"Weaving strength from differences"
From: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 227-259, 1996, ©Elsevier Science, Great Britain Productive Behaviors of Global Business TeamsDianne M. Hofner Saphiere, Nipporica Associates Abstract This study identified patterns of behavior in global business teams which correlate with team productivity. Subjects of the study were 56 business people representing 12 global business teams. Research methods included content analysis of team members' written correspondence (letters, reports, fax, electronic mail), two written surveys, process analysis of team meetings, and interviews with team members. Results indicated that members of productive teams communicated more often in informal, social ways than did less productive teams; utilized more task and affect behaviors; frequently disagreed with one another, critically analyzing issues in meetings and focusing on task in a positive manner in writing; acted as cultural interpreters and mediators; and unanimously desired to work together again. Implications of these findings for research and training are presented. "Developing the capacity to create and sustain global teams is the business challenge of the twenty-first century." (O'Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994, p. 103) The global business environment is increasingly competitive and interdependent. Many customers are conglomerates requiring products and services sourced worldwide. The challenge to most businesses is that these customers desire consistent quality, rapid delivery, equitable worldwide pricing, and locally-appropriate customer service. Meeting customer demands requires accurate, thorough and quick information sharing and coordination between people at international locations, and decisions which meet or exceed customer requirements without compromising long-term leverage and position. In short, business success demands the effective functioning of geographically dispersed, culturally mixed work teams. Members of culturally diverse teams need to learn about one another's cultural differences because it "improves communication by reducing perceptual distortion and the tendency to rely on stereotypes" (Mitchell, 1986, p. 16). At the same time, "prolonged or thorough differentiation ... is counterproductive" (Pace, 1990, p. 93), so team members need to also focus on their similarities. The task for global teams, then, is to determine the appropriate balance between understanding cultural differences and focusing on commonalties. Yet, as Steve Rhinesmith (1993) reflected, "there has been remarkably little systematic work in defining the specific characteristics of a well-functioning multicultural team" (p. 178). Shuter and Wiseman (1994) also noted the limited research on interpersonal and small group factors in multinational organizations, and the lack of focus on communication issues. Therefore, this study examined small group communication in multinational corporations. Its aim was twofold: 1) to identify key variables that are associated with team productivity; and 2) to develop a preliminary profile of a productive global business team, based on empirical behavioral evidence derived from real-world observation. Research methods included content analysis of team members' written correspondence (letters, reports, fax, electronic mail), two written surveys, process analysis of team meetings, and interviews with team members. For purposes of this study, a "business team" was defined as an intact work group of three to seven members, focused on a common business task. "Multicultural" was defined as including members from more than one national culture. "Global" indicates a team that included members living on different continents who manage a business between countries and regions, while "productivity" refers to the creation of results useful to the organization. Literature Review Global Business Teams The real-world nature of the research questions necessitated investigating actual global business teams working on their normal tasks and activities. Anderson and Balzer (1991) stated, "There has been little study of group problem solving in intact, real-world groups" (p. 89), while Poole (1983) recommended that sample groups for research purposes meet four criteria: they not be zero-history, there be incentives for the groups to work together, the groups should be motivated to achieve the task, and the task should have some complexity. Furthermore, we know that "progress is most likely to occur when cross-cultural models and theories of communication are refined in the intercultural context" (Spitzberg, 1989, p. 241), and "what actually happens when doing business effectively [across cultures] is that the participants use or develop micro cultures appropriate to the micro ecology of a specific international assignment context ... cultures developed at the task level" (Fontaine, 1987, pp. 2 - 3). The sample groups in this study were chosen with these criteria in mind. Harris and Moran (1991), Adler (1986) and Andersen & Balzer (1991) support research at the team level, suggesting that groups are the basic structure of organizations and that aspects of national or organizational culture can be appropriately analyzed at the team level. However, previous research on intercultural effectiveness and multicultural teams reveals findings which tend to be individual or interpersonal rather than group- or team-oriented. As noted by Reagan and Rohrbaugh (1990), "Primary attention given to individual behavior rather than to collective performance ... Such studies typically depend on some method of content coding the remarks of each participant; rarely, however, are these data used to draw conclusions about the performance of the whole membership as a single unit" (1990, p. 22). Therefore, the research design of this study focused on group as opposed to individual behavioral variables. Team Communication and Productivity Research Question One How often do productive global business teams communicate, using which media? Do they value the usefulness of some media over others? Literature Review on Team Communication Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) observed that transnationals must reconcile the diversity of perspectives, interests, assets, and resources inherent in such organizations, and that managers must develop a broad array of coordination mechanisms and apply them in a discriminating manner. However, they did not specifically describe what such coordination mechanisms might be. O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) pointed out that members of global business teams "often have little time to work face-to-face and in some cases never meet" (p. 104). Communication and coordination mechanisms therefore take on even greater importance. Teboul et al's (1994) request for research on communication technologies, Elashmawi and Harris' (1993) approach to intercultural business communication in specific media, Stephen Rhinesmith's (1993) conclusion that global managers must be good communicators, Johansen et al's (1991) injunction that teams return to communication basics, Ohmae's (1990) belief that social time is important to success, and Bartlett and Ghoshal's (1989) emphasis on the need for communication, all emphasize the importance of communication. Some very basic questions evolved: is there a difference in the frequency with which productive and less productive teams communicate?; do productive teams use one communication technology more than another?; do they use the technologies differently? Researchers have noted that there may be a cultural gap that causes people to miss messages in one medium or another, since most communications technologies are based on western cultural traits such as linear logic and problem solving, hierarchical/vertical decision making, individual initiative and rewards (Johansen et all, 1991; Acker & McCain, 1990; Goulet, 1977). Devereaux and Johansen (1994) contend that "telephone communications tend to be among the least sensitive to cultural differences ... for global work, the simplest technologies are the most important," (p. 91), and recommended that teams put money into face-to-face meetings early on to establish trust (p. 163). Wilkes (1990) believed that because fax requires no knowledge of computers and is operated easily, it is effective in bridging cultural differences in communication. Elashmawi and Harris (1993) suggested that discussing business transactions by telephone has become a replacement for in-person business conversations and that guidelines used in face-to-face meetings must be applied in order to achieve similar results. These authors point to the important role communication technologies play in coordinating information exchange across geographically dispersed locations. Therefore, this study tested the relationships between team productivity and use of differing communication media. This study also examined informal modes of communication. Hellweg (1987) found that as many as five out of six messages in an organization are transmitted through an organization's informal network, while Teboul et al (1994) wrote of parallel informal networks or PINs, and hypothesized that multinational organizations would have greater numbers of PINs than would single country organizations. Therefore, informal mechanisms of global team communication were also investigated. Accomplishing Task and Managing Affect Research Question Two How do productive global business teams balance task and affect behaviors? Do task and affect vary