How to Manage GVTs—Dos and Don’ts for Culture and Decision Making for Global Leaders
In a multinational corporate setting, a global virtual team (GVT) leader must be culturally competent so that he or she can maximize the synergistic value of working in a heterogeneous team. In addition, a GVT leader must be technologically competent in order to fully exploit the multifunctional collaborative tools necessary for working virtually. In this chapter, I provide some useful decision-making strategies for GVT managers that take into account the influence of differing cultures. I provide culturally based guidelines in terms of the dos and don’ts for managing GVTs effectively and developing high-performing teams.
A key question that arises that global leaders in multinational corporations need to deal with when managing GVTs is “How do cultural values influence the decision-making process?” Hence, in this chapter, we look at one example: a study of the contributions of the globally distributed members of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society to the decision-making process. Based on a broad analysis of their overall participation in the decision-making process, the study’s findings showed significant differences between members with high-context (HC) and low-context (LC) communicative orientations. Culture, in the form of intercultural communication styles and cultural values, does indeed have an impact on the manner in which members participate in the decision-making process and the strategies that they employ (Adler 1997). This was visible in the behaviors of Civil Society participants at all stages, from the initial expression of their concerns through the presentation of their views and opinions and their responses to and deliberations on proposals to the final stage in which the group reached consensus or solved a problem.
Given such understanding, strategies need to be developed in line with the vision, mission, and objective of the organizations, as well as the culturally diverse backgrounds of the members who participate in GVTs. Global leaders of GVTs need to attune their behaviors in order to achieve a cultural fit when confronted with several challenges of culture: national culture, organizational culture, and teamwork culture, because of diversity of the GVT members’ characteristics, cultural values, and teamwork dynamics.
Managing Distributed Decision Making in a GVT
The following suggested dos and don’ts offer guidelines for the global leaders of GVTs. They are intended to promote effective decision making when team members are collaborating at a distance. Since culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the way decisions are made within a team, global leaders need to train HC and LC members to work together efficiently and effectively to achieve the best overall performance. Table 16.1 summarizes these guidelines, which are based on a high level of comparison between HC and LC, to illuminate the cultural patterns of decision making within a GVT. The next section explores the dos and don’ts in more detail in terms of four additional cultural dimensions: (1) collectivism versus individualism, (2) neutral versus specific communication styles, (3) time orientation: polychronic versus monochronic, and (4) relationship oriented versus task oriented.
Table 16.1 Comparison of HC and LC Strategies, Approaches, and Mannerisms Employed during Stages of the Decision-Making Process
Cultural Orientation Decision-Making Stage | High Context | Low Context |
Problem | • Seldom uses words like problem explicitly • Uses a circuitous approach when expressing concerns or issues | • Jumps straight to the point • Clearly states the problem upfront, e.g., “Is there a wireless connection?” |
Proposal | • Begins proposals with a formal tone and address, e.g., “Dear all…” • Provides context first using indirect phrases, then expresses views | • Begins proposals with a goal statement and assertion • States points succinctly and clearly |
Solution | • Presents decisions in an appreciative and courteous manner | • Informs others of their decisions in a direct and precise manner |
The Dos and Don’ts of Cultural Orientation for GVT Leaders
So, what should you do and what should you avoid doing when managing a GVT whose members come from diverse cultural backgrounds? When communicating with GVT members who are culturally disparate, consider the following actions based on four aspects of culture.
