Stahl Et Al. (2010) - A Look at The Bright Side of Multicultural Team Diversity

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 9

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2010) 26, 439—447

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n

A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity


Günter K. Stahl a,b,*, Kristiina Mäkelä c,1, Lena Zander d,2,
Martha L. Maznevski e,3

a
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria
b
INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77309 Fontainebleau Cedex, France
c
Hanken School of Economics, Perhonkatu 4b, PL 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland
d
Uppsala University, Box 513, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
e
IMD — International Institute of Management Development, ch de Bellerive 23, CH-1001 Lausanne, Switzerland

KEYWORDS Summary Current research on multicultural teams tends to exhibit a bias towards studying the
Multicultural teams; negative effects of team diversity more than the positive. This negative bias has limited our
Cultural diversity; understanding of the conditions that promote the benefits of diversity and of the mechanisms that
Positive Organizational foster these benefits. In this article, we highlight a complementary perspective, namely the idea
Scholarship; that cultural diversity and cultural differences can be an asset rather than a liability. This
Creativity; perspective has been present in the practitioner and anecdotal literature, but has thus far not
Satisfaction; received much rigorous research attention. Using a lens of Positive Organizational Scholarship
Communication; (POS), we draw upon recent research on cultural diversity in teams to explore the positive aspects
Team learning; of cross-cultural dynamics in teams and identify some of the processes underlying these effects in
Global integration more rigorous ways, proposing a future research agenda.
# 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

multicultural team — defined as a group of people from


Introduction different cultures, with a joint deliverable for the organiza-
tion or another stakeholder — has become both more com-
mon and more important. To enable high performance in
Multicultural teams have been a central focus of research for
international organizations, teams must first overcome the
many years in the international business context. With the
barriers inherent in the cultural differences — problems of
rapid rise of multinational and even global interactions, the
communication, value incongruence, and other such obsta-
cles. Then performance will follow.
Practitioner and anecdotal accounts of multinational
* Corresponding author at: Vienna University of Economics and teams often paint a subtly different picture. They frequently
Business, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria. begin with a frame of promoting the potential synergy effects
Tel.: +43 1 31336 4434/+33 0 16072 4177. stemming from cultural differences, while acknowledging
E-mail addresses: guenter.stahl@wu.ac.at, the ‘‘dark side’’ of overcoming barriers. Managers are
guenter.stahl@insead.edu (G.K. Stahl), kristiina.makela@hanken.fi
encouraged to use their different perspectives, leverage
(K. Mäkelä), lena.zander@fek.uu.se (L. Zander), maznevski@imd.ch
their various networks that are embedded in different con-
(M.L. Maznevski).
1
Tel.: +358 40 559 3454. texts, and draw on the synergies arising from differences to
2
Tel.: +46 18 471 1239. enable innovation. This positive perspective seems useful for
3
Tel.: +41 21 618 03 68. our endeavors towards increased team effectiveness — yet, it

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.009
440 G.K. Stahl et al.