according to the medium of communication? Literature Review on Task and Affect Adler (1986) spoke of task-related selection of team members and a need for both clearly defined superordinate task goals and mutual respect among team members. Harris and Moran's 18 guidelines for team success (1991) also emphasized the importance of the affective: expression of feelings, trust, mutual support, and respect. O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) wrote of the need for trust and a "we" frame of mind in a successful team. Cupach and Imahori (1993), Hofner Saphiere and Ramsey (1993), and others (Scheff, 1990, and Ohmae, 1990) discussed the need for validation, support, and confirmation. Finally, Rhinesmith (1993) pointed out the need to balance task and relationship behaviors. Therefore, this study examined the patterns of task and relational behaviors of global business teams: would productive teams use different proportions or types of task-related and affective behaviors than less productive teams?; would they rely on task behaviors in certain situations, and affect in others? Handling Difference in a Team Research Question Three How do productive global business teams express and manage difference of opinion? Literature Review on Difference and Disagreement Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) stressed the strong forces of differentiation in transnationals. Adler (1986) recommended the exchange of positive and negative feedback by team members, and the management of differences for synergy rather than homogenization. Hofner Saphiere and Ramsey (1994) also identified a global team's ability to utilize similarities and differences. Harris and Moran (1991) cited feedback and disagreement as keys to intercultural team success. O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) and Rhinesmith (1993) stated that an intercultural team must be able to deal with conflict and power. Montalto, as early as 1973, told us that disorientation and conflict should be expected and viewed as functional outcomes of intercultural contact. These writings suggest that how teams manage differences of opinion, approach, and belief have an impact on team productivity. Evans, Doz and Laurent (1990) recommended that global businesses maintain a dynamic balance between key opposites, and that dualities should be viewed not as threats but as opportunities. Just how would productive global business teams go about doing this? If, as Rhinesmith (1993) told us, "Conflict is unavoidable in global organizations," and that a global corporation must manage contradictions and "legitimize conflict as a positive part of its culture," (p. 79), how would a global business team most productively go about doing so? While these scholars stress the need for global business teams to handle conflict productively, there have been few studies investigating how this is accomplished in day to day organizational life. This study was designed to examine global business teams' patterns of handling difference and disagreement, and to determine whether certain patterns correlate with team productivity. Interpreting and Mediating Culture Research Question Four Do global business teams utilize cultural interpretation or mediation, and does its use correlate with productivity? Literature Review on Cultural Interpretation and Synergy Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) believed that transnationals must reconcile diversity and engage in mutual learning. Adler (1986) concluded that ignoring diversity lowered productivity in teams; she advocated cultural synergy. O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) recommended the liberal use of cultural guides and the creative redesign of work processes, and Johansen (1991) felt cultural translators were central to team performance. Burke and Goodstein, in their 1980 work in the field of organization development, advocated culturally synergistic problem solving, which involved a description of the situation from all perspectives, cultural interpretation, creativity, and synergy. Further, Teboul et al (1994) hypothesized that parallel informal networks (PINs) would serve as bridges, liaisons and boundary spanners within global business teams. In a related vein, Mitchell (1986) stated that "most people cannot conceptualize their own unique alignments, and even fewer can conceptualize the alignments of others" (p. 17). Overall, these authors suggest the exchange of cultural information is central to improving team productivity. Therefore, this study examined whether productive global business teams used cultural bridging behaviors more frequently or differently than less productive teams. Productivity Adler (1986) stated that "a group's productivity depends on its task, its available resources, and its process," (p. 102). She defined productivity as potential productivity minus losses due to faulty process, and stated that diversity augments potential productivity and increases the complexity of the task (p. 103). While interesting conceptually, she does not provide an operational measurement for productivity. To make the task even more difficult, most businesses do not track team productivity. Weisbord (1988) estimated that 40% of U.S. companies do not monitor personal or work group productivity. Johansen et al (1991) concurred that most organizations do not have established criteria for measuring group productivity, but they outlined a method that IBM used to track productivity: time required for completing the project, number of meetings required, length of individual meetings, number of people in each group meeting, and cost (measured by time) of each team member (p. 86). Harris and Moran (1991) referenced a method for evaluating project effectiveness used by the East West Center's International Cooperative Research and Development Project, in which four criteria were used: 1) individual team member satisfaction, 2) group satisfaction and morale, 3) work progress relative to intended goal statements, and 4) social and cultural impact of the endeavor on people. This study measured team productivity using methods which incorporated most of these East-West Center criteria: individual ratings, team ratings, group manager ratings, and objective measures. Research Questions This article, therefore, focuses on four research questions: 1. How often do productive global business teams communicate, using which media? Do they value the usefulness of some media over others? 2. How do they balance task and affect behaviors? Do task and affect vary according to the medium of communication? 3. How do they express and manage difference of opinion? 4. Do they utilize cultural interpretation or mediation, and does its use correlate with productivity? Method Participants Participants in the study were 56 business people from 12 global business teams. They represented 9 nationalities (see Table 1), resided in 7 countries, and worked for 11 companies within 3 U.S.-based corporations (one in the computer industry, another in specialty chemicals, and a third in electronic materials). Eleven of the subjects (6 Japanese and 5 U.S. Americans) were women. The teams averaged 4.7 members per team, with a mean of 2.7 cultures per team. All respondents were corporate middle managers responsible for regional (inter-country) and inter-regional (global) operations. Over one-third of the respondents expressed difficulty citing a primary cultural affiliation, preferring to describe themselves as "international" rather than of any given national origin. Table 1 Team Composition: Nationality, Gender and Residence Team Nationality #
M=Men; W=Women; Example: 2W/US means 2 women residing in the U.S. The work of the teams in this study varied greatly. Two of the teams managed a line of products for the Asia-Pacific region. Two were concerned with international legal issues – licensing and patents. Two teams were involved in designing and maintaining computer and technology systems for the Pacific. One was responsible for transferring production from France to Japan, which included related quality, distribution and pricing issues. Another team was in charge of choosing a site, constructing, and starting up a regional research laboratory. A ninth team was responsible for international recruitment and university relations, while another was involved in developing new products and applications on a regional basis for a specific product line. One team was responsible for service and technical support for their products in the Pacific region, while the last was engaged in marketing and market development support for the region for their product line. Instrumentation A cross-section of prospective participants in the study reviewed several instruments, to which they unanimously responded "too academic" or "overly theoretical and time-consuming" (as was also noted by Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike, 1973). Some respondents said the instruments utilized categories that were too ambiguous and insufficiently behavioral or practical, consistent with the suggestions of Hammer, Gudykunst and Wiseman (1978) and Ruben (1976). Asian respondents in particular resisted Harris and Moran's (1991, p. 193-197) paradigm for analyzing team culture as overly analytical, compartmentalized, and static: they wanted more of a movie clip of the ever-changing dynamic of their teamwork, rather than a snapshot. Therefore new instruments were reluctantly created which were seen as practical and less time-consuming to the participants. As suggested by Rieger and Wong-Rieger (1988), several methods of data gathering and analysis (questionnaire, document analysis, interview, meeting observation) were utilized in order to ensure thoroughness and validity. Specifically, five instruments were used in the study. They are cross-referenced with the research questions in Table 2. The first instrument was a Team Leader Questionnaire, which elicited logistical (names, contact numbers, etc.), demographic, functional, historical and operational (communication systems) data on the team and its members. The form also had a special comments section which requested leaders' comments about team productivity. Table 2 Cross-Reference of Instrumentation and Research Questions
