Các khía cạnh văn hóa và sự đa dạng văn hóa trong các nhóm dự án quốc tế: Chìa khóa thành công trong kỷ nguyên hội nhập và toàn cầu hóa

Nội dung text: Các khía cạnh văn hóa và sự đa dạng văn hóa trong các nhóm dự án quốc tế: Chìa khóa thành công trong kỷ nguyên hội nhập và toàn cầu hóa

1. CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN INTERNATIONAL PROJECT TEAMS: KEY SUCCESS FACTORS IN THE ERA OF INTEGRATION AND GLOBALISATION CÁC KHÍA CẠNH VĂN HÓA VÀ SỰ ĐA DẠNG VĂN HÓA TRONG CÁC NHÓM DỰ ÁN QUỐC TẾ: CHÌA KHÓA THÀNH CÔNG TRONG KỶ NGUYÊN HỘI NHẬP VÀ TOÀN CẦU HÓA Pham Trung Tien, PhD Thuongmai University Abstract In the era of integration and globalisation, with the growing trend in number of international (multicultural) project teams, it is proved that business success is based on the effectiveness in management of diversity. Based on the Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions, this paper summarises literature about the charateristics of multicultural project teams. Therefore, the study discusses advatages and disadvatages of cultural diversity and stresses the effects of cultural diversity on multicultural project team activities Throught these discussions, the paper contributes to knowledge about cultural diversity and international project teams. Consequently, this paper highlights major recommendations to the team leaders or project managers to improve the management effectiveness of cultural diversity in international project teams. Keywords: cultural dimensions, cultural diversity, project teams Tóm tắt Từ khóa: các khía cạnh văn hóa, đa dạng văn hóa, nhóm dự án Introduction It is widely accepted that projects are implemented by team’s activities. Therefore, the achievement and performance of a project depend on how the project manager and the team leader manage their project team. Can they create and foster the cooperative and mutual understanding environment among the team members. Team working is not individuals work separately in a team but all the members have to work collaboratively to reach common goals. 975
2. Project teams, in which individuals from previously loosely coupled areas in an organization are brought together to perform complex or specialized tasks of a multidisciplinary nature, represent an important type of group in organizations (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). A project team is built and developed for one main purpose: complete the assigned task by a certain date or dates, and then disband. Unlike a permanent group, it has a definite life span. The imposition of this time frame and assured impermanence are key factors driving the differences in the ways temporary group members perceive their working relationships with the group (Bryman et al., 1987). In order to identify the key factor that lead to high levels of team performance, Ammeter and Dukerich (2002) conducted a survey with interviews to team members from 151 project teams in the engineering and construction industry. The survey focused on project team leader behaviors, use of team building, and team member characteristics as predictors of project cost and schedule performance. Leader behaviors were found to be significant predictors of project cost performance, and neither team building nor team member characteristics were considered to be significant predictors of performance. Heimer (1994) argues that international project teams (also known as multicultural project teams) are where most of the boundary spanning works in international enterprise goes on, therefore they are crucial factor in organizational success and a positive catalyst for individual’s success. The ability to build, to manage and to work with international project teams is seen as a key developer of a broader international outlook. International project teams contribute to sharing information, knowledge and resources across boundaries, creating and fostering corporate culture and values. They also are convincing examples of best practice. A multicultural project team is defined as a team that “made up of members with differing cultural, ethnic, and corporate backgrounds” (Miller et al, 2000, p18). In the economic integration and globalization context, there is increasing trend in number of multicultural project team. Many organizations are convinced that they can improve their flexibility and responsiveness in increasing competitive environments through deployment of multicultural project teams (Iles and Hayers, 1997). For example, Xerox Corporation formed a project to develop a “world copier” with the participation of Japanese and US engineers and Eastman Kodak implement a project to promote the photo CD simultaneously in European countries (Iles and Hayers, 1997). This paper discusses the cultural issues that the project manager or the team leader have to concern among a multicultural project team through four main points: defining diversity as an important characteristic of multicultural project teams; reviewing cultural dimensions and cultural diversity; identifying the advantages and disadvantages of cultural diversity in project teams and discussing some key points that the project manager have to concern in managing diversity in multicultural project teams. Diversity - characteristic of multicultural project teams Diversity is one important characteristic that remarkably contributes to the effectiveness of a project team. Diversity is known as the term refers to the different 976
