1 / 26

Culture Counts

Culture Counts. On the Effects of Ethnicity and Nationality on Heterogeneous Work Groups Astrid Podsiadlowski. To analyse processes within multicultural work groups or teams (description) To determine factors which lead to successful teamwork (explication). Goals of the Empirical Study.

noreen
Télécharger la présentation

Culture Counts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Culture Counts On the Effects of Ethnicity and Nationality on Heterogeneous Work Groups Astrid Podsiadlowski

  2. To analyse processes within multicultural work groups or teams (description) To determine factors which lead to successful teamwork (explication). Goals of the Empirical Study

  3. Theoretical and empirical background Methods and design of empirical study Results Conclusions Structure of the Presentation

  4. Work groups or teams are an essential part of current organisational structures. Work groups are getting more and more diverse. Group members have increasingly different national cultural backgrounds. What are Characteristic Features of Co-operation in Multinational Organisations?

  5. Interdisciplinary Concept for Studying Multicultural Work Groups Research on Organisations Research on Groups Research on Culture Research on Diversity

  6. between individual persons for example within groups (Adler, 1996; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Triandis, 1972) between different groups by developing a group identity.(Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner, 1978) Diversity within Groups Our definition of diversity reflects any attribute that humans are likely to use to tell themselves, “That person is different from me.“ (Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994, p. 772) These perceived differences in world view, values, norms and attitudes lead to different behaviour patterns

  7. Area Nation Industry Region Organisation Functional division Gender Hierarchy Profession Tenure Ethnicity Suborganizations Religion Multiple Cultures in Organisations (Sackmann, 1997, S. 3)

  8. Types of Diversity Attributes Age Gender Nationality Ethnicity Religion Cultural Values Personality Attitudes Abilities Socio-ecnomic background Education Function Profession Organisation Industry Organisational Tenure Group Tenure Types of Diversity Demographic Cultural Values Organisational

  9. Productivity(Chatman,Polzer, Barsade & Neale, 1997) Effectiveness(Thomas, Ravlin & Wallace, 1996) Innovation(Hoffman, 1959) Creativity(McLeod & Lobel, 1992) Less group think(Hoffman, Harburg & Maier, 1962) More difficult communication(Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin & Peyronin, 1991) Less group stability(Cummings, Zhou & Oldham, 1993) Less group cohesion(Tsui, Egan & O‘Reilly, 1992) Less work contentment(Leiba & Ondrack, 1994) More stress(Triandis, Hall & Ewen, 1965) Chances and Barriers in Heterogeneous Work Groups Potential disadvantages Potential advantages

  10. Effectiveness Within Multicultural Work Groups Monocultural work groups Multicultural work groups Least effective On average effective Most effective (See Kovach, 1980 in Adler, 1991, p. 135)

  11. Cultural Diversity Ethnic National

  12. Perceived Opportunity for similarity positive contact + Model of Workplace Diversity Rewards Pluralistic society; authorities approve of contact (Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994, S. 784) Superordinate goals 17 Positive intergroup attitudes 2 18 9 Accomodation or overshooting in acculturation 19 Isomorphic attributions Sense of control Intimacy Small socialdistance 16 Sociotypes 1 12 13 14 8 More interaction 7 Little culture shock Network overlap Knowledge of other culture (language, competence) Cultural distance (religion, language, economics, politics) History of conflict Equal status contact Little ethnic affirmations 15 10 11 5 6 4 3

  13. Under which conditions does which type of diversity lead to what kind of results? Research Question ? ? ? ? ? ?

  14. I V II IV III Effectiveness of Multicultural Work Groups Dependent variables Independent variables Individual Socio-demographic data Age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, profession, position, Attitudes Co-operation, collectivism Competence Languages, intercultural experience • Future • Content-ment • Perfor-mance • Efficiency • Creativity Group Characteristics Size, age Means of communication Frequency and means of interaction, Composition Gender, education, status, personality, profession Communication Processes National cultural diversity a)Nationality b) Cultural distance Company Characteristics Size, industry Location Country, region, internationalisation

  15. Variable M SD Scale 1. Co-operation 3.3 0.40 1 = completely wrong to 4 = completely correct 2. Collectivisma 4.1 0.51 1 = not at all important to 6 = very important 3. Heterogenityb 3.0 0.53 1 = very heterogeneous to 5 = very homogeneous 4. Communicationc 3.6 0.52 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree 5. Group processesd 4.0 0.53 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree a)  = 0.88 b)  = 0.78 c)  = 0.72 d)  = 0.76. Dependent VariablesMeans and Standard Deviations

  16. Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Contentmenta 5.2 0.94 - 2. Creativityb 3.5 0.59 0.56*** - 3. Productivityb 2.5 0.79 0.00 0.24 - 4. Efficiencyb 3.3 0.75 0.37** 0.34** 0.40*** - 5. Futurec 0.48*** 0.39*** 0.16 0.35* - a) Kunin-Scale from 1 = not at all satisfied to 7 = very much satisfied b) Ratingscale from 1 = not very good to 5 = very good c) Z-transformation; horizontal figures (1 - 5) are correlation coefficients (r); * for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001. Dependent VariablesMeans, Standard Deviations and Correlations