The second instrument was a Participant Questionnaire. Respondents (including team leaders) recorded the frequency with which they used telephone, electronic mail, fax, informal conversation, memos, reports and letters, teleconferences, meetings, and social gatherings to communicate with team members. They then rank-ordered these media according to usefulness (1=most useful, 8=least useful). Respondents checked "yes" or "no" boxes according to whether they would like to work with team members again on another project, whether their team utilized cultural interpretation and mediation, and whether team members hesitated to disagree with one another. Respondents scored team productivity (own rating, perception of manager's rating, own rating of another team s/he works on) on a five-point Likert scale. Finally, they completed an essay question on what enhanced and inhibited the productivity of their team. In addition to the questionnaires, participants' written correspondence was reviewed. Findings from these documents were recorded on Content Analysis of Written Correspondence forms. For each document the following information was coded: (a) the number and type of task-related (response or question) and affective (positive and negative) behaviors exhibited by the writer of the document; and (b) how often and in what manner the writer expressed difference of opinion or thinking (personalized, depersonalized, positive, and negative, categories adapted from Pace, 1990). The fourth instrument used in the study was a Meeting Observation Form, used to code participant behavior during face-to-face meetings. The instrument recorded how differences of opinion were expressed (verbally or nonverbally), using the same measurement as in the analysis of written correspondence. A nonverbal expression of difference of opinion included fairly culture-general behaviors such as shaking one's head from side to side or sighing, as well as culture-specific behaviors such as a Japanese snapping his tongue in his mouth or sharply inhaling air through his teeth. The meeting form was also used to record task and affect behaviors, using the same categories as for the written correspondence. Team productivity was measured in several ways: (a) objectively and quantitatively (e.g. increases in sales or quality ratings); (b) subjectively by team members; and (c) by the team manager or supervisor. These multiple measures are needed, as noted by Keyton and Springston (1990): "the next generation of group effectiveness research may be enhanced by asking group members to define group and personal effectiveness" (p. 253), because "a group may feel that they have performed effectively even though their results are judged ineffective by others" (p. 251). Finally, face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted periodically with participants. Interviews were conducted in English or in Japanese. They were not scripted, but their purposes included (a) to stay in personal communication with subjects in order to hear their concerns, elicit their ideas, and maintain their ongoing participation; (b) to build participant openness and trust so that subjects would share data freely; and (c) to obtain detailed interpretations and explanations from the subjects' point of view of research data gathered to date. Interviews with the respondents were particularly helpful, for as Schwartzman (1986) explains, "Researchers have imposed their own criteria of work group effectiveness onto the groups they have studied ... researchers should ask members of a work group about their view of what constitutes work as well as effectiveness" (p. 253). Thus, participant opinion was used in developing the instrumentation and methodology and in conducting the study. Finally, findings and interpretations were checked with participants in follow-up interviews (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Procedure All potential subjects were given a one-page overview of the purpose of the research, the procedure, what they would be required to do, and how much time participation in the study would involve. This was followed with a series of persuasive phone calls, conversations, electronic mail messages and faxes, to encourage participation in the study and to gain ideas on how to continue to refine and improve it. Once all members of a team agreed to participate, Team Leader Questionnaires and Participant Questionnaires were circulated. All participants also signed informed consent forms. Next, work teams were requested to allow recording and observation of at least one of their business team meetings. Meetings were recorded on either video or audio tape, and evaluated using the Meeting Observation Form. The analysis was reviewed with team members to clarify findings from the meeting. Under the guise of clarification, participants were interviewed on their attitudes towards the team, its task and process. Meanwhile, team members were also requested to submit at least three written samples of their correspondence with other team members. It was requested that at least one of these pieces of communication reflect frustration or conflict. Each piece was catalogued and analyzed using the Content Analysis of Written Correspondence form. Individual behaviors and perceptions were totaled to arrive at team scores for each variable. Team behavior scores were correlated with productivity scores using the Spearman rs. It should be noted that due to the small sample size in this study, these findings are only suggestive and further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn about productive global team behaviors and productivity. Results Productivity Measures Table 3 contains the findings on self-reported and manager-perceived ratings of productivity. Note the higher frequency of unanimity of opinion regarding productivity among those who see themselves as less productive. Objective ratings of productivity such as increases in sales or production turned out to be unreliable measures for the purposes of this study, for the following reasons. First, interviewees felt strongly that objective measures reflected the downturn in the world economy and other environmental factors more than they indicated anything about the teams themselves. As one manager explained, "The situation of each country is different, so it's hard to reach one final conclusion on the productivity of a team; it depends on the perspective." Secondly, it was difficult to obtain consistent objective data, particularly since the teams were general business management groups in which productivity is not often measured in an objective way (i.e., a project engineering or manufacturing team's productivity would be more easily measured by objective means). Finally, because the teams represented various industries, it was difficult to compare teams' objective ratings. Due to the difficulty with objective measures, and because there was widespread skepticism about the value of managers' ratings of team productivity (one respondent stated, "corporate would not know how to satisfy a local customer; they are the poorest judges of our productivity"), teams' self-ratings are used as the main measures of productivity. Table 3 Productivity Ratings (0=lowest;4=highest) and Percentage of Team Agreement
While all statistical correlations in this article were based on total number of responding teams using the Spearman rs, for purposes of discussion and comparison the teams were categorized as "highly productive" and "less productive" teams. "Highly productive" refers to the 7 teams scoring 3.00 or higher on self-rated productivity; "less productive" refers to the 5 teams scoring below 3.00. Research Question One: How often do productive global business teams communicate, using which media? Do they value the usefulness of some media over others? The use of informal conversation showed a positive statistical correlation with productivity (p = .68, significant at p < .05, rs.05(11) = .619). Productive teams averaged 3.7 times more conversations among team members than did less productive teams. Interview results showed that "informal conversation" responses primarily included casual greetings via electronic mail, verbal "check-ins" via telephone, and quick face-to-face conversations with same-site or visiting members of their work teams. During interviews, respondents from teams which frequently engaged in conversation demonstrated a keener interest in other team members, a thirst for knowledge and information, a recognition that situations were constantly changing, requiring flexibility of behavior and a high commitment to task accomplishment. These findings are corroborated by literature on the rapidity of change and the complexity of global business (e.g., Rhinesmith, 1993; Ohmae, 1990; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989), as well as small group and intercultural research advocating