is remarkably rare in rigorous theoretical and empirical much less about the positive dynamics and outcomes asso-
research. ciated with cultural diversity than we know about the pro-
Current theory and research in international and cross- blems and obstacles caused by cultural differences (Brickson,
cultural management indeed tends to overemphasize pro- 2008; Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008).
blems and barriers instead of making room for aspects that In this article, we seek to address this research gap
potentially could enrich cultural encounters and interaction between the dominant negative problem-focused perspec-
(Drogendijk & Zander, 2010).4 For example, the ‘‘cultural tive and a more positive opportunities-focused one, by
distance’’ hypothesis (e.g., Shenkar, 2001; Ward, 2003), in exploring the positive aspects of cross-cultural team
its most general form, proposes that the difficulties, costs, and dynamics and identifying some of the processes underlying
risks associated with cross-cultural contact increase with these effects. In what follows, we first give a brief explana-
growing cultural dissimilarity between two or more indivi- tion for why there is a dominant negative perspective con-
duals, groups, or organizations. Barriers to performance have cerning cultural diversity in teams. We then introduce the
been explained in terms of concepts ‘‘cultural friction’’, lens of ‘‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’’, which we use
‘‘cultural incompatibility’’, ‘‘culture clash’’, ‘‘culture to unpack the positive aspects of cross-cultural dynamics by
novelty’’ and ‘‘cultural risk’’, among others (e.g., Shenkar, specifying the key mechanisms, conditions, and processes
Luo, & Yeheskel, 2008; Stahl & Voigt, 2008). These variables through which diversity may enhance team outcomes. We
have been shown to be significantly and negatively related to focus on creativity, member satisfaction and communication
foreign market entry (e.g., Harzing, 2004), cross-border trans- effectiveness, which have been identified in recent research
fer of knowledge (e.g., Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis, as positive team outcomes (Stahl et al., 2010), as well as
2002), organizational learning across cultural barriers (e.g., elaborate on the learning ability of teams and their integra-
Barkema, Bell, & Pennings, 1996), international mergers and tive role in multinational organizations. Finally, we develop
alliances (e.g., David & Singh, 1994), and multinational teams an agenda for future research.
(e.g., Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2004), to name a few. Asso-
ciated research findings make it clear that cultural differences
Negative dynamics in culturally diverse
can pose barriers to performance, and leave managers in
multinational teams and companies discouraged about their teams
chances of achieving potential synergies.
On the other hand, managers looking for research on how While there are mentions in the literature suggesting that
to realize the positive in multicultural teamwork — not just to cultural diversity can be an asset rather than a liability
overcome the negative — are faced with a real scarcity. Some (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Stahl et al., 2010; Williams
scholars have highlighted potentially beneficial effects of and O’Reilly, 1998), most theoretical perspectives and
cultural differences in various contexts: For example, there empirical research have focused on the processes and
is some evidence that cultural differences can help firms dynamics responsible for the problems associated with diver-
engaged in cross-border alliances, mergers and acquisitions sity. This ‘‘problem-focused view’’ (Stevens et al., 2008) of
to develop unique and potentially valuable capabilities, and cultural diversity is prevalent in a broad range of interna-
foster learning and innovation (Björkman, Stahl, & Vaara, tional business research contexts, including the choice of
2007; Morosini, Shane, & Singh, 1998; Reus & Lamont, 2009; foreign entry mode and the perceived ability to manage
Vermeulen & Barkema, 2001), not just counterbalancing foreign operations (Harzing, 2004; Kogut & Singh, 1988),
negative aspects of cultural differences but contributing the longevity of global strategic alliances (Parkhe, 1991),
positively to organizational outcomes. In the context of post-acquisition integration outcomes (Krug & Nigh, 1998;
culturally diverse teams, mixed and often contradictory Slangen, 2006), cultural adjustment of expatriate managers
results have led researchers to conclude that diversity pre- (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991), and team cohesiveness
sents a ‘‘double-edged sword’’ or a ‘‘mixed blessing’’ (DiS- and social integration (Martins, Miliken, Wiesenfeld, & Sal-
tefano & Maznevski, 2000; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stahl, gado, 2003; Watson & Kumar, 1992), among others. By con-
Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010; Williams and O’Reilly, trast, relatively little attention has been given to the
1998), in such a way that cultural differences among team conditions under which firms may benefit from cultural
members can be both an asset and a liability. Conceptual diversity and the mechanisms responsible for such benefits.
perspectives on the positive potential of such teams are In the context of team diversity, Ancona and Isaacs (2007)
emerging (e.g., Bachmann, 2006; Butler & Zander, 2008; have noted that current work on groups and teams seems to
Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006), but it is clear that we know suffer from a ‘‘disease orientation’’ (p. 227), in that there is a
lack of research on effective team functioning and outcomes.
There are several possible explanations for this negative
bias. In general, the predominance of the negative over the
4
It is worth noting that we are not suggesting that the more positive in the social sciences can be explained by basic
traditional, problem-focused perspective on cultural diversity does cognitive processes and theories of intensity, novelty, adap-
not add value. On the contrary, it has been immensely helpful in tation, and singularity. For instance, Kramer (1999) has
highlighting some of the important dynamics in cross-cultural shown that negative, trust-destroying events are generally
encounters. However, Cameron and Caza’s (2004) observation that more visible than positive, trust-building events; that trust-
‘‘[t]o date,. . . the conscious examination of positive phenomena is
destroying events carry more weight in judgment than trust-
vastly underrepresented in organizational science’’ (p. 733), seems
to aptly characterize current theory and research in international
building events of comparable magnitude; and that sources
and cross-cultural management, and thus a complementary positive of bad, trust-destroying news tend to be perceived as more
focus is called forth. credible than sources of good news. In a similar vein,
A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity 441