3. experiences, ages, gender, expertise, personality, culture, background of the project team (Iles and Hayers, 1997). Recent field research reveals that diversity can build more powerful solutions. It helps the organizations to respond more effectively to their widely diverse markets and thereby gain competitive advantages. Parker (1996) introduces an understanding and appreciation of the differences as fundamental factor to the effective team. Similarly, Losoncy (1997) argues that team success partially because of inherent respect for the individual asset that each team member brings in the form of his or her individual, unique skills. Natale et al (1998) conducted an interview with this question “what is the surest sign that leadership understands the concept of individuality and strength in difference”. The result was 187 out of 200 answered a firm belief in the power of diversity. Although there are variety kinds of diversity, this paper only focuses on the cultural diversity in multicultural project teams. Cultural dimensions and cultural diversity - Hofstede’s framework From 1967 to 1973, Hofstede (1983) conducted research with 116,000 questionnaires from more than 72,000 employees working in 66 different national subsidiaries of IBM Corporation (named Hermes in the research). There were four dimensions of culture identified and named: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity (Hofstede, 1983). In 1991, based on a study of student’s values in 23 countries, the fifth dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation or the Confucian dynamic was added (Hofstede, 1991). Nearly twenty year later, in 2010, the final dimension, indulgence versus restraint was added in the third edition of the author’s well-known book, Software of the Mind (Hofstede et al., 2010). Hofstede et al. (2010, p 61) defined power distance (PDI) as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”. In addition, this dimension was explained with the perceptions of behaviour of both supervisors and their subordinates, mostly in organisational decision-making processes (Hofstede, 1983). Power distance scores indicate the dependence relationship in a country. In low power distance score countries, subordinates are limited dependent and have small emotional distance with their bosses. In contrast, for high power distance score cultures, there is considerable dependence of subordinates on bosses and also, there is extensive emotional distance between subordinates and their bosses (Hofstede et al., 2010). Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) was defined as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.191). The feeling of uncertainty creates anxiety and is manifested in a need for predictability: a need for written and unwritten rules (Hofstede et al., 2010). The individualism versus collectivism dimension (IDV) was defined with two opposite poles. Individualism “pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him- or herself and his or her immediate family” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.92). In contrast, collectivism “pertains to societies in 977
4. which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.92). The fourth dimension, masculinity versus femininity (MAS) represented the differences between gender roles among both traditional and modern societies (Hofstede et al., 2010). Therefore, a masculine society was defined as “when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.140). In contrast, a society is considered feminine “when emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.140). The fifth dimension added later, long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO) was defined as follows: “long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards- in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtue related to the past and present- in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p.239). The final dimension, called indulgence versus restraint (IVR), indulgence was defined as “a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun”. Its opposite pole, restraint reflects “a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 281). Table 1. Hofstede’s dimension values of some countries PDI index IDV index MAS UAI index LTO index IVR index (0-100) (0-100) index (0-100) (0-100) (0-100) (0-100) Australia 38 90 61 51 21 71 Germany 35 67 66 65 83 40 Great Britain 35 89 66 35 51 69 France 68 71 43 86 63 48 USA 40 91 62 46 26 68 China 80 20 66 30 87 24 India 77 48 56 40 51 26 Japan 54 46 95 92 88 42 Malaysia 104 26 50 36 41 57 Thailand 64 20 34 64 32 45 Vietnam 70 20 40 30 57 35 Adapted from Hofstede et al., 2010 The Hofstede’s framework is widely accepted as the most comprehensive framework to identified cultural dimensions (see Table 1). It contributes to the awareness of cultural differences and can be used to explain these differences. 978