interpersonal trust and informal communication networks (e.g., Teboul et al, 1994; Hellweg, 1987). Frequency of use of other communication media (electronic mail, telephone, face-to-face meetings, memos, faxes, social interaction, and teleconferencing) demonstrated no statistical correlation with productivity. The differing frequencies of use of communication media by highly productive and less productive teams, as illustrated in Figure 1, are suggestive; highly productive teams engaged in more informal conversation, telephone discussion and in-person meetings. Figure 1 _ Members of highly productive teams averaged nearly 700 communications with other team members per year (see Figure 1), as compared to 456 for less productive teams. The total amount of correspondence between team members did not statistically correlate with productivity. In fact, there was frequently an increase in the volume of correspondence among team members because they were having difficulty; two of the least productive teams in this study had a very high volume of communication due to their persistent difficulties. Team communication was primarily through other than face-to-face means, supporting O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen's (1994) findings. Interviews revealed that most respondents were able to meet face-to-face as a complete team between one and three times per year, heavily skewed towards the low end of that scale. During interviews, participants repeatedly related creative strategies for getting together with overseas team members: arranging to combine vacations and work, for example, or to attend the same professional conference and piggyback it with a business meeting and social event. The need to save money and time were the primary motivators for such creativity. The perceived usefulness of social interaction statistically correlated with productivity (p = .63, significant at p < .05, rs.05(11) = .619; see Figure 2). This finding supports Ohmae's (1990) contention that social interaction is important to team functioning. Figure 2 8=Least Useful, 1=Most Useful Highly Productive Teams: Email 2.02, Phone 3.46, Meetings 3.54, Memos 3.88, Fax 3.90, Conversation 4.83, Teleconference 5.74, Social 6.82 Less Productive Teams: Email 1.58, Phone 2.67, Meetings 3.41, Memos 3.41, Fax 5.40, Conversation 5.60, Teleconference 6.30, Social 7.47 Teams used and valued both oral and written forms of communication, supporting Johansen et al's (1991) belief that people may miss a message in one medium or another; productive teams would therefore use alternative media of communication. It is noteworthy that teleconferencing ranked lowest on both frequency of use and value, as all teams had the technology available to them. In contrast to Wilkes' (1990) findings, fax was not a frequently used or highly valued communication medium. Thirty-five individuals (64%) from 11 teams (92%) responded to the Participant Questionnaire. Seven of 11 teams responding (63.6%) rated electronic mail as the most useful medium of communication, with 3 more teams rating it as second-most useful. Written and interview comments from members of highly productive teams showed that while they valued the ease and timeliness of electronic mail, they also had a healthy fear of it. Many reported instances when they had reacted too quickly or too emotionally, only to regret it later and were unable to retract the computer note. Content analysis of electronic mail communication showed that it was used to exchange information on task-related problems, and that frequently decisions were made and confirmed via this same medium. Interview data showed that participants rely on the written word for accuracy, and on telephone conversations in particular to gauge emotional commitment and feeling – supporting Teboul et al (1994), Elashmawi and Harris (1993), and Johansen et al (1991). Memos, letters and fax were utilized primarily for the exchange of extensive information, formal summaries and confirmation, or social niceties (i.e., thank you notes). Interview findings supported this, with statements such as "written is best for information distribution regarding scientific and technical matters. Cooperation requires some face-to-face." Such findings would appear to support O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen's (1994) and Elashmawi and Harris' (1993) beliefs that certain media are more conducive to some types of communication than others. Informal information gathered during the study contained examples of a participant gaining information invaluable to the success of a project when talking to a friend or acquaintance informally about a completely separate subject. This finding was fascinating, supports Teboul et al (1994) and Hellweg's (1987) emphasis on the importance of informal communication with non-team members, and warrants further research. Research Question Two: How do productive global business teams balance task and affect behaviors? Do task and affect vary according to the medium of communication? The use of negative affect in correspondence correlated with productivity at p = 0.727, rs.05(00) = 0.619, indicating that productive team members are honest with one another about their feelings of discomfort or concern, even over distance. Their focus was on creating a workable team culture for all members, supporting Adler's (1986) and Scheff's (1990) beliefs. Both negative (p = 0.95) and positive (p = 0.92) affect correlated with productivity in face-to-face meetings, rs.05(6) = 0.886, supporting the importance of affect and attention to relationship (Hofner and Ramsey, 1992; Ohmae, 1990), and echoed the findings from the Participant Questionnaire described under Research Question One. Productive teams focused more heavily on task in written correspondence (see Figure 3) – the proportion of task:affect in correspondence for highly productive teams was 4.09:1 compared to 1.74:1 for less productive teams. In meetings the proportions were 5.31:1 and 11.65:1 respectively: productive teams spending more time on emotion and relationship during face-to-face meetings (see Figure 3). Overall, these findings are consistent with O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994), Elashmawi and Harris (1993), Johansen et al (1991), and Rhinesmith (1993). Results would seem to encourage teams to spend social and relationship time when face-to-face (though not to the exclusion of task), and to focus on accomplishing task when operating from disparate locations. Data for Research Question Two were tabulated for 11 teams (92%) using the Content Analysis of Written Materials form, and for 6 teams (50%) using the Meeting Observation Form. Figure 3 _ A simple overall comparison of task and affect behaviors of highly productive and less productive teams shows that productive teams utilized task behaviors two and a half times more often – they had a high task orientation and also a high degree of process awareness, suggesting that they were better at both task and affect. Many of the highly productive teams had developed an informal format for written correspondence, opening and closing with a personal or relational message, and dealing with task issues in the "meat" of the correspondence. This seems to indicate an awareness of the importance of interpersonal trust and rapport to effective business functioning, and a conscious attention to communicative behavior. The team with the lowest number of task responses in correspondence was the least productive team; the disharmony within the team displacing a focus on task. Research Question Three: How do productive global business teams express and manage difference of opinion? In correspondence, depersonalized/negative comments showed a statistical correlation with productivity, p = 0.73, rs.05(11) = 0.619. The 2 teams with the highest depersonalized/negative scores in correspondence were both involved in legal issues. In meetings, on the other hand, personalized disagreement, both positive (p = 0.893) and negative (p = 0.927), correlated statistically with productivity, significant at rs.05(6) = 0.886. These findings would seem to support the value of openly expressing difference in both written and face-to-face media (Rhinesmith, 1993; Harris and Moran, 1991; Evans, et al, 1990; McCann and Margerison, 1989). The fact that productive teams express difference in a depersonalized manner over distance, and in a personalized manner when face-to-face, would appear to warrant further research and may provide preliminary clues as to how to effectively manage differences for synergy. In correspondence, those teams utilizing personalized/negative behaviors were the least productive teams. However, the reverse may not be true: scores for personalized/positive behavior in correspondence were also high for the least productive teams. In scoring correspondence, it seemed that less productive teams utilized more "social niceties" (standard phrases such as "Thank you for your cooperation"), while highly productive teams voiced more positive sentiments about the task at hand. In meetings, less productive teams tended to make more positive comments about the issue being discussed, while highly productive teams played devil's advocate. Though there were key differences in behavior demonstrated in meetings and in correspondence, one consistency was that productive teams used depersonalized/negative comments nearly 50% more often than did the less productive teams. This seems to reflect a strong and a critical task focus for the more productive teams. Data for Research Question Three