent with the literature on face saving and pro-
cedural justice in a cultural context. Face as used in Asian psychology seems
best translated into Western psychology as respect. When groups get into a
tangle and emotions of one or more members are running high, the conflict
management literature suggests that it is very difficult for the group mem-
bers involved to deescalate it themselves (Ting-Toomey, 1988, 1998). This is
because once negative emotions have been engaged, two factors emerge that
make it difficult to un-engage. The first is disrespect or loss of face. Negative
emotions, whether conveyed verbally or non-verbally, convey disrespect
(Hecht & LaFrance, 1998). They signal that each individual’s ideas, as well
as the individual him or herself, are unworthy of the team. Such a signal is
likely to be perceived as an injustice and to stimulate reciprocity and re-
venge, which is the other factor that makes it difficult for parties to dis-
engage from a spiraling exchange of negative emotions. For example, prior
research on disputes has found that parties engage in cycles of reciprocal
negative emotion (Brett, Lytle, & Shapiro, 1998; Friedman et al., 2004),
although some other research (and a good deal of lay theorizing) suggests
that a signal of negative emotion might also be answered by a concession
(Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004).
There seem to be two underlying mechanisms that explain why mana-
gerial interventions are needed and should be helpful in such situations. The
first stems from the procedural justice literature where it has been shown
repeatedly and in many different settings that a third party who treats
parties with respect is often able to restore feelings of justice (Lind & Tyler,
1988) and help them resolve their differences (Shapiro & Brett, 1993). Sim-
ply stated, managers and mediators need to listen to convey respect. The
more theoretical explanation is that the behavior of the third party provides
relational information about status and membership in the group (Tyler &
Lind, 1992). The second reason why managerial intervention should be helpful
in these situations where group members have become emotionally entangled
is that the party listening is not a peer but a manager. In egalitarian cultures,
like the United States, there may be a stigma associated with involving a
manager in a conflict between peers. However, in hierarchical cultures, like
Asian cultures, deference is given to higher level managers and it is normative
to involve them in the resolution of conflict (Tinsley & Brett, 2001). As Brett
(2001) explains, acquiescing to the desires of a higher level manager in hier-
archical cultures preserves relationships and restores respect between emo-
tionally entangled peers, because – and note the similarity with proposition A1
– neither person imposed the outcome on the other. Once again when the
outcome is out of people’s hands, they adapt to the manager’s solution.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 257

Leaving or Exiting

Members of multicultural teams who are unwilling to adapt either to the

initiatives of the group itself or of management may leave. This is the exit
voice and loyalty strategy made famous by Mancur Olson in his book, The
Logic of Collective Action (1971) that identified options for disgruntled em-
ployees. In our research, we saw team members leaving groups when the
team adapted but they personally could not; when managerial intervention
was unsuccessful; and when environment or system pressures were such that
managerial intervention was impossible.
The leave or exit option was not the dominant response to the challenges
of being a member of a multicultural team; it was also understandably not
an option that happened immediately. Team members who left the team to
go back to a former job risked being stigmatized as not being a ‘‘team
player.’’ Members who left teams and/or organizations supporting those
teams frequently waited until they had another option. However, there
were occasions when team members found themselves so marginalized (an
American woman assigned to a storage closet as her workspace during her
assignment in Japan) that they had no choice but to leave the team. We have
speculated whether in such a situation the team member should just leave
quietly, or whether there is anything to gain, versus too much to lose, by
evoking Olsen’s voice option very loudly (Olson, 1971).

L1. Team members will leave when the team adapts but they cannot;
managerial intervention is unsuccessful in reintegrating them into the
team; or managerial intervention does not or cannot occur.