5. Advantages of cultural diversity Firstly, it is believed that project teams with diverse members can be more innovative and creative in the way of thinking and perceiving than teams in which everyone shares the same background. In multicultural teams, multiple points of view can be brought to bear on any project problem. According to Kanter (1983) creativity feeds on diversity since every project team activities and decisions are based on every aspect not just certain elements. On the other hand, a homogeneous team, which all members share common cultural background, tends to have the same world of views. Members who have been educated in similar cultures share the same notions of values, believe in certain things and expect certain types of behavior. All of these things lead to the certain styles of working system are created and widely accepted. Although not all members of a homogeneous team will deal with problems uniformly, it is clear that certain normal attitudes can be happened. In some cultures, for example, Japan, modesty and quiet demeanor are valued (Fernandez, 1993). This belief can lead to hesitancy and more seriously, everyone thinks that since everyone else believes the same thing it must be a good idea. Secondly, multicultural project teams are more likely to come up with alternative solutions to a problem because different way of views and practical experiences often lead to different solutions to deal with problems. Nemeth (1986) argued that if the group environment values diversity and the differences in people, these solutions can be a more regular part of the project environment than in an equivalent homogeneous team. Thirdly, Hoffman (1961) stressed that the diverse team is more flexible in adapting to change. This is extremely important in project because of the continuingly changing nature of the work in any aspects. Many research found persuading evidence that members of minority groups are more flexible thinkers. This can be linked to the research showed that people who can speak more than one language have higher levels of divergent thinking and cognitive flexibility than monolingual people (Lambert, 1977). Disadvantages of cultural diversity It is clear to recognize that the multicultural project teams have to deal with communication problems. If entire team members grown in the same culture, they speak the same language, use the same words, expressions, meanings and also the same nonverbal cues to meaning. It is much easier for them to communicate and understand each others and then create the cooperative environment together. On the other hand, among multicultural project teams which members who speak different languages; many problems are derived. Even some team members can speak one common language, for example, English as the first language; they still have difficulties in comprehensive the strange dialects or accents. The problems are becoming severe with people who use English as foreign language. They may communicate effectively but lack understanding about idiomatic expressions that are used by the native speakers in the team. Due to poor communication, misunderstanding, tension and confusion are happened and more seriously, conflicts may be triggered. 979
6. In addition to communication problems, team cohesiveness is also worthy to be concerned. Everyone generally tend to link with people who have the same beliefs, values, language, and appearance. It is very difficult to create cohesiveness among members of multicultural project teams. Some of the advantages of multicultural team may become serious disadvantages if not be properly managed. For example, a huge number of alternative solutions to problems can be detrimental if no effective measures applied to identify which is the optimal to follow (Shephard, 1964). Also, if the project goals and scopes are not clearly perceived by all members, the commonality of purpose in every activity will be absent and decision making will become inefficient. Managing cultural diversity in project teams Managing multicultural project teams is a difficult and demanding job. It requires a broad range of skills, perceptions and political understanding to solve many unprecedented and unpredictable problems. Stallworthy and Kharbanda (1987) cited a number of examples where international project teams have run into numerous obstacles and disasters. Flexibility and responsiveness are considered as the key to effective multicultural project management teams. (Adler, 1991) According to Miller et al (2000), in order to manage effectively a multicultural project team, the project manager should have fully understanding and about some key points such as: team members’ personalities, group identifications and affiliations, common elements and the differences between people. The manager also have ability to apply properly some techniques namely applying fundamental human motivators, promoting communication, creating a flexible and accommodating system. Maznevski and Martha (1994) listed five key points that lead to diversity competencies namely having cultural awareness, promoting communication, acknowledging stereotypes, valuing differences and gaining synergy from the differences. These five points are very important and it needs efforts from the project manager to follow effectively. In order to broaden cultural awareness, according to Triandis et al (1965), informal sessions with small groups should be held to discuss the differences in cultural expectations. The differences should be ignored in the way of understanding but every member should learn as much as possible the differences to build a spirit of cooperation and enthusiasm. In term of promoting communication and understanding among project team, short sessions in communication techniques can be a useful solution. For example, team members will be provided with beneficial techniques to interpret the ideas or sentences, to make definition and explanation of difficult terms or vocabularies. These sessions are also the chances to tighten the relationship and to deepen the mutual understand through discussing the communicating issues and resolving any problems. It is usual that people tend to rely on stereotypes to help them understand an individual from different culture. They identify the group that they think this person belongs and then recall their memories of the group stereotypes. People use stereotypes and they seem to simplify the task of understanding someone or something. Iles and Hayers (1997) mentioned two big problems about relying on stereotypes as a tool to boost mental efficiency. Firstly, the assumptions about the 980