were evaluated for 11 teams (92%) using the Content Analysis of Written Materials form, and for 6 teams (50%) using the Meeting Observation Form. Research Question Four: Do global business teams utilize cultural interpretation or mediation, and does its use correlate with productivity? Responses to this question on the Participant Questionnaire correlated statistically with productivity, significant at p < .05, p = 0.79 (rs.05(9) = .700). The findings supported O'Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994), Cupach and Imahori (1993), Ting-Toomey (1993), Elashmawi and Harris (1993), Hofner and Ramsey (1992), Adler (1986), and Burke and Goodstein (1980). Members of the 2 most highly productive teams unanimously answered "yes" to this question. There were numerous types of cultural interpretation and mediation observed and recorded in both correspondence and meetings, with the most prevalent and effective appearing to be when one team member would ask another for information, and the second team member would explain his/her assumptions or expectations. There was also a fair amount of one person speaking for or explaining for another person, particularly when the person spoken for was frustrated or lacked language proficiency. When a common language was an issue for the team, which it was in approximately half of the teams in this study, teams engaged in many bilingual behaviors. These included frequent "time outs" for interpretation or discussion in the second language (which were more successful when clearly labeled as such or explained to non-second-language speakers), and having a non-native speaker stand at a white board and perform the role of scribe for the group (this slowed down the process and necessitated summary, confirmation and correction). None of the teams used any formal methods of language interpretation. The strain on people performing cultural interpretation was obvious: team members who engaged more actively in such a role expressed higher levels of fatigue and frustration during interviews. They strongly voiced their desire for many cultural mediators rather than their teams' over-reliance on a few. Many interviewees cited the stress of the person in the middle role, and the lack of reward for this ability. One Japanese noted that he was "very frustrated, beyond frustration. I'm always caught in the middle and am nearly ready to leave the company". Several requested training to enhance cultural interpretation and mediation skills. One noteworthy observation from this study was the tenuous position of those people able to style-switch or see several sides to an issue, i.e., the cultural bridge role. One poignant example was a Japanese woman, initially well-respected by both her Japanese and western colleagues, and fluent in Japanese, English and French. During interviews about three months into this study, several of her Japanese colleagues related that they had recently observed her laughing loudly and jovially at English jokes with their American colleagues. They related that they were astounded at her relaxed and "uncouth" behavior and found it difficult to respect or trust her after that incident. Interviews with the Americans on the team revealed that they felt very comfortable with her behavior, respecting her for being able to "meet us on our own turf". This one incident had caused her to lose much respect and trust in the eyes of her older male Japanese colleagues, who afterwards did not request her to perform any cultural interpretation or mediation role because they felt she empathized more with the "other side". Future research should investigate further how one specifically maintains the trust of all parties in culturally mixed situations as a "bridge" or "mediating" person. Responses to the Participant Questionnaire supported the importance of cultural interpretation. In write-in comments, six respondents focused on cultural and linguistic differences as factors inhibiting productivity. Comments included: "in Europe we are fairly direct, in U.S. it's a global/strategic approach, and in Japan they are conservative and reluctant to change"; "when Japanese talk 'quality' for regulatory purposes, we're stretched to understand their meaning"; "people are not sympathetic with what others see as important; culture makes it difficult to readily understand"; "we define it as a technical product, they see it as a formulated product"; "do we understand exactly, and is what they are defining interpreted correctly?"; and "what helps most is to know the cultural rationale behind people's thinking." Additional Analysis of the Data An additional question, not originally identified in the study, was examined: Would members of productive global business teams enjoy working with the members of their team on another project? Data for this question were statistically significant at p < .05 (p = 0.75, rs.05(9). = .700). The fact that this simple question statistically correlated with a team's productivity is striking; if generalizable, it would indeed be a simple indicator of a team's success. Data for this question were gathered from responses to the Participant Questionnaire.; thirty-three people (60%) from 9 teams (75%) responded to the questions. On the Participant Questionnaire, respondents wrote in what they felt enhanced the productivity of their teams. In 22 separate responses, answers to this question focused on team members' mutual respect and commitment. Responses included "the experience and knowledge of each region, and knowing each other's limitations, helps our productivity"; "new ideas and creativity due to our diversity help"; "the fact that we have bright, productive, cooperative team members"; "mutual respect, individual contributions are valued"; "we have fun together and co-manage"; "good rapport between the local offices"; "individual commitment"; "desire to improve communication, technical knowledge and language abilities of team members"; "responsiveness, experience, openness"; "mutual trust and respect"; "team members are fun and challenging, we have no politics"; "respect, loyalty, fun, hard work, honesty"; "smooth communication between customer, research and marketing"; and "excellent technical and marketing capability". Such comments would seem to indicate a desire to work with these talented and committed colleagues again, further supporting the statistical findings for this question. On the same form, respondents noted factors which inhibited the productivity of their teams, and these tended to be external factors. The factor most frequently noted (by 14 respondents) as inhibiting productivity was a team's inability to meet: "no opportunity to get together, to visualize the team"; "lack of face-to-face inhibits discussion flow and transfer of understanding"; "distance"; "money – the cost of traveling and meeting face-to-face, we could come to a decision quicker by discussion"; "inability to meet together due to schedule conflicts"; cost control from corporate, travel restrictions"; and "meetings are needed but it's not an option". Seven comments cited differences between team members as inhibiting productivity, including: "depending on partners to build one's own business or trying remote-control from overseas"; "disregard of importance of each members' role and efforts"; "members very independent, don't use available help"; and "one-way communication and no response". All of these comments would appear to support the idea that members of productive teams would want to work together again, while less productive team members would not. Only three respondents to this question on the Participant Questionnaire identified differing global priorities or realities as inhibitors of productivity, perhaps accepting them as givens: "different nature of the regions, i.e., Australia is self-contained vs. the 40 countries in Latin America"; "difficult to identify a single strategy", and "home office insists one-way and doesn't care about customer opinion". Global issues, however, came through much more clearly and strongly in interviews. For example, "this is a corporate problem and we need to solve it for the whole company. Meanwhile, our local business is dying." Several interviewees also cited out-of-sight, out-of-mind issues: "there is a reluctance to solve problems for somebody far away." Again, perhaps something as simple as a desire to work as a team again does indicate productivity; it is worth further research. Two respondents requested "less involvement of senior management". This last comment was also expressed in nearly one-third of the interviews I conducted. Senior management consistency was viewed by team members as a major factor in their success. Many noted that every time there was a personnel change in senior management, there was a resulting philosophical or strategic change as well, causing revisions of team plans and activities, wasting time and money. This study did not compare national cultural differences, but the thoroughness and detail of Japanese participants' written correspondence stood out. Six Japanese participants in this study and one Czech gave me complete documentation for a several month period on all team correspondence regarding a particular business issue. This documentation is extremely useful for case study analysis. Neither did this study concern itself with the corporate cultures of the participants. The correspondence analyzed, however, demonstrated dramatic differences. Of particular note were that certain corporate cultures were "nicer" than others (expressions of personal concern appearing