1. Collectivistic versus individualistic
High context: HC members are accustomed to a collectivistic society. They incorporate creativity and innovative thinking (“Two minds are better than one”) in order to obtain synergies from others. The more ideas that are generated, the more dynamic the deliberation processes, which, in turn, results in higher-quality decisions. Collegiality, dynamism, and cohesiveness are important for collectivistic members so that they feel a strong sense of belonging among the members in GVTs. A GVT leader must be alert and diplomatic when managing discussions so that both types of voices are heard. Once these expectations are clearly established, he or she should strive to develop a personal relationship with each of the members, and he himself or she herself must observe the milestones that are set in order for HC members to follow his or her lead. With both collective and hierarchical relationships established, HC members will feel obligated, as well as motivated, to perform at their best. HC members need guidance to become goal-oriented team players and take responsibility for the tasks that are assigned to them; a good first step is empowering them to make their own decisions. HC members need to avoid staying silent during deliberation because all parties must contribute their individual ingredients. In a GVT work environment, team spirit must be fostered, yet individual empowerment is also necessary. HC members may find it difficult to make decisions without going through their accustomed process of consensus building or referring to the big boss for approval. GVT leaders may need to help HC individuals become confident in making decisions and comfortable with being held accountable for the decisions made.
Low context: Team members from an individualistic culture normally ascribe to the concept of a single-person mind when coming up with ideas or alternatives, agendas, outcomes, and objectives when pursuing a task. An individualistic team member prefers to stand on his or her own two feet and is perfectly willing to be held accountable for each of the decisions made. GVT leaders must allow this kind of work environment to emerge since, for those from an individualistic culture, the process of decision making takes a straightforward and sequential path. Ideas are generated—as many as possible—and deliberation is carried out as objectively as possible to obtain the best possible outcome. Goal-oriented discussions are much appreciated by such people and are valued more than emotional or relationship-building discussions. The more ideas that spring from individuals on the team, the deeper the discussions become since all decisions can be evaluated in terms of cost–benefit analysis. However, HC cultures need to be educated to be brave in giving their ideas, no matter what, so that each individual is appreciated. LC members, by contrast, need to sustain their individualistic selves so that they can be creative and innovative in their solutions while still striving to be a team player in the GVT context.
2. Specific versus neutral communication styles
High context: Since HC team members come from collectivistic cultures, the way they communicate is largely dependent on the person to whom they are sending the message. They will communicate differently with those in their in-group (those with whom they have a strong relationship, close friends, spouse, and family members) than with those in their out-group (e.g., strangers or casual acquaintances). HC individuals also communicate differently based on the message recipient’s level of authority, tending to be cautious and formal in their speech when communicating with those above them. For this reason, GVT leaders will need to employ a context-dependent manner of communicating. They will need to take time to discover the implicit and covert messages hidden in HC team members’ statements. HC individuals tend to employ an indirect style with people whom they do not know in order to establish a relationship. Their speech takes a formal tone, more cautious and polite. However, HC individuals employ a direct communication style when they have a strong relationship with someone, such as family members or close friends; they use a less formal tone and/or terse messages, as they expect the recipient to understand what they intended to say—to read their minds—due to their long-standing relationship. In HC cultures, even simple nonverbal gestures such as nodding the head can be a clear message to those whom they are close to.
Low context: LC individuals seldom make a distinction between the in-group and the out-group. As a result, their communication style is quite consistent; no one is treated differently in terms of how they are spoken to. LC people strive to be exact, clear, and precise so that messages are delivered efficiently and succinctly. Messages are articulated in a way that facilitates comprehension of the task to be undertaken; sometimes, such messages can be perceived by HC members as brusque, harsh, abrupt, or tactless. GVT leaders may need to educate HC team members about the clarity and brevity of messages delivered by their LC colleagues, explaining that LC people are clear and brief not out of rudeness or insensitivity but because they place a higher importance on the message’s content than on its context. LC members are goal oriented since they are individualistic in nature; their aim is to complete the task that is assigned to them as efficiently as possible, without regard to any relationships with other members of the team. GVT leaders may also need to educate LC team members on how to express their individualistic ideas in a more congenial manner, toning down their dominant voice in order to be perceived properly by their HC colleagues.