Cameron (2008) has noted that negative news sells better ity), explanatory mechanisms (e.g., positive emotions,
than positive news, people pay more attention to negative positive meanings, and positive relationships between peo-
feedback than positive feedback, and traumatic events have ple) and outcomes or effects (e.g., creativity, meaningful-
greater impact on individuals than positive events. A related ness, and engagement) associated with positive phenomena
explanation is that in the social sciences, a larger effect (as (Cameron & Caza, 2004; Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007; Fre-
indicated by R2) can usually be detected by accounting for drickson & Dutton, 2008). For example, a more traditional
negative phenomena compared to positive phenomena (Bau- study in the context of downsizing might look at how orga-
meister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). In other nizations try to mitigate the harmful effects of downsizing,
words, the bad has stronger effects than the good, so it is while a POS-oriented study may examine how the virtuous-
understandable that researchers focus on the strongest fac- ness of organizations is associated with financial performance
tors accounting for the most variance in their studies in this context (Cameron, 2008; Cameron et al., 2003).
(Cameron, 2008; Dutton & Glynn, 2007). Is it surprising, then, POS-oriented studies typically focus on individual traits
that we tend to focus more on the problems associated with (such as conscientiousness) and trait-like states (such as
diversity than on its benefits? optimism, self-efficacy and resilience) and their outcomes,
In the diversity literature, social identity theory (Ashforth or on organizational practices such as strong organizational
& Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), also with cultures and human resource practices (Luthans & Youssef,
extensions into faultline theory (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), is 2007). The use of the POS perspective has been remarkably
by far the most prominent theoretical perspective drawn rare in team research, which is a notable shortcoming
upon to explain the dynamics of diverse teams and organiza- given the potential of positive group processes to explain
tions. Social identity theory emphasizes the benefits of group team performance, as indicated by outcomes such as team
identity and our natural affinity to prefer such identity, with effectiveness, creativity, synergy, and team member well-
the corollary that these benefits are threatened when we are being (Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007). Some noteworthy
not with the ‘‘group’’. While social identity theory is excep- exceptions include Losada and Heaphy (2004), who showed
tionally helpful in explaining the problems that can arise in that high performing top management teams have a higher
diverse contexts, it has arguably less potential for illuminat- ratio of positivity to negativity in verbal and nonverbal
ing the path to positive dynamics in teams (Brickson, 2008). exchanges than less effective top management teams. In
In a similar vein, similarity-attraction theory, suggesting that another study that explicitly draws on the POS framework,
people are attracted to interacting with similar others Stevens et al. (2008) found that an approach they termed
(Byrne, 1971; see also McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, ‘‘all-inclusive multiculturalism’’ served as a catalyst for
2001; Watts, 1999), has frequently been used to explain organizational change through the development of social
group processes (Garcia-Prieto, Bellard, & Schneider, 2003; capital and positive relationships at work. Finally, Brickson
Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Indeed, the dominant theore- (2008) applied a POS lens in examining the conditions
tical paradigms in diversity research seem better suited to under which diverse settings benefit from diversity, and
helping organizations mitigate against the problems asso- the mechanisms responsible for such benefits. She identi-
ciated with diversity rather than capture its benefits. fied a synergistic effect whereby both a relational identity
We argue that this negative bias and the scant scholarly and direct outgroup contact improved outgroup attitudes,
attention given to the positive role of cultural diversity may while the absence of both conditions resulted in markedly
have limited our understanding of the dynamics of culturally worsened attitudes.
diverse teams, and we will now introduce the Positive Orga- Other, more traditionally oriented studies, have also
nizational Scholarship perspective as a step in this direction. observed that diversity can be associated with a range of
positive outcomes, including increased creativity, productiv-
ity, and adaptability (see the reviews of Mannix & Neale,
A ‘‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’’ lens 2005; Stahl et al., 2010; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). For
on multicultural team research example, a recent meta-analysis of 108 empirical studies on
10,632 multicultural teams (Stahl et al., 2010) found that
Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) is concerned with while cultural diversity was associated with process losses
the rigorous, systematic, and theoretically based examina- through increased conflict and decreased social integration,
tion of notably positive outcomes and the processes and it led to process gains through increased creativity and
dynamics that are associated with them (Cameron, Dutton, satisfaction and mixed outcomes with regards to communi-
& Quinn, 2003:4), and a wide array of topics and phenomena cation effectiveness depending on the team setting. We note
has been examined under the umbrella, including identity, that the findings pertaining to the positive outcomes of
social networks, leadership development, work design and member satisfaction and effective communication (in some
organizational change (Cameron & Caza, 2004; Fredrickson & settings) in Stahl et al. (2010) were unexpected and contrary
Dutton, 2008; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Spreitzer, 2006). to their hypotheses; these results seem to support the notion
Drawing from an array of organizational theories, POS adopts that previous research may indeed have been biased in a
a process perspective that seeks to expose mechanisms negative direction, and the consequent need for a POS
through which organizational dynamics produce positive or perspective. In what follows, we now take the positive
unexpected outcomes at the individual, group, and organiza- relationships between team diversity and creativity, satisfac-
tional levels (Dutton & Glynn, 2007). By doing so, it inves- tion and communication effectiveness identified by Stahl
tigates ‘‘positive deviance’’ (Spreitzer, 2006), focusing on et al. (2010), and explore potential underlying conditions
enablers (e.g., structures, systems, and capabilities), moti- and mechanisms that may produce these effects. In addition,
vations (e.g., curiosity, vocation, and sense of responsibil- we will discuss other positive outcomes of cultural team
442 G.K. Stahl et al.