to be expected or even demanded for success), and some more long-winded than others (the computer industry in particular tending to be shorter and more to-the-point). Interview findings corroborated these observations. The meetings of highly productive teams had a lot of laughter and joking. Much of this humor was self-directed and focused on culture or style differences. The laughter seemed to acknowledge the unavoidable difficulties of conducting business across distance and difference, and lighten the intensity of the situation. It also validated difference. These observations raise interesting questions about when humor is helpful in a multicultural situation and when it is harmful, reinforcing stereotypes and negativity. Perhaps a study on the use of humor in global business teams is warranted. Finally, there was a great difference in the content of communication depending on the task or business of the team (though, again, this study was not designed to compare communication patterns according to business objective). For example, the teams which were technically or legally focused had volumes of dry facts and information to share; their primary challenge seemed to be to maintain accuracy, prevent boredom, and generate creative solutions. The general business management teams were dealing with much less precise, more impressionistic data. As such, personal opinion and interpersonal respect were more important factors in communication, though these teams also needed to generate creative solutions. While this study did not compare national or ethnic cultural differences, the high number of instances of disagreement expressed by Japanese during meetings and in correspondence was obvious, particularly among the highly productive teams. When questioned about this these participants explained that pointing out differences or mistakes as early as possible in the process is very important to prevent future, larger misunderstandings. It also seemed that, in meetings (all of which were conducted primarily in English), many Japanese would listen to the discussion, nodding, until they heard something which was incorrect or which they disagreed with. They would then speak up. Interview data confirmed these observations, with several Japanese participants saying that it was too much effort to maintain active participation in meetings in English. They had developed a strategy of focusing their energies on listening, exerting the energy to speak only when necessary; thus, the high proportion of their expressions of disagreement. Americans voiced disagreement in comparatively positive ways. Figure 4
Conclusions This study contributes to our knowledge about theory and research in several disciplines (small group and team work, intercultural and interpersonal communication, organization development); it isolated behavioral variables and generated empirically-based findings; it addressed real teams in real situations; tested the credibility and applicability of past research and current theory; and utilized new instrumentation which could be of practical use for team development and personnel selection. The limitations must be noted: the small sample size and the biased nature of the sample (heavily Japan-U.S.; all participant teams were members of U.S.-headquartered corporations; respondents were clients keenly interested in intercultural communication); differences in the task complexity, corporate cultures, and industries of the teams studied; difficulty in measuring productivity; and the numerous operational difficulties presented by the multicultural nature of the study. The results of this study, therefore, should be viewed as heuristic and exploratory. The main purpose of this study was to make a very preliminary attempt at a profile of a productive multicultural business team. Overall, Figure 4 presents a summary profile of a productive global business team. Implications for Research Before addressing specific research issues, it should be noted that in future studies productivity itself must be tracked by industry and researchers in a more consistent and meaningful way. A first step would be for management to strive for more precise definitions of their expectations of multicultural teams. Findings from this study indicated the need for additional research in five key areas: factors beyond national culture, problem solving across cultures, communication in the absence of regular face-to-face contact, the ideal role of a global business team leader, and the function of cultural interpretation and mediation. Specific questions to pursue in future studies are described below. Factors Beyond National Culture This study seems to indicate that national culture may play an important role, but the personal communication styles, thought patterns, "common sense" assumptions and expectations of each team member are also influenced by international experience, functional background and personality, and seem to affect a team's productivity. We must be cautious in assuming that national cultural identity is sufficient to predict how people behave in intercultural contexts (Fontaine, 1987). The fact that so many of the participants in this study experienced difficulty referencing a primary cultural affiliation warrants extensive further research. There has been excellent work done to date on identity formation, global nomads, and cultural marginality (Bennett, 1993; Ting-Toomey, 1994; Stryker, 1991; Smith, 1991; Bochner, 1979; Levine & Evans, 1991; Blumer, 1969; Brewer, 1991; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; among others). This theory should be incorporated into global business research to move beyond focusing on national and comparative cultural differences. Finally, in additional analysis of the data, this study demonstrated a correlation between productivity and team members' desire to work together again; extending study of such a simple productivity indicator would seem worthwhile. Problem Solving Across Cultures This study suggests that the main purpose of most global business teams is to exchange information from diverse perspectives and come to a workable, worldwide solution. For this reason, problem solving should be a major focus for researchers in this area. Findings suggested that productive global business teams utilize alternative methods of problem solving and discussion; that they critically analyze issues in meetings; and that they discuss task issues in a positive manner over distance. These findings should be tested further. Other related questions include what methods, approaches and techniques of group problem solving and decision making contribute to a global business team's productivity? Are there certain processes which are more conducive than others to accurate and thorough cross-cultural information sharing and understanding, to creating or generating possible solutions, and to reaching a team decision? What behaviors are most appropriate at each stage of a team's problem-solving process, and does this vary according to task? How can concerns, conflicting information and differences of opinion best be communicated between members of, for example, highly verbal/confrontive cultures and members of more intuitive/harmonious cultures? How does language facility affect expression of difference? Do productive global business teams discuss difference in a depersonalized manner over distance, and in a personalized manner face-to-face, as this study indicated? Communication in the Absence of Regular Face-to-Face Contact Another implication from this study for future research is the need to examine intercultural communication across distance, in addition to the focus on face-to-face encounters of most studies conducted to date. Future research questions include further testing of the most effective cross-cultural uses of the various communication technologies. As this study suggests, does written communication facilitate accuracy, while the telephone allows for better emotional understanding? Are there specific behavioral do's and don'ts for using the various communication technologies productively across cultures? How are trusting relationships, commitment and motivation established and maintained between team members in the absence of regular face-to-face communication? Are there differences between the preferences of high-context and low-context communication styles in this regard? What is the impact of informal communication with non-team members on a team's productivity, i.e., where and how does such communication most often take place, and what type of information is most productively shared? What kind of humor do members of productive multicultural teams use when, why and how, i.e., when is it appropriate and when does it cause confusion, bad feelings, or misconceptions? Can humor be used to bridge language and cultural differences? The Ideal Role of a Global Business Team Leader While this study produced no statistically significant findings regarding team leadership, there were emphatic messages from participants that management must remain consistent and that their role as process facilitator is crucial to team success. Leaders as process facilitators is a concept in sharp contrast to the more traditional role of leader as hierarchical authority and/or clear technical expert. In many global business teams today, all team members may be technical experts in different fields whose judgments are critical to project success, and it is the role of the leader to guide them to a decision as a process facilitator. In addition to authority or content