3. Time orientation: Rigid versus flexible
High context: HC individuals have a polychronic time orientation, meaning that they view time as elastic and do not perceive urgency unless specifically directed so by a superior. At the beginning of a GVT project, leaders need to clearly brief HC individuals about the rules and procedures so that they understand their roles and tasks. This briefing will give HC team members a sense of responsibility and a strong motivation to actively support the team-based GVT work structure instead of attempting to handle their tasks individually. Leaders must also inform HC members of punctuality and efficiency expectations in terms of adhering to the schedule and milestones, including the importance of meeting deadlines. HC members also need to be educated about concepts of timeliness and time discipline. Make sure that the time taken to arrive at decisions is well managed and controlled to avoid excessive delays in decision making. Since HC members are used to receiving ideas and instructions in a top–down manner, it is often not easy for them to suggest ideas in the early stages of a project, for the fear that their ideas may be rejected. Openness in attitude and support from the leader and other members will encourage them to participate sooner, and gentle nudges from the leader will help them move forward within the given deadlines.
Given the short time frame of most GVT projects, leaders may need to guide HC members more firmly regarding what needs to be done in the early stages so as to move the project along. Since HC members come from a high power distance culture in which the leader or superior (boss) provides instructions, only then will they feel a sense of urgency to follow through. Leaders will also need to caution their LC members to be patient and to recognize the HC’s need for a more bureaucratic process. For decision making in GVTs, it is important to understand the challenges that are presented by different team dynamics when there are members who are relationship oriented rather than task oriented. The relationship-oriented members will tend to have a different view of the task. They believe in ensuring that people can work together cohesively and collegially. Team members must therefore experience a rapport- and trustbuilding phase in the beginning rather than jumping straight to the work. All of this is time consuming, and, when decisions need to be reached, this happens through a process of idea exchanges and deliberation. Thus, HC members may not be observant and follow through the timelines set because they need to protect the harmonious work environment among the members.
Low context: LC individuals tend to take a monochronic view of time and employ a sequential way of doing things. Each task has its own process, and the process follows a systematic progression from point A to point B in a timely and efficient manner. For LC individuals, negotiation regarding the timeline is acceptable as long as it is based on clear strategies for how the task will be followed through and completed. For this reason, in certain conditions and under certain circumstances, LC individuals can say “No” to their boss and disagree with his or her decisions, particularly when deadlines are not being met, and they observe deviations from the planned schedule. For LC members, time is money and thus cannot be wasted or neglected. LC team members are sensitive to the need to comply with the conditions, as stipulated in the contract, that clearly establish milestones and outcomes. Timeliness is crucial, and hence any incompatibilities or obstacles need to be avoided or swiftly dealt with at any cost. If a team member encounters problems in the tasks assigned to him or her, LC individuals expect him or her to voice his or her concerns immediately and find solutions to the problem, whether unforeseen or foreseen. Task-oriented team members also tend to start the team process by outlining the procedures and tasks to be accomplished. They will be efficient in providing all the instructions that are needed to get started and normally will not waste any time getting started. In short, GVT leaders need to prepare both HC and LC members to be proactive, as well as reactive, and to align their behaviors with the decisions to be made. If clashes do arise, the deliberation necessary to resolve them may take less time when the members are sensitive to time factors.
4. Relationship building versus task orientation
High context: In the early phases of team formation, leaders need to create a warm environment for HC members in order to establish rapport and inculcate trust. HC team members who feel comfortable from the outset will be at ease throughout the rest of the team’s work. The glue that bonds a cohesive team is how intensely the members feel for each other and how strong a sense of belonging the members feel, since HC individuals regard relationships as highly important. To create this sense of belonging, GVT leaders can use warm-up sessions or getting-to-know-you sessions during the team’s early days. Studies have shown that teams that meet at least once with all members present, whether physically or virtually, perform much better than teams that have no opportunity to meet at all during the span of their project. GVT leaders may want to consider using Skype or other technology so that members have an opportunity to see each other face to face. HC individuals need to feel that their leaders and fellow team members are willing to invest time in getting to know them, so these types of activities are paramount for GVTs since the team may have few chances to meet face to face. Once HC individuals sense interest from their colleagues, they are more willing to move the job along efficiently.