diversity such as team learning and a team’s integrative role tion, information processing, and approaches to problems
in multinational organizations. that people coming from different cultures typically have
(Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stevens et al., 2008). As Gavetti and
Exploring the positive aspects of culturally Levinthal (2000) suggest, previous experiences and mental
models influence both what is on people’s radar screens as
diverse teams
well as their cognitive assessment of the expected outcomes
and pay-off of alternative actions (Gavetti, 2005; Tripsas &
In most research on diversity (e.g., see the Special Issue of Gavetti, 2000). It should thus follow that the more diverse
the Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 (4), 2009), the experience (consisting of both explicit and tacit knowledge)
effects of diversity are not differentiated by the source: all team members have accumulated and the wider variety of
sources of diversity — including gender, age, function, as well alternative of perspectives they use to evaluate problems,
as culture and ethnicity — are assumed to have the same the broader the reference base of potential action-outcome
impact. Although there are clearly some parallels among linkages the team can draw upon to inform action (Ancona &
different diversity sources (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, Caldwell, 1992; Blau, 1977; Cox, 1994; Cox & Blake, 1991;
2007), it is possible that cultural diversity affects teams Jackson, 1992; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). Further-
differently than other diversity sources (Lane, Maznevski, more, the internal cultural diversity of a team as well as its
DiStefano, & Dietz, 2009; Lane, Maznevski, Mendenhall, & members’ boundary-spanning ties to different team-external
McNett, 2004). Cultural differences are often below the level groups enables access to better and more diverse information
of consciousness, so some of their effects may not be recog- and opportunities (Burt, 1992; Hansen, 1999; Reagans &
nized. At the same time, culture is often a source of strong McEvily, 2003), providing a fruitful context for novel combi-
categorization and stereotyping, so the effects of cultural nations. As Hardagon and Sutton (1997) argue, innovation is
diversity may be stronger than other sources. This may also typically a product of connections in which previously unre-
be true for the potentially positive effects of diversity, for lated agents, goods, and knowledge become interdependent.
example, on creativity and innovation. In this paper, there- In diverse teams, this variety of knowledge and perspectives
fore, we draw primarily on studies that examine the effects should lead to better and more useful ideas.
of cultural diversity to elaborate on the processes and Furthermore, to explain the link between diversity and
mechanisms by which this specific type of diversity leads creativity a POS process perspective leads us to propose that
to positive team outcomes. we should consider not only the input into (or context for)
Culture is typically defined as the values, beliefs and creative processes but also the process itself. For example, in
systems of meaning that are shared among a group of people a culturally diverse team, members may continue to chal-
and provide a guide for their interpretation of various aspects lenge ideas and provide input long after a monocultural team
of life and the world around them (Earley, 2006; Hofstede, has reached a saturation level and experiences group-think.
1984, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, As group-think is less likely to develop over time, the viability
2004; Lane et al., 2009). Correspondingly, culturally diverse and breadth of the suggestions put forth by team members
teams are those whose members come from a variety of continue to be improved, increasing the likelihood of novel
different cultural backgrounds, reflecting both surface-level ideas coming forth. However, although culturally diverse
(e.g., country-of-origin, ethnicity and race) and deep-level teams can potentially create positive team processes, these
(e.g., values and attitudes) dissimilarity. In addition to are not simply realized by making sure work is organized in
national cultures, different interacting spheres of culture such teams. Teams may be characterized by virtuous or
have been identified, including those related to organiza- vicious circles either reinforcing or inhibiting team-internal
tions, professions and religion among others (Schneider & positive processes. How these circles come about is outside
Barsoux, 2003). There is general agreement in the literature the scope of this paper but are an important focus for future
that culture powerfully influences ways of thinking, behav- longitudinal research on team effectiveness.
ing, and communicating (e.g., Adler & Graham, 1989; Bhagat
et al., 2002; House et al., 2004; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, Cultural diversity and satisfaction
& Gibson, 2005), and is therefore a significant source of
diversity. Satisfaction refers to the feeling of having a need adequately
fulfilled, with the team literature generally tending to focus
Cultural diversity and creativity on member gratification with group processes and outcomes
(Hackman, 1987). Member satisfaction is not necessarily
We start our analysis by assessing the link between cultural directly linked to performance, but has been shown to pre-
diversity and creativity. This relationship has been the core of dict organizational commitment, turnover, absenteeism,
the ‘‘value-in-diversity hypothesis’’ (Cox & Blake, 1991), and organizational citizenship, and other variables associated
was also identified in the Stahl et al. (2010) meta-analysis. with longer term operational effectiveness (Petty, McGee,
While the argument that diverse teams are a fundamental & Cavender, 1984; Vroom, 1964). Previous theory-building on
source of creative initiatives (McLeod & Lobel, 1992) is the relationship between diversity and satisfaction has
largely in line with previous research, a POS lens can further looked at different sources of diversity, including demo-
contribute to the understanding of the underlying processes graphic, gender, and functional diversity (McPherson
and conditions that produce this relationship. et al., 2001). Such categories are sources of identity and
The processes and mechanisms through which diversity similarity, with interactions between people who are similar
increases creativity are likely to be associated with the being more satisfying (e.g., Byrne, 1971), making the opera-
differences in experiences, mental models, modes of percep- tion of the group smoother. Therefore, it is not surprising that
A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity 443