  17. Value orientations Germany Singapore According to Hofstede (1997): Index Rank Index Rank (1-100) (1-53) (1-100) (1-53) Power distance 35 42-44 74 14 Individualism/collectivism 67 15 20 39-41 Uncertainty avoidance 65 29 8 53 Maskulinity/Feminity 66 9/10 48 28 According to Schwartz (2000): M* M* Conservatism 3,182 4,212 Intellectual autonomy 4,892 3,794 Affective autonomy 3,915 2,967 Hierarchy 3,182 2,660 Egalitarism 5,044 4,682 Authority 4,006 3,794 Harmony 4,682 3,988 Value Orientations in Germany and Singapore M*: Arithmetic mean on a scale ranging from –1 = opposed to my values, 0 = not important to +7 = of supreme importance; values should be assessed ”as a guiding principle of my life” (Schwartz, 1994, S. 99).

  18. Value Orientations based on the Cultural Dimensions by Geert Hofstede (1997) Cultural Distance within the group Relative Distance 1. Individualism/Collectivism dj: Relative distance of the j-th team member to the whole group* 2. Masculinity/Feminity Group Distance D : Standarddeviation of the whole group* 3. Uncertainty Avoidance 4. Power Distance With : Mean value* N: Number of group members k j: Value of Cultural Dimension of the j-th team member * regarding the values of the different cultural dimensions

  19. Managing responsibilities Sex Academic background Socio-demographic Data I Men No Yes No Yes Women 42% 46% 40% 40% 46% 57% n.a. n.a. 14% 14% n.a. 1%

  20. Variable M Minimum Maximum n.a. Age 33.9 years 21 years 54 years 6 Intercultural experience 6.6 years 1 month 26 years 3 Experience abroad 3,3 years None 20 years 3 Languages 3 lang. 1 language 5 languages 2 Variable Verteilung n.a. Sex 57% women 42% men 1% Academic degree 40% with 46% without 14% Managing responsibilities 40% with 46% without 14% N = 84; underlined mean = Median; n.a. = no answer. Socio-demographic Data II

  21. Variable N Characteristic Nationality 9 Singapore, Germany, Malaysia, India, China, Great Britain, USA, Australia, Philippines Country of origin 11 Singapore, Germany, Malaysia, India, China, Great Britain, Australia, Philippines, Greece, Russi, Indonesia Ethnicity 5 Chinese, Caucasian, Malay, Mixed, Indian Religion 5 Christianity, none, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism Residency 4 Singapore, Germany, Indonesia, India N = 84; order of characteristics correspond with frequency. Cultural Background of Interviewees

  22. Variable Median Minimum Maximum n.a. Group size 6 3 - 29 1 Number of 3 1 - 9 1Nationalities Number of women 4 0 - 16 1 Variable M Minimum Maximum n.a.Group age 2,2 Jahre 2 Monate - 13 Jahre 6 Group 1,2 Jahre 2 Monate - 6 Jahre 3 membership N = 84; n.a. = no answer. Composition and History of the Group

  23. Numbers are standardized regression coefficients (); for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001 Group Variables and Their Effectiveness Zahlen sind standardisierte Regressionskoeffizienten (); für p < 0,05; ** für p < 0,01; *** für p < 0,001 Group Effectiveness Group Age Future  0,29* Group Size  0,28* Contentment Organisational Diversity 0,39** 0,29* Efficiency Percentage of Women 0,26* Number of Nationalities 0,29* Creativity Cultural Distance

  24. Contentment Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Group size -0.30* -0.28* -0.38** Group age 0.11 0.08 0.14 Heterogeneity 0.15 0.19 Women (%) -0.11 0.06 Cultural distance 0.43** r2ADJ 0.07 0.07 0.20 F 2.87 1.89 3.52**  r2 0.11 0.03 0.14 F for  r2 2.87 0.91 8.78** Durbin-Watson: 1.84 Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables on Group Characteristics, Group Composition, and Cultural Distance on Contentment * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Numbers in the upper part of the table are standardized regression coefficients ().

  25. Variablen Contentment Creativity Efficiency Co-operation 0.33** -0.13 0.18 Collectivism - 0.11 0.13 0.05 Group size - 0.11 -0.01 0.13 Heterogenity 0.07 0.15 0.21 Cultural Distance 0.28 0.15 -0.22 Communication 0.35* 0.20 0.30* Group processes 0.11 0.41** 0.06 r2K 0.40 0.22 0.18 F (2,7) 6.03*** 3.11** 2.62* Numbers in the upper part of the table are standardized regression coefficients ();* for p < 0.05; ** for p < 0.01; *** for p < 0.001 Final Equations of Multiple, Hierarchical Regression Analyses

  26. Ethnic and national cultural diversity have different effects on work groups. The different types of diversity (demographic, cultural and organisational) have to be separated to be able to assess processes and outcomes of heterogeneous work groups. While heterogeneity in education, status and profession improves efficiency, the number of nationalities positively influences creativity. There is a need to distinguish between the different outcomes of work groups into measures of performance, well-being and viability. The more nationalities in a group the more creative they are whereas cultural distance improves contentment. Cultural distance contributes significantly to explaining contentment in a positive direction. Conclusions

More Related