expertise, team leaders need the ability to structure information sharing and decision making to incorporate and utilize multiple perspectives. Yet it is not clear how this is best accomplished. Specific research questions for future studies include: what role should leaders of productive, geographically dispersed teams play, particularly when their technical/business expertise as well as their team leadership is required? How do leaders contribute opinion and information without unduly influencing a multicultural team's decision? How do leaders provide sufficient structure to allow all members of a multicultural team to contribute, but not so much structure as to stifle the contributions of others? How do global business team leaders facilitate open information exchange and disagreement without creating a threatening or tense situation for some team members? The Function of Cultural Interpretation and Mediation Findings suggest correlations between a global business team's productivity and its use of cultural interpretation and mediation. Future research questions include: what are the key cognitive, behavioral and attitudinal competencies of cultural interpreters and mediators? Are there certain phrases or approaches successful cultural "bridge people" use to encourage team members to understand and adapt to one another? Is there a certain timing or sequencing of information exchange on cultural issues that is more effective than another? Do "bridge people" change styles depending on who they are talking to, and, if so, how do they maintain credibility and trust from members of different cultures when all are present? It would be a great service to the international business community if research and training programs on this topic were pursued. Implications for Training Findings from this study have implications for training in three major areas: implications for a link between research and training, messages about professional development needs for intercultural trainers, and, finally, implications for program design. Implications for a Link between Research and Training This study provides an example of how research and training can be linked. The need for a link between research and training has never needed to be stronger. Clients are finally recognizing the value of diversity and the need for global communication competence, and to meet this need trainers should participate in more ongoing research activities, particularly studies such as those described above. Trainers can provide the insight and access to global business teams that researchers need if they are to pursue action research studies in this area. A second implication from this study is the need for definition of intercultural services (i.e., "area briefing", "skills training", "process consultation") and improved collaboration among professionals in this field. Many participants had received contradictory information about intercultural communication, felt it was difficult to assess vendor competence, and were disappointed that so many training programs and services were proprietary. This study also indicated the need for more tools and techniques which could be used by skilled facilitators who are not necessarily intercultural professionals. Implications for the Professional Development of Trainers Implications for professional development are four-fold. The first is that trainers develop skills as process facilitators. Intercultural trainers can share with global business teams the advantages and the perils of multiculturalism; we can inform teams about what other teams are doing, ideas and approaches they have used successfully. These are the knowledge components. However, we can serve as process facilitators since team members have the business expertise, they know themselves, their preferences, biases, and abilities, though perhaps not consciously. Intercultural trainers can provide a huge service as facilitators of processes through which intercultural team members learn to understand and explain themselves to one another; to clarify objectives, priorities and concerns in ways that connect; and to creatively problem solve with one another to find new solutions, rather than limiting their teams to either/or choices. A second ability trainers need, as evidenced by this research, is the ability to listen, reassure, reflect, and motivate people to try alternative approaches. Trainers need to be able to help members of global business teams overcome their fears: the multicultural situation is new to many people, the rules are not clear, and time, distance and other differences can make it quite stressful. I would, therefore, highly recommend that trainers gain experience in counseling theory and technique. Thirdly, findings from this study indicated that many of the instruments, assessment techniques and training interventions utilized by intercultural professionals are not appropriate for business. I would suggest that we make more effort to adapt ourselves and our methods to meet the expectations and realities of business, rather than imposing traditionally more academic or non-profit models. Also, we need to understand and respect the business of the organizations in which these teams function – the structure of the organization, its strategy, and the systems that support the business. Our work must be conducted in context. Finally, though not pertinent to elaborate upon here, many participants in this study cited the use of graphics and drawings in training and facilitation as an enormously powerful tool. I would urge trainers to develop their competence in this area. Implications for the Design of Training Programs A key finding from this study is that training for global business teams should be task-focused. Time for these teams, particularly face-to-face time, has a high premium. If we are able to get the members of a global business team together in the same place at the same time, their attentions are going to be focused on their business task. Our knowledge, insights, processes, and techniques as trainers and facilitators should help teams accomplish their objectives, objectives on which the input of all team members depend. Designing training programs around the business of a team, and pulling learnings from that process, has other advantages as well. Findings from this study demonstrate that if a task is perceived by participants to be useful to their jobs and their lives, that the activity will lead to an increase in productivity, nearly any business team will engage. Gaining participants' belief in an activity's applicability – introducing, conducting and debriefing the activity in a way which has meaning for the participants – is the key. Secondly, trainers need to go beyond a traditional reliance on comparative national cultures and knowledge-based approaches. Understanding differences is a very important and often neglected first step for any team, but findings from this and earlier studies (Fontaine, 1987) strongly indicate that people behave differently in multicultural situations than they do monoculturally. We need to train people in the interactive, intercultural context in which they conduct their business. And, as participants in this study indicated, members of global business teams often do not identify with a particular national culture; they are global nomads, internationals, who tend to perceive themselves as unique individuals. Trainers need to give team members the tools with which they can recognize and understand differences – personal, ethnic, gender, functional, and corporate, as well as national. Then, trainers need to have tools that enable teams to create their own productive team cultures, cultures which incorporate and utilize the differences and similarities of every member to both business and personal advantage. A third implication from this study is the need for programs and materials in communication technology. Reality is that relationships are developed and maintained via the use of technology, between people who meet very infrequently. In particular, helping business people know which media are most conducive to what type of communication, and how to make appropriate choices about which media to use; what type of communication with what frequency is important at each stage of a team's and a project's life cycle; how different cultures and individuals value or are troubled by different technologies, and how such difficulties might be overcome; and how to effectively use each medium of communication, both its assets and its downsides; are imperative. Many of the Japanese in this study, for example, said they "wasted" between two and three hours per day attempting to "decipher" the rapid English on voice mail messages, while many also expressed hesitance at committing any time schedules to writing because it seemed to them a commitment rather than just a tentative plan. Elashmawi and Harris (1993) have developed some guidelines for the use of various technologies across cultures. Another paradigm which participants in this study found particularly interesting is Johansen et al's "Four Square Map of Groupware Options" (1991, which they based on DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987). The model categorizes communication technology as same time/same place (e.g., white boards or flip charts used in face-to-face meetings), different time/same place (e.g., bulletin boards or team rooms), different time/different place (e.g., electronic mail, voice mail and fax), same time/different place (e.g., telephone or remote screen sharing), and an emerging fifth category, anytime/anyplace. This study strongly suggested a final very important area for training: cultural interpretation and mediation. Global business teams see the need for such a function, but 1) they do not clearly understand the ideas of style-switching, multiple perspectives, and situational approaches; 2) they tend to locate responsibility for cultural bridging in one or two key people rather than sharing responsibility among all team members; 3) those expected to perform the bridge function do not feel competent to do so, and frequently hesitate to do so. They experience more stress than other team members, and are frequently perceived as "traitors"; 4) bridge people seem to require two distinct skill sets: culture-specific abilities (to discuss a topic credibly with a group of Indonesians, for example), and the ability to maintain credibility across multiple cultures (to maintain credibility with the Indonesian group when those team members see the mediator behaving "un-Indonesianly" with others); and 5) team members are not sure how to ask for or utilize the information and insights provided by such cultural interpreters and mediators. I would encourage intercultural trainers to develop methods and materials to improve competence on this topic. Author Notes My sincere thanks to all of the managers who participated in this study, and to those who assisted and guided my work: Dr. Robin Pratt, the late Dr. Dean Barnlund, June Harper, and Dr. Judith Martin. End Notes It is imperative that studies be conducted with larger and more diverse samples of participants. Permission to use raw data in order to test for inter-rater reliability would be very worthwhile. Studying teams within industries will allow for better comparison, as environmental factors will not vary so radically. The work of project, engineering, and manufacturing teams will provide more productivity measurements (i.e., construction timelines), in contrast to general business management teams whose productivity is difficult to track. References Acker, S.R., & McCain, T. (July 1990). Designers' and producers' values: Their social, technical, and economic influences on the success if videoconferencing. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Visual Communication Conference, Lake Tahoe. Anderson, E. B. , & Balzer, W. K. (1991). The effects of timing on problem-solving groups. Group and Organization Studies, 16 (1), 86 - 101. Adler, N.J. (1986). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/PWS-Kent. Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bennett, J.M. (1993) Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bochner, S., Lin, A., & McLeod, B.M. (1979). Cross-cultural contact and the development of an international perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology. 107, 29 - 41. Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475 - 482. Brislin, R. W. , Lonner, W. J. , & Thorndike R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Burke, W.W., & Goodstein, L.D., eds. (1980). Trends and issues in OD: Current theory and practice. San Diego: University Associates. Cupach, W.R., & Imahori, T.T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence in intercultural episodes and relationships. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 17, 112-131. Dayl, E., & Poling-Krone, K. (1994). Visual systems thinking. Carmel, CA. Workshop and manual. DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, B. (May, 1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 5. Elashmawi, F., & Harris, P.R. (1993). Multicultural management: New skills for global success. Houston: Gulf Publishing. Evans, P., Doz, Y., & Laurent, A., eds. (1990). Human resource management in international firms: Change, globalization, innovation. New York: St. Martin's Press. Fodor, E. M. , & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 42, 178 - 185. Fontaine, G. (1987, May). Support systems for international micro cultures. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research (SIETAR International), Montreal. Goulet, D. (1977). The uncertain promise – Value conflicts in technology transfer. New York: North America, Inc. Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382 - 393. Harris, P.R., & Moran, R.T. (3rd ed., 1991). Managing cultural differences: High-Performance strategies for a new world of business. Houston: Gulf Publishing. Hellweg, S. (1987). Organizational grapevines. In B. Dervin & M. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences, 8, 213-230. Norwood, NJ: Abex. Hofner, D., & Ramsey, S. (1992). Material on needs assessment, design, and process consulting. Training for global organization development. Portland, OR: Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication. Workshop and manual. Hofner Saphiere, D., & Ramsey, S. (1993). Dealing with difference: The four phase cycle for task accomplishment with intercultural teams. In Facilitating productivity in intercultural teams. Portland, OR: Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication. Workshop and manual. Hofner Saphiere, D., & Ramsey, S. (1994). Workshop titled Facilitating productivity in intercultural teams. Portland, OR: Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication. Johansen, R., Sibbet, D., Benson, S., Martin, A., Mittman, R. & Saffo, P. (1991). Leading business teams: How teams can use technology and group process tools to enhance performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Keyton, J. , & Springston, J. (1990). Redefining cohesiveness in groups. Small Group Research, 21 (2), 234 - 254. Levine, H., & Evans, N.J. (1991). The development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities. In N.J. Evans & V.A. Wall, Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians and bisexuals on campus. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mabry, E.A., & Attridge, M.D. (1990). Small group interaction and outcome correlates for structured and unstructured tasks. Small Group Research, 21, 315 - 332. McCann, D., & Margerison, C. (1989). Managing high-performing teams. Training and Development Journal, 43, 52 - 60. Mitchell, R. (1986). Teambuilding by disclosure of internal frames of reference. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (1), 15 - 28. Montalto, N.V. (July 1973). Modifying the small group experience for multi-cultural America. Minnesota Project on Ethnic America, part of the Jewish Committee's National Project on Ethnic America. O'Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Global work: Bridging distance, culture and time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy. New York: HarperBusiness. Pace, R. C. (1990). Personalized and depersonalized conflict in small group discussions: An examination of differentiation. Small Group Research, 21 (1), 79 - 96. Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of groups decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321 - 341. Ramsey, S., & Hofner, D. (1990). Training in transnational business. Portland, OR: Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication. Workshop and manual. Reagan, P. , & Rohrbaugh, J. (1990). Group decision process effectiveness: A competing values approach. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 20 - 43. Rhinesmith, S.H. (1993). A manager's guide to globalization: Six keys to success in a changing world. Alexandria, VA: ASTD. Rieger, F. , & Wong-Rieger, D. (1988). Model building in organizational/cross-cultural research: The need for multiple methods, indices, and cultures. International Studies of Management and Organization, 18, 19 - 32. Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 334 - 354. Scheff, T.J. (1990). Microsociology: Discourse, emotion, and social structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). Research on work group effectiveness: An anthropological critique. In P. S. Goodman & Associates, Designing effective work groups (pp. 237 - 276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sibbet, D., Drexler, A., & the Team at The Grove Consultants International. (1994). Graphic guide to team performance. San Francisco: The Grove Consultants International. Smith, E.J. (1991). Ethnic identity development: Toward the development of a theory within the context of majority/minority status. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 181 - 188. Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in the intercultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13 (3), 241 - 268. Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Stryker, S. (1991). Exploring the relevance of social cognition for the relationship of self and society: Linking the cognitive perspective and identity theory. In J. Howard & P. Callero (Eds.), Self-society dynamic: Emotion, cognition and action (pp. 19 - 41). Cambridge, UK: John Wiley. Tajfel, J., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33 - 47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Teboul, J.C.B., Chen, L., & Fritz, L.M. (1994). Intercultural organizational communication research in multinational organizations. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 18, 12-29. Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 17. Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing. Weisbord, M.R. (Autumn 1988). Productivity workplaces. National Productivity Review, 382-389. Wilkes, M.V. (1990). Networks, e-mail, and fax. Communications of the ACM, 33, 631-633. Wiseman, R.L, & Shuter, R., Eds. (1994). International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 18. |
|