the relationship between diversity and satisfaction has gen- no direct effect on communication effectiveness. In fact, the
erally been found to be negative (e.g. Basadur & Head, 2001). picture seems much more nuanced: The examination of study
However, the Stahl et al. (2010) meta-analysis found an characteristics revealed that communication in culturally
unexpected (and robust) positive relationship between cul- diverse teams was less effective than in monocultural teams
tural diversity and satisfaction, which is worth pursuing more when the study measured surface-level aspects of culture
in-depth. (such as ethnicity, race or country-of-origin), but more
Stahl et al. (2010) is the first meta-analysis that separates effective than in monocultural teams when the study mea-
the effects of ‘‘cultural’’ diversity from other types of sured deep-level aspects (such as values or attitudes asso-
diversity which, we argue, may imply that working in a ciated with culture). Viewed from a POS perspective, what
multicultural team creates conditions and satisfies needs seems to be a methodological difference — measurement
that are not met in teams characterized by other types of type — may be associated with an important theoretical
diversity. Working in a multicultural team may fullfill indi- difference in terms of initial condition — the salience of type
vidual needs for variety, development, or even adventure in of diversity.
ways that working in otherwise demographically diverse Research on multicultural teams has looked at both sur-
teams does not. Evidence for such satisfaction can be found face-level characteristics of cultural diversity, such as racio-
in studies of global careerists, who repeatedly state that ethnicity (e.g., Baugh & Graen, 1997) or country-of-origin
learning, new experiences and personal growth are among (e.g., Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), and at deep-level attri-
the most important reasons they sought international assign- butes such as the socially oriented values held by group
ments (Suutari & Mäkelä, 2007). Further, students and man- members (e.g., Jehn & Mannix, 2001). The surface-level
agers often express interest in working with people from cultural cues are readily observable aspects of diversity
other cultures, and this exposure to other ideas and the and when members of a multinational group first meet, they
learning potential inherent in a multicultural environment usually begin by identifying which country each member is
may be highly satisfying. In our own interviews with man- from. Theory suggests that these surface-level aspects of
agers, they generally express great curiosity in working with culture are associated with similarity-attraction and social
people from other cultures, and reflect on such experiences categorization effects of diversity. Indeed, when a team
as inherently interesting. focuses on these surface-level aspects of culture it may raise
By applying a POS process perspective, we also hypothe- the salience of phenomena such as social categorization,
size that member satisfaction can be derived from the facing homophily, faultlines, and attraction within and aversion
and successful handling of the inevitably demanding chal- across categories.
lenges that are inherent in multicultural teams. On the one On the other hand, deep-level aspects of culture, such as
hand, the multitude of perspectives, ways of working and differences in knowledge, attitudes and values, are asso-
handling conflict that are typically present in diverse teams ciated with information-processing effects of diversity (Stahl
can be perceived as highly challenging, and indeed multi- et al., 2010). These aspects of culture are less accessible to a
cultural teams tend to experience lower social integration, group, but are often the source of new information and
which often makes it difficult for them to turn creative idea- knowledge. If team members focus on deep-level aspects
generation into performance-enhancing innovation. On the of culture, they may also be more inclined to examine the
other, success in surmounting these barriers can lead to high benefits of the different perspectives for creativity and
levels of member satisfaction, and further to a virtuous circle innovation. This may be associated with deeper interaction,
of mutual motivation improving team processes. Working and directing more effort to the explaining of ideas more care-
solving problems together increase trust between the team fully, and better listening and feedback — that is, richer and
members, which makes them more willing to share knowl- more effective communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986).
edge and collaborate (Levin & Cross, 2004; Uzzi, 1997; These results therefore raise the intriguing possibility that if
Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). This argument is consis- multicultural teams make deep-level elements of cultural
tent with previous POS research, in that it emphasizes the diversity salient, their communication may, in fact, become
importance of process dynamics, synergy and learning (Dut- more effective than that of monocultural teams, and the
ton & Sonenshein, 2007). By assuming that cultural diversity potential process losses can be overcome and turned into
is associated with dissatisfaction — based on the more gen- process gains. This chain of possibilities is speculative, but it
eral research on diversity — the field of international man- is in line with the POS process perspective and seems to
agement has missed an important POS contribution in terms provide a feasible explanation for the nuanced results of the
of process gains derived from the satisfaction that team meta-analysis.
members get from exposure to learning and overcoming A complementary process-based explanation could be
challenges (as opposed to direct gains or losses in relation related to the dynamics that lead to satisfaction, and the
to initial conditions). process of creating positive interactions over time. If the
team context provides opportunities for team members to
Cultural diversity and communication interact socially as well as to engage intensively in the work
effectiveness at hand, and if they find this satisfying and motivating, then
over time the surface-level cultural characteristics may
Previous research has suggested that cultural differences can cease to act as a barrier. Piekkari and Zander (2005:8)
disturb the communication process (e.g., Brett & Okumura, propose that ‘‘communication is achieved through people
1998; Gelfand & McCusker, 2002; Von Glinow, Shapiro, & and can thrive through them, for example, by using high-
Brett, 2004). Another unexpected finding of the Stahl involvement measures. . .’’. Multinational teams provide a
et al. (2010) meta-analysis was that cultural diversity had context in which employees need to communicate with each
444 G.K. Stahl et al.

other across linguistic as well as cultural boundaries (Butler & Conclusion and implications for future
Zander, 2008). Forming interpersonal bonds across surface- research
level cultural aspects over time develops interpersonal trust
and can give way for a better understanding of deep-level
We have in this paper focused on applying a POS lens to
cultural elements, further improving communication effec-
multicultural teams to explore positive aspects of cross-
tiveness. Thus, focusing on deep-level aspects of cultural
cultural dynamics in teams, and identify some of the pro-
diversity may actually provide an enabler of communication,
cesses underlying these effects. While practitioner and
rather than a barrier, that has remained undetected in the
anecdotal articles often extol the potential benefits of
extant problem-based literature.
cultural diversity, a bias exists in multicultural team
Other potentially positive outcomes of cultural research towards studying the negative more than the posi-
diversity in teams tive. This negative bias has likely limited our understanding
of the conditions that promote the benefits of diversity and
of the mechanisms that foster these benefits, and has there-
There are several other team variables and processes that
fore limited the usefulness of the research to informed
may be enhanced by cultural diversity but have not been
practice. A positive lens can contribute by bringing addi-
investigated in many studies. For example, there is some
tional important insights about the conditions likely to foster
evidence to suggest that cultural diversity may have a
diversity’s benefits in culturally diverse teams and the
positive effect on diverse teams’ ability to learn (e.g.,
mechanisms responsible for such benefits. We explored here
Fiol, 1994; Herriot & Pemberton, 1995). Another poten-
in more depth key aspects of multicultural team perfor-
tially positive effect, as described above, has to do with
mance that are positive: creativity, satisfaction, and com-
reduced tendency towards group-think, group ethical deci-
munication, as well as touching on some other team
sion making and other such processes. More specifically,
variables such as multicultural teams’ learning ability and
social capital theory suggests that too much cohesiveness
their integrative role in global firms.
in the group may become a source of rigidity that hinders
From a POS perspective, a future research agenda on
the accomplishment of complex organizational tasks and
multicultural teams should focus on developing further in-
adaptation to change (Gargiulo & Benassi, 2000; Portes,
depth understanding of the processes, mechanisms and con-
1998). What is more, the above discussed virtuous circles
ditions through which cultural diversity promotes positive
of creativity, satisfaction, and communication are likely to
team outcomes, such as those discussed above. In order to
work cumulatively creating a positively reinforcing feed-
fine-tune our understanding of processes and boundary con-
back loop furthering learning for the team members, and
ditions, it will be important to study enablers and contextual
contributing to the development of improved group pro-
moderators, actors’ motivations, and intervening mechan-
cesses, and increased team capability.
isms more systematically. A process perspective seems par-
Additionally, teams have been proposed to be at the
ticularly suited for this, as many of the positive outcomes
‘‘heart of globalization’’ (Snow, Snell, Canney Davison, &
identified above may arise from team-internal processes. In
Hambirk, 1996) with multicultural teams acting as ‘‘glue’’
other words, it may be that although cultural diversity serves
across countries, cultures and languages (Maloney & Zellmer-
as an initial condition, its ultimate effects on team outcomes
Bruhn, 2006; Zander & Butler, 2010). To examine whether,
may be dependent on whether consequent internal processes
and how, such non-tangible, yet important positive organiza-
develop into virtuous or vicious circles. As aptly expressed by
tional outcomes are achieved through the use of diverse
Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO of Nissan and Renault,
teams in global organization necessitates a process perspec-
‘‘cultural differences can be viewed as either a handicap
tive. For example, team members who have experienced an
or a powerful seed for something new’’ (cited in Emerson,
overall positive team process are likely to retain contact with
2001). This article is a first step towards redressing this bias
their fellow team members even after the team has been
so that positive phenomena receive their fair share of rig-
dissolved. This contact provides horizontal connections
orous and systematic investigation, and more research is
between organizational units, which help accomplish tasks
urgently called forth.
in the organization (Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006). A
positive process perspective could examine and map how
multicultural teams act as globalization vehicles effectively Acknowledgements
‘‘gluing’’ differing cultural contexts throughout the organi-
zation together, instead of basing such person-to-person We gratefully thank the special issue editors Ingmar Björk-
exchanges primarily on interpersonal similarity (Mäkelä, man, Eero Vaara and Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen for insightful
Kalla, & Piekkari, 2007) or language commonalities comments throughout the process. We would also like to
(Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999). thank the special issue editors and the participants of the
Finally, we find it remarkable that earlier POS research, by workshop on the beautiful Tunnholmen in the Finnish archi-
focusing on individuals and organizations, has largely pelago in August 2010, for inspirational and constructive
neglected the study of teams. Individuals’ positive trait-like feedback.
states, such as optimism, hope, efficacy, and resilience, can
create synergistic effects in teams, and it is possible that if References
one person in a team embodies these states the entire team
can benefit. High-performing teams can create positive con- Adler, N., & Graham, J. L. (1989). Cross-cultural interaction: The
tagious effects throughout an organization, while boosting international comparison fallacy? Journal of International Busi-
the states of individual members. ness Studies, 20, 515—537.
A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity 445

