Value on Harmony vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value on Surfacing and Resolving Differences

One important measure of any high-performing team is how differences are addressed. Many Western, and certainly U.S., team-building techniques identify the differences among team members and then attempt to find a solution to deal with them. On the other hand, there are places in the world such as Southeast Asia where the value placed on harmony is so strong that to openly confront differences and upset the balance on the team would not be a way to achieve goals, show support, or build cohesion. Rather, it would disrupt any positive dynamics that exist on a team. Cultures that place a high value on harmony frequently use informal means to address differences, relying on behind-the-scenes negotiation and third-party intervention, not direct confrontation.

Emphasis on the Group vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emphasis on the Individual

It may seem like an oxymoron to talk about functioning on teams or work groups while emphasizing the importance of the individual in the same breath. But a preferred orientation, either toward the group or the individual, impacts numerous team functions, such as the reward system, work distribution, and expectations around accountability. In the collectivist cultures of Asia, emphasis on the group is natural and comfortable. Both pats on the back and discipline are given to the team as a whole so as not to single out or embarrass one person. Individual rewards are uncomfortable and not given. But in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, individualism is strong. Even in team efforts, there is an expectation that individual contributions and talent will be acknowledged or that accommodations will be made to take individual preferences into account. Not to make accommodations is to get less than the best from a large number of people who want their uniqueness accounted for as the group does its work.

Reconciling these two different orientations is essential if a team is to function effectively. When an international petrochemical company featured pictures of high-performing team members in the company newsletter, the responses varied widely. The German awardees were appalled at being praised at all, let alone publicly, for something they considered an expected job duty. The Americans didn't mind the praise but wanted it done privately with a note in their personnel files. The Latin American team members, on the other hand, enjoyed the public recognition of their accomplishment.

External Locus of Control vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Locus of Control

Whether one sees herself as responsible for and in charge of her own success and achievement in this world or as a person at the mercy of the fates makes a great difference in participation and orientation to the group work. Those who feel that outcomes in their lives are in large part determined by forces outside of their influence have an external locus of control. For example, one Indian-based project team will not start their work without a prayerful ritual. What shapes them, they believe, is more outside their sphere of influence than inside. This can impact demonstrations of initiative on a team and even what people define as possible or desirable to achieve. On the other hand, those who feel that they are masters of their own destiny have an internal locus of control. They feel they shape their own world. Imagine those two world views interacting on a global team. Those who have an external locus of control may contemplate plans and goals, but, for example, in the Muslim world end commitments with Inshallah, meaning "God willing" or "if it is meant to be, it will be." For example, when encouraged to apply for a promotion, a very talented woman from the Middle East living in Britain felt that if she was meant to have the promotion she would get it without being her own advocate. Meticulous planning may be irrelevant to people who have an external locus of control. On the other hand, if a person believes strongly that his actions shape the outcome of a team, he will be championing a proactive, interventionist role. While neither of these views is right or wrong, the different viewpoints certainly pose challenges for managers of global teams.

Status Based on Family or Affiliations vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status Based on Merit or Achievement

Connections, or who you know, matter in some way in every culture in the world. But how much status, entré, or access one gets because of belonging to a particular tribe, clan, family, or alumni group, as compared to how much status one gets based on job performance, definitely varies by culture. What is described as nepotism in Western culture in some parts of the world is considered doing your duty to your family, being loyal, and showing responsibility toward those you care about. What is described or seen as self-serving from an Asian cultural perspective in some parts of the world is considered self-actualization and career building.

On global teams where merit can collide with connection, who is given the opportunities and why is an area ripe for possible conflict. The key idea to remember when this issue surfaces is that, even in cultures that claim to value merit and accomplishment and tend to be more critical of employing family members, relationships and connections matter. There is no escaping the reality that who you know and what your name is have often opened doors.

Hierarchical Structure vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egalitarian Structure

Whether a national cultural preference is hierarchical, where titles, positions, and rank matter, or whether it is egalitarian, which suggests a more informal and flat structure, the impact of these differences on teams matters. In a hierarchical structure the tone is formal and there is a high degree of respect for positional authority. The implication is that the boss knows what he is doing and has the best ideas and suggestions. In an egalitarian structure, such as in the United Kingdom or Canada, what counts in terms of team influence is the knowledge and expertise one has. If you have marketing expertise and that's what is needed, you may shine. If technology is most critical on a given project, the IT expert may be a dominant influence. The "leader" changes with need. Formal position matters less than expertise required in a given situation. The structural differences pose great challenge on a global team. How comfortable will the Chinese employee be giving feedback to his British team leader? How might the U.S. petroleum engineer feel when his Venezuelan boss gives the team orders without asking for input?

Indirect Communication vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct Communication

In countries with an Anglo-Saxon heritage, there is a directness and a specificity to communication. For people from parts of the world where communication is more indirect, such as in Hispanic or Confucian heritage countries, such pointedness can also be seen as crass and rude and more subtle, circuitous communication is valued. Consider the potential clash of these two communication styles taken to extreme on a global team. U.S.-American, German, and other direct communicators may be frustrated with those who go out of their way to be subtle instead of getting to the point, and Japanese, Korean, and others who value less direct communication could be regularly offended by those who insist on upsetting the harmony by telling it like it is. Without an understanding of how culture shapes communication, conflict or disgruntlement will be inevitable.

Elastic Time Consciousness vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Time Consciousness

The U.S. mantra that "time is money" helps explain the strict time-conscious mentality shared by many businesses in the United States and increasingly in Western Europe. Meeting deadlines is usually essential, and promptness matters. Of course, every organization has its own norms around time as well. Contrast a norm and value placed on promptness against the preference for being elastic with deadlines. In cultures that are less exact about time, not every interaction has to relate to getting the task done. There is intrinsic merit in just spending time together, enjoying one another's company. In order to function well on a multinational team or task force, discussions about when meeting a deadline is critical versus when the group can be more flexible are essential. It is also important to realize that within national boundaries there will also be a variety of views about time. In Madrid, where work groups are quite relaxed about their meeting times and "nineish" is the norm, there may be times that "nine sharp" is demanded. In Sao Paulo, where time is more flexible, in the financial center, deadlines are met on time without question. Any team should have conversations and dialogue about these norms. When might it be important or helpful to be flexible? When is there absolutely no flexibility on deadlines? Expectations around time do impact relationships, so if one does not know the norms and honor them, the differences can be a significant source of conflict on any team.

The "Impact of Culture on Global Team Performance" tool can help a work group surface the cultural ranges just discussed in a positive, value-added way. It is designed to elicit insight and foster discussion that can lead to understanding and reconciliation. It can help team members effectively identify, understand, and use both their similarities and their differences.