CONCLUSIONS

As with any research, our conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

However, we believe that our findings identifying the challenges faced by
multicultural teams, the similarities and differences of these challenges to
those faced by same-culture teams, and the management strategies used in
association with these challenges make important contributions to the lit-
erature on multicultural teams.
First, we have identified nine challenges that managers and members of
multicultural teams face. Although a different array of multicultural teams
and a different methodology would likely generate a somewhat expanded or
contracted set of challenges, the challenges we identified are consistent with
258 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

prior research on multicultural teams. For example, the challenges around

respect/hierarchy violations closely resonate with cultural differences in hi-
erarchy versus egalitarianism (Hofstede, 1980). The differences in commit-
ment behind agreements and aggressiveness in communication style reflect
cultural differences in high- versus low-context communication styles (Hall,
1976, 1983). In addition, some of the team adaptation strategies, such as
norm setting or the creation of rules, have been reflected in previous studies
(e.g., Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). Our findings regarding the use of sub-
groups to manage challenges in multicultural teams is consistent with re-
search by Gibson and Vermeulen (2003). Subgrouping is not a panacea, but
Gibson and Vermeullen argue that to be successful subgroups need to be
linked with multiple ties. Beyene (2005) reviews language challenges in
multicultural teams that are consist with our findings.
Second, by contrasting the findings from the multicultural team study to
those of a same-culture team study using similar methodology, we were able
to identify challenges that appear to affect teams regardless of their cultural
heterogeneity. The delivery style of a message, deciding on a work approach,
setting and adhering to timelines, and agreeing on acceptable team behavior
are universal elements of teamwork (e.g., Hackman, 1990; Homans, 1950).
Our results show that same-culture and multicultural teams share these
challenges, but that multicultural teams have to overcome an additional
layer of complexity due to culture-related differences. Challenges that were
identified as unique in the multicultural teams study included pre-existing
prejudices or specific behaviors that exacerbated the perceptions of incom-
patibility among team members, such as perceptions of disrespect and un-
fairness from team decisions, blatantly disrespectful behavior toward
women or religious practices, and unfairness around language fluency
(e.g., determining how work assignments were made, giving appropriate
recognition, making offensive jokes or using offensive words).
Tying the challenges experienced by multicultural teams to the manage-
ment strategies they used to address these challenges allows us to begin to
isolate the circumstances when members of a multicultural team can adapt
and respond to challenges for themselves versus when they need managerial
intervention. This distinction seemed to depend on the degree to which
cultural differences were perceived as ‘‘a personal affront’’ versus ‘‘a fact of
life/work.’’ When the challenge could be framed as a fact of life/work, teams
were more likely to adapt because they could blame it on a source ‘‘bigger’’
than the team. But, when the challenge was accompanied by the perception
of a personal attack or a perceived injustice, managerial intervention was
required.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 259

Our analyses suggest several areas for future research. It seems to us that
responding to challenges in multicultural teams often requires a patient,
iterative, deliberate response, and occasionally a rather dramatic interven-
tion, if differences in work norms, racial and ethnic prejudices, communi-
cation styles and language fluency are to be managed. One interesting idea
for future research might be to investigate the underlying mechanisms that
create challenges in multicultural teams. In our sample, strong reactions
developed around challenges stemming from pre-existing stereotypes as well
as prejudices or attributions that emerged out of group process. They often
required an equally strong intervention. Another area for future research is
to investigate whether managerial interventions and the different types of
team adaptation mentioned in this study represent long-term versus short-
term solutions – and to better isolate when team adaptation strategies ac-
tually serve as substitutes for leadership. Finally, many of our participants
mentioned that the training they received from their organizations was not
effective. They mentioned that training about cultural differences often did
little more than increase awareness about why others were different from
one’s native culture, rather than identifying how to manage those differ-
ences. The broad conditions we identified for team adaptation versus man-
agerial intervention suggest that training team members and managers to
identify work conditions that require managerial intervention can save a lot
of frustration and money, and make coordinating work across cultures
much more satisfactory.

NOTES
1. Full results and detailed description of the methodology are abbreviated in this
chapter, but can be found for the same-culture MBA study as reported in Jackson,
Mannix, Peterson, and Trochim (2002), and for the multicultural teams study as
reported in Behfar, Kern, and Brett (2005).