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. Eds. Research in organizational
Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Sci- behavior. Vol. 6 (pp.191—233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.
ence, 3, 321—341. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information
Ancona, D. G., & Isaacs, K. (2007). Structural balance in teams. In J. requirement, media richness and structural determinants. Man-
E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at agement Science, 32(5), 554—571.
work (pp. 225—243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. David, K., & Singh, H. (1994). Sources of acquisition cultural risk. In
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the G. Krogh, A. Sinatra, & H. Singh (Eds.), The management of
organization. Academy of Management, 13, 20—39. corporate acquisitions (pp. 251—292). Houndmills: Macmillan.
Bachmann, A. S. (2006). Melting pot or tossed salad? Implications for DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with
designing effective multicultural workgroups. Management Inter- diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics,
national Review, 46(6), 721—747. 29, 45—63.
Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign entry, Drogendijk, R., & Zander, L. (2010). Walking the cultural distance: In
cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, search of direction beyond friction. In Devinney, T. M., Pedersen,
17, 151—166. T., & Tihanyi, L. Eds. Advances in international management. Vol.
Basadur, M. H., & Head, M. (2001). Team performance and satisfac- 23 (pp.189—212). .
tion: A link to cognitive style within a process framework. Journal Dutton, J. E., & Glynn, M. A. (2007). Positive organizational schol-
of Creative Behavior, 35, 227—248. arship. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior.
Baugh, S. G., & Graen, G. B. (1997). Effect of team gender and Dutton, J. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2007). Positive organizational schol-
racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross- arship. In S. Lopez & A. Beauchamps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
functional teams. Group & Organization Management, 22, positive psychology. London: Blackwell Publishing.
366—383. Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies,
(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 37, 922—931.
5(4), 323—370. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. A. (2000). Creating hybrid team
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning.
Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26—49.
knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Emerson, V. (2001). An interview with Carlos Ghosn, President of
Review, 27, 204—221. Nissan motors, and industry leader of the year. Journal of World
Björkman, I., Stahl, G. K., & Vaara, E. (2007). Cultural differences Business, 36, 3—10.
and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The mediat- Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations.
ing roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and Organization Science, 5, 403—420.
social integration. Journal of International Business Studies, Fredrickson, B. L., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Unpacking positive orga-
38(4), 658—672. nizing: Organizations as sites of individual and group flourishing.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a compre- The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 1—3.
hensive model of international adjustment: An integration of Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E., & Schneider, S. C. (2003). Experiencing
multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Re- diversity, conflict, and emotions in teams. Applied Psychology: An
view, 16, 291—317. International Review, 52, 413—440.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network
Press. cohesion, structural holes and the adaptation of social capital.
Brett, J. K., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotia- Organization Science, 11(2), 183—196.
tion: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the micro-
Journal, 40, 371—510. foundations of capabilities development. Organization Science,
Brickson, S. L. (2008). Re-assessing the standard: The expansive 16, 599—617.
positive potential of a relational identity in diverse organizations. Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 40—54. backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative
Butler, C. L., & Zander, L. (2008). The business of teaching and Science Quarterly, 45, 113—137.
learning through multicultural teams. Journal of Teaching in Gelfand, M. J., & McCusker, C. (2002). Metaphor and the cultural
International Business, 19(2), 192—218. construction of negotiation: A paradigm for theory and research.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Boston: Harvard University Press. In M. Gannon & K. I. Newman (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic management (pp. 292—314). New York: Blackwell.
Press. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.),
Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp. 315—342). Englewood
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7—24. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak
positive organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scien- ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adminis-
tist, 47(6), 766—790. trative Science Quarterly, 44, 82—111.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of Harzing, A.-W. (2004). The role of culture in entry-mode studies:
positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dut- From neglect to myopia? Advances in International Management,
ton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 15, 75—127.
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3—13). San Francisco: Hardagon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and
Berrett-Koehler Publishers. innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Sci-
Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organisations: Theory, re- ence Quarterly, 42, 716—749.
search, and practice. San Francisco: Benett-Koehler Publishers. Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1995). New deals: The revolution in
Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implica- managerial careers. Chichester, New York: Wiley.
tions for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Manage- Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differ-
ment Executive, 5, 45—56. ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand
approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In Oaks: Sage.
446 G.K. Stahl et al.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. W., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National cultural distance
(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of Interna-
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. tional Business Studies, 29(1), 137—158.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Mäkelä, K., Kalla, H. K., & Piekkari, R. (2007). Interpersonal similar-
Issues in managing an increasingly diverse workforce. In S. ity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corpora-
Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and tions. International Business Review, 16(1), 1—22.
productivity. Newbury Park: Sage. Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longevity in global strategic alliances. Journal of International
longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Business Studies, 20, 579—601.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238—251. Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and
demographic heterogeneity and team leader—team member de- individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9,
mographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group 712—721.
and Organization Management, 29, 334—368. Piekkari, R., & Zander, L. (2005). Preface: Language and communi-
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the cation in international management. International Studies of
choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, Management and Organization, 3(51), 3—9.
19(3), 411—432. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1—24.
perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge
50, 569—598. transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative
Krug, J. A., & Nigh, D. (1998). Top management departures in cross- Science Quarterly, 48, 240—268.
border acquisitions. Journal of International Management, 4, Reus, T. H., & Lamont, B. T. (2009). The double-edged sword of
267—287. cultural distance in international business. Journal of Interna-
Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., Mendenhall, M. E., & McNett, J. tional Business Studies, 40(8), 1298—1316.
(2004). Handbook of global management: A Guide to managing Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J. L. (2003). Managing across cultures
complexity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. (2nd ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., & Dietz, J. (2009). Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more
International management behavior: Leading with a global mind- rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural
set (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32,
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and 519—536.
faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Shenkar, O., Luo, Y., & Yeheskel, O. (2008). From ‘distance’ to
Academy of Management Review, 23, 325—340. ‘friction’ substituting metaphors and re-directing intercultural
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. research. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 905—923.
(2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and Slangen, A. H. L. (2006). National cultural distance and initial foreign
their implications for future research. Journal of International acquisition performance: The moderating effect of integration.
Business Studies, 36, 357—378. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 161—170.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Canney Davison, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C.
trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company.
Management Science, 50, 1477—1490. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50—67.
Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connec- Spreitzer, G. M. (2006). Leading to grow and growing to lead:
tivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Leadership development lessons from positive organizational
Scientist, 47, 740—765. studies. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 305—315.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership develop- Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling
ment. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of
Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241—258). San Francisco: research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International
Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Business Studies, 41, 690—709.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational Stahl, G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences matter in
behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321—349. mergers and acquisitions? A tentative model and meta-analytic
Maloney, M. M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2006). Building bridges, win- examination. Organization Science, 19, 160—176.
dows and cultures: Mediating mechanisms between team hetero- Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the
geneity and performance in global teams. Management benefits of diversity. All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive
International Review, 46(6), 697—720. organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a ence, 44, 116—133.
difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), Suutari, V., & Mäkelä, K. (2007). The career capital of managers with
31—55. global careers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7), 628—
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999). In the shadow: 648.
The impact of language on structure, power and communication Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual
in the multinational. International Business Review, 8, Review of Psychology, 33, 1.
421—440. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-
Martins, L. L., Miliken, F., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Salgado, S. R. (2003). group behaviour. In D. D. Tjosvold (Ed.), Working together to get
Racioethnic diversity and group members’ experiences. Group things done: Managing for organizational productivity. Lexing-
and Organization Management, 28, 75—106. ton, MA: Lexington Books.
McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A. (1992). The effects of ethnic diversity on Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia:
idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Best Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal,
Paper Proceedings. 21, 1147—1161.
McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm net-
feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociol- works: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science
ogy, 27, 415—444. Quarterly, 42, 35—67.
A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity 447

Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457—476. diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Com-
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. paring homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Man-
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515—541. agement Journal, 36, 590—602.
Von Glinow, M.-A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. L. (2004). Can we talk Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds: The dynamics of networks
and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural between order and randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
teams. Academy of Management, 29, 578—592. sity Press.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in
Ward, C. (2003). Psychological theories of culture contact and their organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in
implications for training and intervention. In D. Landis, J. Ben- Organizational Behavior, 20, 77—140.
nett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Exploring the effects of
ed., pp. 185—216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Or-
Watson, W. E., & Kumar, K. (1992). Factors associated with differ- ganization Science, 9, 141—159.
ences in decision-making regarding risk-taking: A comparison of Zander, L., & Butler, C. L. (2010). Leadership modes: Success strate-
culturally homogeneous and culturally heterogeneous groups. gies for multicultural teams. Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
The International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 53—65. ment, 26(3), 258—267.

You might also like