7. characteristics of the group are in question whether they are correct or not. Secondly, even if the assumptions about the group are reasonably correct, it is certainly not sure that the characteristic of the group will match the individual. Therefore, the project manager should not only depend on stereotypes but also need to value diversity. Valuing diversity means the manager must base on valid data to recognize the characteristics of a culture. Lastly, if all of above points are properly demonstrate, the project team will get the synergy of diversity in a cooperative environment. The differences between cultural backgrounds of team members are actually the resource or asset of multicultural project teams to achieve the goals. Conclusion International projects play an increasingly important role in boosting the performance and achievements of organizations in the present competitive environment. They also help the organizations broaden their knowledge, strengthen international relationships and improve their flexibility. Moreover, in the wide spreading economic integration and globalization trend, international projects are proved to be an integral part of every organization. Cultural diversity is believed that one of the most important characteristics of international project teams. That why international project teams are also known as other term- multicultural project teams. Many researches prove that cultural diversity makes the project team more creative, innovative in thinking and more flexible in operating. It not only benefits the project team but also positively contributes to the development of every project team members. On the other hand, cultural diversity also probably is the root of misunderstandings and conflicts occurred if not handled properly. Therefore, managing effectively cultural diversity is one of complicated and challenging task of every project managers or team leaders. Further theoretical and empirical research on cultural diversity and managing international project teams is neccesary and beneficial in the future. REFERENCES 1. Adler, N. J. 1991, International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, Kent Publishers, Boston, MA. 2. Ammeter, A. P. & Dukerich, J. M. 2002, ‘Leadership, team building and team member characteristics in high performance project teams’, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, December. 3. Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardsworth, A. D. et al. 1987, ‘The Concept of the Temporary System: The Case of the Construction Project’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 5, pp. 253-283. 4. Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. 1997, ‘What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite’, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 239-290. 5. Fernandez, J.P. 1993, The Diversity Advantage. How American Business Can Outperform Japanese and European Companies in the Global Marketplace, Lexington Books, New 981
8. York. 6. Heimer, C. 1994, Paper presented to conference on Training for Change, IAE, Aix-en- Provence, France. 7. Hoffman, L.R. & Maier, N.R.F. 1961, ‘Quality and Acceptance of Problem Solutions by Members of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp 401-407. 8. Hofstede, G 1983, ‘The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.14, Fall 1983, pp. 75-89. 9. Hofstede, G 1991, Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London, UK. 10. Hofstede, G, Hofstede, GJ & Minkov, M 2010, Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, 3rd edn, McGraw- Hill, USA. 11. Iles, P. &. Hayers, P. K. 1997, ‘Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model and case study’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 95- 117. 12. Kanter, R. M., 1983, The change masters, Simon & Schuster, New York. 13. Lambert, W. 1977, The Effects of Bilingualism on the Individual: Cognitive and Sociocultural Consequences in Bilingualism: Psychological, Social, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, San Diego. 14. Losoncy, L.E. 1997, The best team skills, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. 15. Maznevski, M. & Martha, L. 1994, ‘Understanding our differences’, Human Relations. May 94, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp 531-552, May. 16. Miller, M. D., Fields, R., Kumar, A. & Ortiz, R. 2000, ‘Leadership and organizational vision in managing a multiethnic and multicultural project team’, Journal of management in engineering, November/December. 17. Natale, S.M., Libertella, A.F. & Edwards, B., 1998, ‘Team management: developing concerns’, Team Performance Management, Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 319-330. 18. Nemeth, C. J. 1986, ‘Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence’, Psychological Review, Vol. 93, pp 23-32. 19. Parker, G.M. 1996, Team Players and Teamwork: The New Competitive Business Strategy, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 20. Shephard, C. R. 1964, Small Groups, Chandler Publishing, San Francisco. 21. Stallworthy, E. A. & Kharbanda, O. P. 1987, ‘The project manager in the 1990s’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp 3-75. 22. Triandis, H.C., Hall, E.R. & Ewen, R. B. 1965, ‘Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity’, Human Relations, Vol. 18, pp 33-55. 982