Low context: Although a sense of rapport is important for LC individuals, their priority is more on the task to be accomplished. They emphasize a clear understanding of tasks and outcomes rather than fostering relationships. GVT leaders need to provide LC team members with clear plans, agendas, and milestones so that project goals can be met efficiently and on time. Leaders also need to keep LC members regularly updated on progress. Thus, GVT leaders need to consider both macro and micro levels of planning. LC individuals favor logical thinking and reasoning in their decision making, and task takes priority over relationships, so leaders must foster in their LC members an awareness of the importance of balancing task and relationship building in working with their HC colleagues. LC team members need clear objectives and deadlines, but merely assigning tasks to be carried out without any attention to relationship building will discourage and alienate their HC colleagues.
An analysis of the active participants in the WSIS decision-making process clearly showed that HC and LC participants contributed almost equally in all three stages—(1) problem identification, (2) proposal making, and (3) solution. However, when the findings were further explored in terms of how the individuals participated in the decision-making process, the two cultural orientations showed differences in strategies, approaches, and mannerisms. At each stage of the decision-making process, the participants exhibited unique behaviors depending on whether they were high or low context. Tables 16.2 and 16.3 summarize the differences in behavior between HC and LC individuals and the related dos-and-don’ts behavior guidelines.
Table 16.2 Distinction of Cultural Values between HC and LC
Cultural Values of High Context | Cultural Values of Low Context |
Credibility and trustworthiness. MNCs need to provide all team members with ample background information about each other in order to reduce uncertainties and anxieties about who they will be working with. This information will also help establish a sense of the trustworthiness of the members. | Reliability and performance. Provide clear goals and timelines so that these team members can plan, organize, and coordinate their tasks. Members also need to understand the credibility of their fellow team members, e.g., know something about their past performance, in order to assess their reliability and the quality of their work. |
Rapport building. Leaders need to hold a warm-up session—a getting-to-know-you session early in the forming of the team, for example, a face-to-face or videoconferencing meeting, to give team members a chance to actually see each other’s faces and observe nonverbal cues. | Task orientation. Leaders need to ensure that tasks are clearly identified and delegated to team members. Members need to feel that they have ownership in terms of performing the task assigned to them. |
Nonavoidance approach to conflict resolution. Leaders need to intervene when members experience conflicts. Members from an HC culture will use either avoidance or a nonconfrontational strategy once they trust their colleagues. | Confrontational conflict resolution. If conflicts arise, leaders need to think strategically about how to manage them. Oftentimes, the best strategy is to seek a win–win result wherein members deliberate on the best outcome and arrive at a solution that satisfies all parties. |
Consensus decision making. The decision-making process is based on two key aspects: | Empowerment in decision making. Since individualistic cultures operate based on self-reliant thinking and autonomous decision making, members of this culture need to feel empowered in decision making. They cannot be told what to do for the sake of following or complying with what others are doing. |
Source: Adapted from Mohd Yusof, S.A. & Zakaria, N., Exploring the State of Discipline on the Formation of Swift Trust within Global Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Jan. 4–7, Maui, HI, pp. 475–482, 2012.
Table 16.3 High-Level Comparison of Decision-Making Behaviors by Cultural Context
High Context | Low Context |
• Begin message using formal salutation or initial greetings • Introduce initial paragraph with compliments, gratitude, and appreciation • Use polite or padded words to express feelings or to avoid being frank • Seek approval by asking questions instead of disclosing real intentions or opinions • Write lengthy messages without clear direction or focus (at times) | • Begin message with informal or no salutation • Jump into the subject matter straightaway and express feelings clearly • State opinions first, then soften with polite words (e.g., say thank you but not until late in the message) • Use succinct, brief, assertive, and concise words to make a point • Write lengthy messages with lots of detail when giving instructions or explanations about the assertions made |
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Mohd Yusof, S.A. & Zakaria, N. 2012. Exploring the State of Discipline on the Formation of Swift Trust within Global Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Jan. 4–7, Maui, HI, pp. 475–482.