REFERENCES
Adair, W., & Brett, J. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in
negotiation. Organizational Science, 16(1), 33–51.
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance
in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.
Behfar, K., Kern, M., & Brett, J. (2005). Intercultural differences and conflict resolution strat-
egies: How group members get past their differences to get work done. DRRC Working
Paper #328.
Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision
making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3), 350–372.
260 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

Beyene, T. (2005). Language challenges in international work: The impact of uneven proficiency
in the lingua franca. Paper presented at the Academy of Managment, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Brett, J. (2000). Culture and negotiation. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 97–104.
Brett, J. (2001). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions
across cultural boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brett, J., & Gelfand, M. (2005). A cultural analysis of the underlying assumptions of nego-
tiation theory. In: L. L. Thompson (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology: Negotiations
(pp. 173–202). New York: Psychology Press.
Brett, J., Lytle, A., & Shapiro, D. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiation.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 410–424.
DeChurch, L., & Marks, M. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict
management. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 4–22.
De Dreu, C., & VanVianen, A. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of
organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328.
Earley, P., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive. New York: Oxford University Press.
Earley, P., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49.
Earley, P., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10),
151–157.
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives
on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.
Friedman, R., Anderson, C., Brett, J., Olekalns, M., Goates, N., & Lisco, C. (2004). The
positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically
mediated disputes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 369–376.
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team
learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for
effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, E. (1983). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press.
Hecht, M., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effect of power and sex
on amount and type of smiling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
1332–1342.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Jackson, K., Mannix, E., Peterson, R., & Trochim, W. (2002). A multi-faceted approach to
process conflict. Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Manage-
ment, June, Salt Lake City, UT.
Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the
analysis of open-ended survey questions. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4),
307–336.
Janssens, M., & Brett, J. (2005). Cultural Intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of
collaboration. Group and organization management: Cultural intelligence in the global
workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams 261

Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational

groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of in-
tragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2),
238–251.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study
of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(4), 741–763.
Kelley, H., & Stahelski, A. (1970a). Errors in perception of intentions in a mixed motive game.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 411–438.
Kelley, H., & Stahelski, A. (1970b). Social interaction basis of cooperators and competitors
beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66–91.
Kelly, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology,
31, 457–501.
Kirkman, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of team members’ cultural values on pro-
ductivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 597–617.
Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocation across cultures. In: P. Early & M. Erez
(Eds), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp.
640–675). San Francisco: The New Lexingtion Press.
Lind, A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum Press.
McClintock, C., & Liebrand, W. (1988). Role of interdependence structure, individual value
orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: A transformational anal-
ysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 396–409.
Morris, M., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social
and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971.
Olson, M. (1971). Logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10,
pp. 173–220). New York: Random House.
Schlenker, B., & Goldman, H. (1978). Cooperators and competitors in conflict: A test of the
‘‘Triangle Model’’. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 393–410.
Shapiro, D., & Brett, J. (1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural
justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 1167–1177.
Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel
& W. Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988a). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In: Y. Kim &
W. Gudykunst (Eds), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-
negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
Tinsley, C., & Brett, J. (2001). Managing workplace conflict in the United States and Hong
Kong. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 360–381.
Triandis, H. (1976). Variations in black and white perceptions of the social environment.
262 KRISTIN BEHFAR ET AL.

Tyler, T., & Lind, E. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In: M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Van Kleef, G., De Dreu, K., & Manstead, A. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and
happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76.
Van Lange, P. (1992). Confidence in expectations: A test of the triangle hypothesis. European
Journal of Personality, 6(5), 371–379.
Weingart, L., Brett, J., & Olekalns, M. (2004). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Unpublished manuscript. Evanston, IL.
Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40
years of research. In: B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI.