The effect of the cross-cultural competency of
an individual on the international work team
performance.
Master thesis by: Loes Kistemaker (S2368080)
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc International Business & Management
Abstract:
International work team research to date has tended to focus on the difficulties that international work teams face, on how to manage those teams and on the consequences of having international work teams in a company. But, the research has paid less attention to the experiences and skills of individuals within these teams. This study looks at the relationship between the cross-cultural competency level of an individual and the international work team performance, and if this relationship is amplified by the cultural distance within the international work team. Individuals with a higher cross-cultural competency are better able to transfer social skills across cultures, have an enhanced cross-cultural respect, a better ability to recognise differences and can adopt more rapidly to new cultural settings, resulting in a better performance of an international work team. The potential for culture related difficulties will be small and diversity related performance effects positive when individuals within an international work team understand and can act appropriately around other cultures. This positive relationship is tested using data collected from 114 students of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. The result did not provide support for the relationship between the cross-cultural competency of an individual and the international work team performance. There was also no evidence found for the prediction that cultural distance amplified this relationship.
Table of content
Abstract: 3
Introduction: 5
Literature review: 9
Cross-Cultural Competency: 9
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity: 10
International work team performance: 13
Categorization-Elaboration Model: 14
Relationship cross-cultural competency & international work team performance: 15
Cultural distance: 16
Conceptual framework: 19
Methods: 20
Sample and data collection: 20
Research Design: 21
Cross-cultural competency: 21
International work team performance: 24
Cultural distance: 25 Control variables: 26 Results: 30 Correlation Analysis: 30 Testing hypothesis 1: 31 Testing hypothesis 2: 35
Discussion and conclusions: 39
Discussion: 39
Summary of results: 39
Research design: 41
Contributions: 42
Limitations and future research: 43
Conclusion: 46
References: 48
Appendix 1: Survey 58
Appendix 2: Descriptive statistics 69
Introduction:
Globalisation leaped forward in the late nineteenth century and making a second leap in the late twentieth century when changes in information and communication technology radically lowered the cost of moving ideas internationally (Baldwin, 2014). Over the last decade, many firms became global leaders in a relatively short time (Norback & Persson, 2014). This increasing pace of globalisation and the increased global activities have led firms around the world to seek new markets for their products, new sources for raw materials and more cost-effective locations for manufacturing and assembly operations (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006). Staffing issues are complex in this international environment because of a larger potential workforce and a more culturally diverse workforce within companies (Torbiorn, 1997).
The inability of firms and their managers to adjust to the demands of the international business environment has been considered as a primary cause of international business failures (Black, Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991; Yeaton & Hall, 2008). It can be ascribed to a lack of cross-cultural competence of the employee: “an individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006). Cross-cultural competency helps to create an effective work environment in cross-Cross-cultural situations like an international work team. Bennett (1986) posited a framework for conceptualizing dimensions of intercultural competence in his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The DMIS identifies three ethnocentric orientations, where one’s culture is experienced as central to reality, and three ethnorelative orientations, where one’s culture is experienced in the context of other. Black & Mendenhall (1990) looked at 29 studies performed to investigate the effectiveness of cross-cultural training. These studies showed that the relationship between cross-cultural training leading to a cross-culturally competent employee results in a greater feeling of well-being and confidence of this employee in an international work team. This, will result in a higher performance of the employee and international work team in the end.
The dynamics of any team will be affected by members’ personalities, norms, knowledge and experience, motivation, and attitudes (Bettenhausen, 1991). There are additional factors that can influence the performance of an international work team, consisting of members with different nationalities. The influence of the different cultures within a work team makes the interpersonal interaction in the team more complicated than within teams of one nationality (Davison, 1994). Individuals from different nations and cultures show significant differences in their leadership and working behaviour (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque & House, 2006). Furthermore, factors like language diversity, different ways of working and communication patterns influence the performance of the international work team (Henderson, 2005; Janssens & Brett, 1997). Existing cultural differences within a team can lead to severe issues in teamwork outcomes from multinational teams. Therefore, members of a multinational team need a special set of skills to enable them and their team to perform well. Individuals with a higher cross-cultural competency are better able to transfer social skills across cultures, have an enhanced cross-cultural respect, a better ability to recognise differences and can adopt more rapidly to new cultural settings, resulting in a better performance within an international work team (Brislin, Worthley, & MacNabb, 2006).
Companies often experience that when cultural differences increase, the difficulties facing business processes overseas increases. For an international work team, a large cultural distance within the team not only reflects a difference in cultural values, but also in language and the way of working between individuals (Kogut & Singh, 1988). Cultural distance aims to capture the overall difference in national culture between the home country and affiliates overseas. An individual needs a certain level of cross-cultural competency to be able to deal appropriately with cultural differences caused by a high level of cultural distance (Tan & Chua, 2003).
selecting and training people to obtain a certain level of cross-cultural competency and to overcome problems associated with working in international teams.
International work team research to date has tended to focus on the difficulties that international work teams face, on how to manage those teams and on the consequences of having international work teams in a company. Nevertheless, the research has paid less attention to the experiences and skills of individuals within these teams (Li, Xin & Pillutla, 2002; Zoogah, Vora, Richard & Peng, 2011). This information about the cultural skills of individuals is useful for designing a more effective international work team.
The research that has been conducted about the concept of cross-cultural competency has focused on how to become cross-cultural competent and the individual skills associated with being cross-culturally competent. The research is less focused on the consequences of an individual that is cross-cultural competent in a larger international work group context (Morley & Cerdin, 2010; Dean, 2001). Positive performance effects coming from an individual with a certain level of cross-cultural competency in an international context, like adopting to a new cultural setting more rapidly, can help to overcome problems associated with working in a culturally diverse team (Brislin, Worthley, & MacNabb, 2006).
The concepts of international work team performance and cultural distance have been widely researched but limitedly used in relation to the effects that individual cross-cultural skills have on them (Lu, 2006; Jemison & Sitkin, 1986). Insights into the effect of cultural distance on the individual cross-cultural skills that influence international team performance can help to create a more effective international work team. This effective international work team can deal with the difficulties that are a consequence of more cultural differences within the team. This is expected to be accomplished by selecting and training individuals to achieve a certain level of cross-cultural competency that helps them to deal appropriately with cultural differences within an international work team.
In this study, the three main concepts, namely cross-cultural competency, international work team performance and cultural distance, will be briefly defined first. Afterwards, an overview of the existing literature is given, followed by the methodology of the research. Subsequently, the data will be analysed, followed by the discussion, limitations and conclusion of this study.
Literature review:
Cross-Cultural Competency:
The inability of firms and their managers to adjust to the demands of the international business environment has been advanced as a primary cause of international business failures (Black, Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991; Yeaton & Hall, 2008). Cultural differences within a team can lead to severe issues in teamwork outcomes from multinational teams. This international business failure is very costly and therefore it is important for companies that their employees can work in a cross-cultural environment effectively. Intercultural competencies are essential for individuals working in culturally diverse teams as they allow group members to communicate more effectively with one another with respect to their differences, to evaluate more accurately how their own behaviour is affecting group processes, and to react in a more realistic and less judgemental way to the different attitudes and behaviours expressed by other group members (Lioyd & Hartel, 2010). Johnson, Lenartowicz and Apud (2006) described a cross-cultural competency as: “an individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad”.
effectively both verbally and non-verbally with others (Iles, 1995). These competencies are particularly important as regardless of whether individuals have acquired cognitive and affective competencies, if they do not possess the appropriate behavioural competencies they will not know how to act in certain situations (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997).
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity:
Bennett (1986) posited a framework for conceptualizing dimensions of intercultural competence in his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). That has been used and validated extensively in research over the years to conceptualize intercultural competence (Hammer, 2011). The framework consists of three ethnocentric orientations, where one’s culture is experienced as central to reality (Denial, Defense, Minimization). Furthermore, there are three ethnorelative orientations, where one’s culture is experienced in the context of other cultures (Acceptance, Adaption, Integration) (see figure 1). The DMIS was developed with a grounded theory approach, which involves using theoretical concepts to explain patterns that emerge from systematic observations. The most basic theoretical concept in the DMIS is that experience (including cross-cultural experience) is created over time. A related assumption made in the DMIS is that people can be sensitive to cultural difference. People who are more interculturally sensitive have a more developed set of categories for making discriminations among cultures. As categories for cultural difference become more complex and sophisticated, perception becomes more interculturally sensitive (Bennett, 2004).
The DMIS exists of six stages differing on their development of intercultural sensitivity. Denial of Difference is a stage in which individuals experience their own culture as the only ‘real’ one. People with this predominant experience are ‘in denial’ about cultural difference – they are unable to experience differences in other than extremely simplistic ways. They may be perplexed when asked about their own culture, because they have not considered how culture impacts their own or others’ lives. In some cases, people with this orientation may dehumanise others, assuming that different behaviour is a deficiency in intelligence or personality. The main issue to be resolved at the Denial stage is the tendency to avoid noticing or confronting cultural difference. To develop more intercultural sensitivity in this stage, a person should recognise the existence of cultural differences (Bennet, 1986; 1993). All the dimensions of cross-cultural competency are not developed at this stage but people start working on the cognitive dimension by recognizing that other individuals can have different perspectives on issues (Mamman, 1995).
Defense against difference is a stage in which one’s own culture is experienced as the most ‘evolved’ or best way to live and other cultures are denigrated with negative stereotypes. This position is characterized by dualistic us/them thinking and frequently accompanied by negative stereotyping. To develop more intercultural sensitivity in this stage a person should try to mitigate polarisation by recognising “common humanity” (Bennet, 1986; 1993). An individual within this stage is working on his or her cognitive cross-cultural competence dimension and on the affective dimension by trying to remove negative thinking and attitudes towards culturally others (Mamman, 1995).
and feelings towards others but does not understand their different emotional expressions yet. Alternative cultural perspectives on issues are not accepted yet (Mamman, 1995).
The fourth stage is the acceptance of difference stage in which one’s own culture is experienced as one of several equally complex worldviews. Cultures are offering alternative solutions to the organisation of human existence, and there is curiosity about what the alternatives to their own culture are. People at this position accept the existence of culturally different ways of organizing human existence, although they do not necessarily like or agree with every way. To develop more intercultural sensitivity in this stage, a person should refine his/her analysis of cultural contrasts, allowing a person to take the perspective of another culture without losing their own perspective (Bennet, 1986; 1993). At this stage, the cognitive dimension is almost developed, and a person now knows how to behave appropriately (verbal and non-verbal) with people from different cultures, but this can be done more effectively (Mamman, 1995).
The fifth stage is adaptation to difference stage, in which individuals can expand their own worldviews to accurately understand other cultures and behave in a variety of culturally appropriate ways. Adaptation is the application of acceptance, and it is likely to become the predominant experience when there is a need to interact effectively with people of another culture. With the acceptance of another culture’s organisation of reality, adaptation can proceed by allowing one to reorganise experience in a way more like that of the other culture. To develop more intercultural sensitivity in this stage, a person should think about authenticity: How is it possible to perceive and behave in culturally different ways and still ‘be yourself’? (Bennet, 1986; 1993). In this stage, all the dimensions of cross-cultural competency are developed. An individual can consider a range of alternative perspectives, understands different emotional expressions and knows how to communicate effectively with people from other cultures (Mamman, 1995).
of cultural perspectives and behaviours to draw on. A person can keep developing by trying to resolve the multicultural identity (Bennet, 1986; 1993). An individual within this stage has a cross-cultural competency that goes beyond the identified dimensions and does not see the difference between cultures anymore (Mamman, 1995).
International work team performance:
Work group diversity is a key concern for theory and practice in organisational behaviour. Groups in organisation have become more diverse in terms of their demographic composition over the years and will continue to become even more diverse in years to come (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). Part of the potential advantage of diverse groups over homogeneous groups, lies in the greater information and expertise diverse groups may have at their disposal. In addition, the larger social network of diverse groups may give diverse groups more access to new information and a potentially larger basis for support for decisions than homogeneous groups (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).
Significant changes in the composition of the workforce have taken place with organisations becoming increasingly more diverse on many characteristics, of which cultural diversity is one of the most significant ones. In addition, now more than ever, organisations are using teams to increase organisational efficiency and effectiveness (Shaw & Barrett-Power, 1998). It can almost be expected that in the future individuals will work in teams with people from diverse cultural backgrounds. While all forms of diversity present challenges to the performance of work teams, cultural diversity defined as: “the existence of two or more persons from different cultural groups in any single group or organisation”, presents organisations with one of the most challenging issues of this time (Foldy 2004; Lioyd & Hartel, 2010).
Categorization-Elaboration Model:
Milliken & Martins (1996) and Philips, Northcraft & Neale (2006) identified cultural diversity as a ‘double-edged sword’ and suggested that identifying when the performance of teams can benefit from cultural diversity and when cultural diversity may be detrimental to performance is of great importance. To address this effect of cultural diversity on performance, the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM) was developed.
The Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM) (van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004) provides an explanation of the link between cultural diversity and group performance. According to the CEM, the performance benefits of cultural diversity arise to the extent that diversity engenders information elaboration – that is, the exchange, discussion and integration of task-relevant information and perspectives. CEM includes two main factors (elaboration and categorization) that affect workgroup performance’s relation to cultural diversity.
The first factor, elaboration, refers to the process of a group collectively processing the knowledge possessed by each individual group member. Through elaboration, a workgroup can combine and improve upon the discrete viewpoints held by its members. It will produce results that are more informed, more creative and otherwise superior to what could be produced by each member working in isolation. The benefits of elaboration can be compared to the benefits of task conflict, where group members argue about which viewpoint is best, and in the process, come up with viewpoints superior to those possessed by any single group member (Ellis, Mai & Christian, 2013). However, there is evidence that conflict itself is not likely to improve group performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). The notion of elaboration refers to group members discussing and improving on each other’s idea and viewpoint to come up with a superior solution without any negative interaction. Certainly, there is evidence that workgroups focussing on sharing and processing diverse information and member viewpoint show an increase in performance (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001).
of-category members. Such bias is thought to hamper the group’s collective ability to integrate the knowledge of its members in the elaboration process resulting in a high group performance.
Relationship cross-cultural competency & international work team performance:
An effective team is a team that achieves its tasks and reaches planned and assumed team goals “as is” and at the right moment, meaning as they were planned and in due time. An effective team has 14 characteristics (Morgeson, Reider & Campion, 2005), of which examples are: coherence, acceptance and considering cultural differences, mutual respect and trust, capability to solve internal problems and conflicts, capability to achieve collective learning and open communication.
Diversity negatively affects relationships within the group while simultaneously contributing to group performance according to the categorization-elaboration model (van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). However, because problematic intergroup relations and low group cohesiveness are detrimental to performance it is difficult to see how diversity could negatively affect relationships while at the same time stimulate performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994). This study argues that these negative outcomes can be overcome if team members are cross-cultural competent.
Therefore, intercultural competencies are essential for individuals working in culturally diverse teams as they allow group members to communicate more effectively with one another about their differences, to evaluate more accurately how their own behaviour is affecting group processes, and to react in a more realistic and less judgemental way to the different attitudes and behaviours expressed by other group members (Lioyd & Hartel, 2010).
This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: A higher level of cross-cultural competency of an individual will lead to a higher level of
international work team performance.
Cultural distance:
Extensive research has shown that cultures affect the beliefs, perceptions, and behaviours of individuals (Kirkman, Lowe & Gibson, 2006; Kwok, Baghat, Buchan, Erez & Gibson, 2005) and firm-level characteristics such as conflict management, decision-making and leadership (Adler, 2002). Individuals within a multinational enterprise setting up subsidiaries in culturally distant countries, are confronted with new work team members, customers, suppliers, and other parties who act differently and who have different belief systems and values. Cultural distance can be at the root of interpersonal barriers between members of the firm and outside parties, which may cause friction that interferes with doing business efficiently in the new international context (Gomez-Meija & Palich, 1997). To be able to overcome such friction, individuals need to calibrate themselves to the different cultures and adapt their practices and behaviour to the new setting (Newman & Nollen, 1996). This is a difficult and time-consuming process, and the greater the cultural distance, the greater resulting complexity.
Hofstede (1980) identified four national value dimensions along which cultural values could be analysed. Later Hofstede added two new dimensions because he was concerned that the four dimensions did not cover all the national value differences and were too ‘Western’ focused (Hofstede, 2001). These national value dimensions are often used by other researchers to measure the concept of cultural distance between two countries (Kogut & Singh, 1988).
Hofstede’s model, the way the organization is designed and managed will vary in each country depending on the national value system. For individuals, this means that culture shapes the values, norms and behaviour that is accepted in a specific cultural context. An individual working in an international environment that is culturally distant from its own country of origin, will be forced to adjust his or her behaviour and learn about the different norms and values to be able to work effectively in the culturally distant setting (Shenkar, 2001). Over time, the validity of these dimensions has been confirmed by many studies (Søndergaard, 1994; Magnusson, Wilson, Zdravkovic, Xin Zhou & Westjohn, 2008). This suggests that the dimensions can be used reliably to classify countries according to their national cultures.
Cultural distance is defined as the degree to which the cultures of two countries are different (Kogut & Singh, 1988) and provides an overall measure of cultural differences between two countries. The greater the cultural distance between the home country and host country cultures, the more adaptation will be required. Otherwise, there is a risk of adverse (negative) attitudes and behaviours among individuals. On the individual level, the countries of origin of individuals determine the cultural distance between them. These characteristics of countries are reflected by the national value dimensions of Hofstede (2001). Those characteristics of countries include information of accepted behaviour of individuals and the way of doing things. For example, an expatriate from a lower power distance culture such as the United States, may bypass higher level authority when gathering information from and assigning tasks to local employees. Such actions would violate cultural norms in high power distance cultures such as Brazil resulting in a lower performance evaluation of the individual (Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque & House, 2006). Therefore, cross-cultural motivation may not be enough to perform well for an international within an international work team. The individual should also possess the appropriate cultural knowledge and skills needed to meet cultural norms and expectations and to deal with the cultural distance (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh & Tangirala, 2010).
critical problems if the team can deal with the cultural distance. This can lead to more unique ways of working and to greater exploration of capabilities. With greater cultural distance, an international work team will have greater opportunities to realize learning and combining more diverse viewpoints leading to a higher performance (Gomez-Meija & Palich, 1997).
To make use of these diverse viewpoint within an international work team, the individual should possess the appropriate cultural knowledge and skills (Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh & Tangirala, 2010). This is difficult to establish because individuals are often so strongly embedded in their own culture that their own cultural framework leads to misunderstandings, and to misattributions of motives and intention of individuals from other cultures. This impedes smooth interactions between people from different national cultures within an international work team (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). If too much cultural distance is added over a short period of time, individuals within the multinational company will be unable to adapt their behaviour and practices sufficiently, and performance will suffer (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Hayward, 2002). This can lead to a decrease in the commitment, loyalty, satisfaction and performance of individuals (Very, Lubatkin & Calori, 1996).
The potential for culture related difficulties will be small and negative performance effects negligible, even if the cultural differences within a team are large, when individuals within an international work team understand and can act appropriately around other cultures (Hofstede, 2001). This implies that when an individual is cross-culturally competent, he or she will perform better within an international work team when the cultural differences are larger. This is the case because individuals with a higher cross-cultural competency are better able to transfer social skills across cultures, have an enhanced cross-cultural respect, a better ability to recognise differences and can adopt more rapidly to new cultural settings, resulting in a better performance within an international work team (Brislin, Worthley, & MacNabb, 2006).
This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: A higher level of cultural distance within the international work team will amplify the
Conceptual framework:
+
+
Cross-cultural
competency individual
International work
team performance
Methods:
Sample and data collection:
To analyse the relationship between the constructs in the conceptual model, data is collected and analysed from a set sample group.
The research was executed at the individual level. The sample group consists of students at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. These students will have one of their first professional encounters with different cultures at university. This can be within group assignments for courses that they participate in but also participating in opportunities of studying abroad. The logic behind sending students for overseas experience or letting them work in international work teams is providing them with a short term international experience during which they can develop skills, behaviours, knowledge for a better cross-cultural competency (Deardorff, 2006). The students of the Faculty of Economics and Business come from very different cultures and countries, resulting in a very international faculty with 30% international students. Therefore, this sample group will most likely have interacted with international individuals at university and therefore the influence of their cross-cultural competency level on the international work team performance can be measured.
A quantitative method of analysing was chosen, because scales were present in the literature that measure the variables that were used in this research and many students could be approached. The survey was available online, using Qualtrics. The research was executed at one point in time, which makes it a cross-sectional study (Mann, 2003). The research is of a deductive nature, as the plan was to test the hypotheses developed earlier. To avoid the selection bias, the goal was to find the same number of students that fit in the six stages of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Also, all students need to have worked in an international work team during their study time at the Faculty of Economics and Business to be able to measure the concept of international work team performance.
level of an employee, to measure the control variables, to measure cultural distance and to measure the international work team performance.
One hundred and fifty-four students (N=154) filled out the survey, of which 22 stated that they had never worked in an international work team at the university of Groningen. This was a necessary criterion to participate in the research, therefore those 22 respondents were removed from the dataset. Also, eighteen respondents did not fill out the entire survey and therefore their results could also not be used. Those respondents were removed from the sample group. Resulting in 114 respondents of the survey (N=114). The youngest person that filled in the survey was eighteen years old (Min=18), and the oldest person twenty-nine (Max=29). On average a person was 21.72 years old (Mean=21.72). More females (56.5%) than men (43.5%) filled out the survey and only three people had a second nationality. Of all the respondents, 65,2% had only lived in one country for more than six months, the rest of the respondents (34,8%) lived in multiple countries for more than six months (see appendix 2 for the descriptive statistics).
Research Design:
Cross-cultural competency:
(2007) pointed out that participants would not only lose focus when completing scales with a large number of items, but the level of participation and response rate would also be decreased due to the length of time required to complete the survey. One way to improve the research utility of such measures is to reduce the number of items without losing strong psychometric value.
After the respondents had filled out the survey, a factor analysis (see appendix 3 for the factor analysis) on the fifteen questions was conducted to identify which questions could form a subset. The factor analysis showed that the questions could be divided into six groups, representing the six stages of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Only question 6: “Family values are stronger in other cultures than in our culture”, did not fit into one of the six stages. Therefore, it was decided to leave the question out of one of the six stages because it was expected that the question did not measure the concept it was supposed to measure in the right way. The other questions were summed up into the stage of the DMIS they represented, resulting in six stages in which a respondent had a score of one to seven. The stages in which on average the cross-cultural competency level of a person was the highest were the minimization stage (Mean=4.64) and adaptation stage (Mean=4.79). 49.1 percent of the respondents scored a 4.5 or higher in the minimization stage and in the adaptation stage 57.9 percent of the respondents had a score of 4.5 or higher. The other stages of the model had a lower average mean and a lower percentage of respondents that had a score of 4.5 or higher. For example, the average cross-cultural competency level of a person in the acceptance stage was 4.04 and 18.4 percent of the respondents had a score of 4.5 or higher.
After the six stages were created, an independent variable needed to be created that reflected the total cross-cultural competency score of the individual based on their scores at all six stages of the model. The first independent Intercultural Developmental Index (IDI 1) variable was formed by assigning a score of 1 to 6 to all the stages. 1 reflecting a low cross-cultural competency score in the first stage of the model (denial), going up to 6 reflecting the highest cross-cultural competency level score and the final stage of the model (integration). The individual scores of a person in a specific stage of the model got multiplied by 1 to 6 depending on the stage of the model, and this was done for all the six stages. These scores were all summed up, creating a total cross-cultural competency score for an individual. The higher the score, the more cross-cultural competent a person is. For example, respondent one had a score of 2 in the denial stage, a score of 4 in the defense stage, a score of 2 in the minimization stage, a score of 4.5 in the acceptance stage, a score of 5 in the adaptation stage and a score of 3 in the integration stage. These scores then got multiplied by 1 to 6 depending on the stage of the model: (1x2) + (2x4) + (3x2) + (4x4.5) + (5x5) + (6x3) = 77. The score of 77 reflected the cross-cultural competency level of the individual. On average a person had a score of 78.26, respondent one therefore has an average level of cross-cultural competency when using this method.
The second measurement of cross-cultural competency that is included is the Intercultural Sensitivity Measurement Scale (ISS) (see appendix 1, question 12). This scale measures the intercultural sensitivity of an individual and relates this level to the intercultural competency of an individual using a 7-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree). The ISS has been examined in various samples including US, German, Malaysian and Chinese individuals
(
Awang-Rozaimie, Amelia, Aiza, Siti-Huzaimah, & Adib, 2013; Del Villar, 2010). Within the survey the shortened version ISS-15 was used in which a certain number of items from each subscale were removed. The scale showed satisfactory reliability and validity despite its brevity. Each subscale contained only three items, which collectively represent five distinct yet related aspects of intercultural sensitivity. The performance of the ISS-15 was generally better than that of the full version of the ISS, showing improvements in both internal consistency, reliability and validity (Wang & Zhou, 2016).After the respondents had filled out the survey, seven questions needed to be recoded from a negative to a positive statement, to make sure a score of seven represented a positive intercultural sensitivity level for all questions. Then a reliability analysis was performed on the fifteen questions to identify if there was internal consistency between the questions. This resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.839, suggesting that there was a high level of internal consistency between the questions although there was not a correlation found between all the individual questions. Therefore, the questions were summed up into a new variable (ISS) representing an individual’s intercultural sensitivity score. The average score of an individual was 5.38 with a minimum of 3.80 and a maximum of 6.80. The higher the score of an individual on the ISS variable, the more a person has developed its cross-cultural competency level.
International work team performance:
concrete and abstract scales are included within the survey (see appendix 1, question 14 and 15).
The objective dependent international work team performance variable (performance-objective) consists of the question: “What was the grade you received for your group assignment?” An average grade of 7,41 was received with the highest grade being a nine and the lowest grade received a five. The subjective dependent international work team performance variable (performance-subjective) consists of three questions. A correlation tests showed that all the three questions correlated significantly (P<.001). Also, a reliability analysis was performed to identify if there was internal consistency between the questions. The analysis showed a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.908 for all three questions, confirming that there was a high internal consistency between the three questions. Therefore, the questions were summed up into a new variable (Performance - subjective) representing the subjective international work team performance score. The questions were asked on a 7-point Likert scale, with the highest scores representing the highest international work team performance. On average an individual had a score of 5.87, with the lowest score being a 1.67 and the highest score a 6.33.
Cultural distance:
To collect data on the cultural distance within the international work team. Questions are added to the survey about the country of origin of the respondent and the country of origin of the people within the international work team in which the individual worked. The nationality of the respondent will be taken as the basis, and this nationality will be compared on the national value dimensions of Hofstede with the other nationalities of the international work team members. The distance is then measured using a Euclidian distance formula (see formula 1). The Euclidean distance is a general method of measuring distances, introduced by Mahalanobis (1936). It is a useful method of determining the similarity between two elements:
This is done with the nationality of the respondent in relation to the nationalities of the international work team members on the six dimensions of Hofstede. This score is averaged by the amount of people within the international work team, resulting in an average cultural distance score for an international work team. The higher the score, the higher level of cultural distance that is present within the international work team. The minimum cultural distance score within an international work team is 47.37 going up to 105.99 with an average cultural distance score of 76.28.
To test the moderating effect of cultural distance, the cultural distance variable was centralized as well as the independent variables. The variables were centralized to avoid multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is a phenomenon in which one predictor variable in a regression model can be linearly predicted from the others with a substantial degree of accuracy (Graham, 2003). After centralizing the variables, a new variable was then formed by multiplying the centralized value of cultural distance with the centralized value of the independent variable. This new variable was used to test the moderating effect that is present in hypothesis 2.
Control variables:
Trust, group involvement and conflict are variables that are often used in the literature to explain relationships related to international work team performance, therefore there are also questions (seven-point Likert-type scale) included to control for these variables (see appendix 1, question 13).
A correlation test showed that all the three questions were significantly correlated with each other (P<0.05). A reliability analysis was performed to identify of there was internal consistency within the three questions. The analysis showed a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.839, suggesting that there is a high level of internal consistency between the three questions measuring trust. As a result, the questions were summed up into a new variable (Trust) that measures the degree to which an individual trusted it’s international work team members. A high score reflects a high level of trust. On average the score of an individual was 4.59 with the highest score being a 7 and the lowest score being 2.
Work group involvement relates to an individual’s involvement in task- related processes such as information exchange and collaborative decision making and how much individuals feel respected and listened to within a work team. Dissimilarity is likely to be negatively related to work group involvement because dissimilar people are often excluded from important networks of information and opportunity. If people understand other cultures better, there is expected to be a higher group involvement without exclusion leading to higher international work group performance (Mor-Barak & Cherin, 1998).
Task conflict is an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions in pertaining to a group task (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). As people with diverse backgrounds and experiences hold different beliefs structures and values, which affect their prioritization and response to stimuli, group diversity inherently increases the potential for conflicts. Because cultural differences are often held subconsciously the sources of conflict are difficult to identify and to resolve. If people are more aware of cultural differences, there will be less conflict within an international work team because people understand each other more, resulting in higher group performance (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992). Task conflict is measured using three items that assess group disagreements about what work to do and how work should be done (Jehn, 1995).
A correlation analysis showed a positive and significant (P<0.05) correlation between the three questions measuring task conflict. To check for internal consistency between the three questions a reliability analysis was performed. The results show a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.839, reflecting a high level of internal consistency between the three questions. Therefore, a new variable (Conflict) was created including all the three questions. A high score of the variable reflects a high level of task conflict within the international work team perceived by the individual. On average, a score of 3.51 represented the level of conflict perceived within the international work team. The highest level of conflict experienced was 6 and the lowest level 1,33.
Gender. Within the research, there will be controlled for the gender of the respondent. Here a
nominal scale can be used where participants distinguish between two categories: male and female. A dummy variable is created, where a score of one stands for a male participant and a score of two for a female participant. More females (56.5%) than males (43.5%) filled in the survey.
Age. Within the research, there will be controlled for the age of participants. Here an interval
scale can be used. The age of the respondents was between 18 (minimum) and 29 (maximum).
Start year at university. This control variable is the year in which participants started to study
Countries lived in. The control variable looks at the countries in which a person has lived for
Results:
Correlation Analysis:
Table 1: Correlation table
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Age 21.72 1.807
2. Gender1 1.57 0.497 -.135
3. Countries lived in2 1.34 0.477 -.287** -.084
4. Start year at university 2013.79 1.659 -.628** .104 -.076
5. Trust 4.59 1.136 -.081 .109 .010 .004
6. Conflict 3.51 1.165 .219* -.085 .020 -.175 -.242**
7. Work group involvement 5.51 0.744 -.075 .028 -.077 .034 .320** -.373**
8. IDI 1 78.26 12.451 .004 -.092 .144 -.069 .034 .139 .028 9. IDI 2 5.11 4.899 .090 .082 .197* .081 .144 -.046 .077 .421** 10. ISS 5.38 0.608 .187* .019 .262** -.047 .067 -.114 .284** .104 .291** 11. Performance –subjective 5.87 1.37 .109 .019 .112 -.047 .383** -.056 .284** -.081 .006 .123 12. Performance –objective 7.41 0.719 -.002 .024 .158 -.015 .292** -.186* .104 -.084 -.011 .053 .473** 13. Cultural Distance 76.28 13.253 -.091 -.028 -.145 .040 -.258** -.116 .020 -.082 -.165 -.108 -.094 -.162
1 Dummy coded: 1= Male, 2= Female
2 Dummy coded: 1=One country, 2= Multiple countries * P<0.05
** P<0.01
Testing hypothesis 1:
To test hypothesis 1 by analyzing whether the cross-cultural competency level of an individual influences their international work team performance, a linear regression analysis was performed. The results of the linear regression for hypothesis one is presented in the regression table (table 2). Table 2 also shows how much variation is explained by the variables by including the adjusted R2. The average Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and the highest VIF
Three different independent variables and two different dependent variables are used resulting in six different models of testing hypothesis 1: (1) IDI 1 and Performance subjective, (2) IDI 2 and Performance subjective, (3) ISS and Performance subjective, (4) IDI 1 and Performance objective, (5) IDI 2 and Performance objective, and (6) ISS and Performance objective.
Control variables and performance subjective & objective:
Looking at column 1 (table 2), two control variables have a positive significant relationship with the subjective performance of an international work team. Trust (P<.001) and group involvement (P<.05) positively significantly influence the performance of an international work team. Trust remains to be significantly correlated to both objective and subjective performance, in all the six models. Trust can be conceptualized as an important mechanism that individuals can use to bridge social distance in global teams. If a group is generally open towards diversity related to different cultures, it is more likely that a positive spiralling effect of trust will spread like performance improvements resulting in a positive significant relationship.
Looking at column 5 (table 2), two control variables have a positive significant relationship with the objective performance of an international work team. Countries lived in (P<.01) and trust (P<.05) positively significantly influence the performance of an international work team. The countries lived in significant effect was only found in relation to the objective performance measurement. Having lived in two or more cultural distant countries, will increase the international experience of an individual with working together with culturally diverse people, resulting in a positive significant relationship with objective performance.
IDI 1 and performance subjective:
IDI 2 & ISS and performance subjective:
Column 3 and column 4 (table 2) show that IDI 2 and ISS do not correlate significantly with subjective performance.
IDI 1 & IDI 2 and performance objective:
Column 6 and column 7 (table 2) show that IDI 1 and IDI 2 do not correlate significantly with objective performance.
ISS and performance objective:
Column 8 (table 2) shows that ISS and performance objective do not correlate significantly. This model explains the lowest level of variation, respectively 5.7%. This percentage shows that almost no variation in the model is explained by the included variables. Also, the significant effect of countries lived in on performance objective disappears when ISS is used as the independent variable. The model also has the highest VIF score, respectively 1.942. Nevertheless, although this is the highest VIF score of the six models, it still does not reflect any multicollinearity.
Hypothesis 1:
For all the six models the linear regression analysis was not significant and therefore hypothesis 1 cannot be confirmed: a high level of cross-cultural competency of the individual will lead to a higher performance of the international work group. Model 1, with IDI 1 and the subjective performance measurement, explains the most variation within the model (16.6%). Model 6, with ISS and the objective performance measurement, explained the least variation within the model (5.7%). Only, two variables: trust and work group involvement, had a positive significant effect with the subjective performance measurement. The objective performance measurement showed a positive and significant effect with trust and countries lived in (with the exception of model 6).
Table 2: Regression Table (hypothesis 1)
1 Dummy coded: 1= Male, 2= Female
2 Dummy coded: 1=One country, 2= Multiple countries * P<0.10
** P<0.05 *** P<0.01
Testing hypothesis 2:
To test hypothesis 2 by analyzing whether cultural distance positively influences the relationship between the cross-cultural competency level of an individual and their international work team performance, a linear regression analysis was performed. The results of the linear regression for hypothesis two are represented in the regression table (table 3). Table 3 also shows how much variation is explained by the variables by including the adjusted R2. The
average Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and the highest VIF value are also included in table 3, both measure the impact of collinearity among the variables in the regression model.
Three different independent variables and two different dependent variables are used resulting in six different models of testing hypothesis 1: (1) IDI 1 and Performance subjective, (2) IDI 2 and Performance subjective, (3) ISS and Performance subjective, (4) IDI 1 and Performance objective, (5) IDI 2 and Performance objective, and (6) ISS and Performance objective.
IDI 1 and performance subjective:
Looking at column 1 (table 3), two variables have a positive significant relationship with the subjective performance of an international work team. Trust (P<.001) and group involvement (P<.05) positively significantly influence the performance of an international work team when cultural distance is added to the model as a moderator. Trust remains to be significantly correlated to both objective and subjective performance, in all the six models. The work group involvement significant effect was only found in relation to the subjective performance measurement. IDI 1 does not correlate significantly with subjective performance. Also, there is no significant moderating effect of cultural distance found in the model. The lowest average VIF score is reflected by this model, respectively 1.289. This score indicates that there is almost no multicollinearity, especially in this model.
IDI 2 and performance subjective:
ISS and performance subjective:
Column 3 (table 3) shows that ISS does not correlate significantly with subjective performance. Also, there is no significant moderating effect of cultural distance found in the model.
IDI 1 and performance objective:
Looking at column 4 (table 3), two variables have a positive significant relationship with the subjective performance of an international work team. Trust (P<.001) and countries lived in (P<.01) positively significantly influence the performance of an international work team when cultural distance is added to the model as a moderator. The countries lived in effect as only found in relation to the objective performance measurement. IDI 1 does not correlate significantly with objective performance. Also, there is no significant moderating effect of cultural distance found in the model.
IDI 2 and performance objective:
Column 5 (table 3) shows that IDI 2 does not correlate significantly with objective performance. Also, there is no significant moderating effect of cultural distance found in the model.
ISS and performance objective:
Hypothesis 2:
Table 3: Regression Table (hypothesis 2)
Predictors Performance-subjective Performance-subjective Performance-subjective Performance-objective Performance-objective Performance-objective
1. control variables Age (.091) .124 (.091) .157 (.094) .129 (.050) -.047 (.050) -.006 (.051) -.008 Gender1 -.001 (.234) .026 (.244) .005 (.248) -.010 (.134) .014 (.135) .010 (.137) Countries lived in2 (.270) .117 (.270) .107 (.280) .099 (.148) .178* (.148) .173* (.152) .159 Start year at university (.094) .052 (.095) .096 (.095) .056 (.052) -.060 (.053) -.010 (.053) -.028 Trust .349*** (.112) .338*** (.114) .343*** (.115) .265*** (.062) .262*** (.063) .256** (.063) Conflict (.115) .106 (.113) .076 (.117) .085 (.064) -.115 (.063) -.139 (.064) -.148 Work group involvement .235** (.179) .229** (.179) .223** (.190) (.099) -.010 (.099) -.012 (.104) -.015 2. Independent variables IDI 1 (.012) -.119 (.007) -.106 IDI 2 (.026) -.091 (.014) -.086 ISS (.220) .000 (.122) -.011 3. Independent variables IDI 1 * Cultural Distance (.001) .060 (.001) -.032 IDI 2 * Cultural Distance (.002) .097 (.001) .071 ISS * Cultural distance (.014) -.008 (.008) .065 4. Total model (H2) R2 .161 .162 .143 .063 .062 .052 F F(9,103)=3.39 F(9,103)=3.41 F(9,102)=3.07 F(9,104)=1.84 F(9,104)=1.84 F=(9,103)=1.68 Average VIF 1.289 1.305 1.334 1.299 1.315 1.355 Highest VIF 1.904 1.922 1.950 1.928 1.929 1.969
1 Dummy coded: 1= Male, 2= Female
2 Dummy coded: 1=One country, 2= Multiple countries * P<0.10
Discussion and conclusions:
Discussion:Summary of results:
This study aimed to investigate the research question: “what is the effect of the cross-cultural competency of an individual on the international work team performance, and how is this influenced by the cultural distance within the international work team?” There was no support found for the positive relationship between a higher level of cross-cultural competency of an individual leading to a higher level of international work team performance. According to the literature, support should have been found because negative outcomes that are a result of more diversity within an international work team can be overcome if team members are interculturally competent (van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Horman, 2004). Maznevski (2004) suggested that a common finding of culturally diverse teams research is that “diversity led to higher performance only when members were able to understand each other, combine, and build on each other’s ideas.” Therefore, it was expected that intercultural competencies would be essential for individuals working in culturally diverse teams as they allow group members to communicate more effectively with one another about their differences, to evaluate more accurately how their own behaviour is affecting group processes, and to react in a more realistic and less judgemental way to the different attitudes and behaviours expressed by other group members (Lioyd & Hartel, 2010).
But, the research found three other significant positive relationships between trust, work group involvement and countries lived in on international work team performance.
Trust was significantly positive related (P<.001) to subjective and objective performance. Trust has been pointed out as essential to social exchange in organizations and is grounded in the belief that one’s co-worker’s behaviour and actions are acceptable and conform to organizational rules and values (Sitkin & Roth, 1993). It can be conceptualized as an important mechanism that individuals can use to bridge social distance in global teams. Trust has a greater effect in uncertain and ambiguous situations (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). If a person does not trust other team members, he or she will be more likely to negatively categorize them as outgroup. People are more willing to cooperate with individuals they consider part of their ingroup (Kenworthy & Jones, 2009). So, outgroup categorization will in many cases cut off an untrusting individual from important team processes. Trust can sometimes even substitute for the development of cross-cultural competences by individuals (Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartianen & Hakonen, 2015). Therefore, trust can directly positively influence the international work team performance because a high level of trust between individuals results in better cooperation between them and in the end a higher performance level of the entire international work team.
Countries lived in was significantly positively related (P<.01) to objective performance. Having lived in two or more cultural distant countries, will increase the international experience of an individual (Osler & Starkey, 2003). Prior experience abroad creates direct opportunities to learn a variety of skills, helps to develop a cognitive framework that can adjust to different cultural settings and to learn appropriate behaviours in different cultural settings (Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun & Lepak, 2005). This will result in higher general and work adjustment, intercultural communication relocation and cognitive skills will be gained, all of which should have a positive influence on an individual’s performance in an international context (Carpenter, Sanders & Gregersen, 2001.) Therefore, countries lived in can directly positively influence the international work team performance when individuals learned appropriate ways of behaving in different cultural settings.
Research design:
Two of the independent variables of this study: IDI 1 and IDI 2, both represent the total cross-cultural competency score of an individual but were calculated in a different way. The way IDI 1 was calculated, by assigning a value of 1 to 6 to all stages, suggests that a higher cross-cultural competency stage should weight more in the total cross-cultural competency score than lower stages because an individual is more cross-cultural competent in a higher stage. An individual with high scores in the early stages of the model (ethnocentric stages) could compensate for these low cross-cultural competency scores by scoring high on the later stages of the model (ethnorelative stages). This resulted in some individuals having a high cross-cultural competency score although they also had some high scores in stages of the model associated with a low-level of cross cultural competency, but those stages weighted less in the total score. IDI 2 was calculated, by assigning a value of -3, -2, -1 ,1 ,2 ,3 to all stages. This suggests that low-levels of cross-cultural competency should negatively influence the total cross-cultural competency score and higher levels of cross-cultural competency should positively influence the total cultural competency score. This resulted in individuals having a low cross-cultural competency score because they showed some characteristics of the ethnocentric stages although their cross-cultural competency was best represented by a high cross-cultural competency stage like adaptation.
Sensitivity could not be used for this research because it is based on the full Intercultural Development Inventory Survey. It is a protected algorithm based on the full IDI survey that results in an IDI profile report. This report shows your Perceived Orientation which reflects where you place yourself along the intercultural continuum. Furthermore, it shows your Developmental Orientation which indicates your primary orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities. Lastly, it shows the Orientation Gap which is the difference along the continuum between your perceived and developmental orientation.
With the research design of this study, causality could be an issue. The research asks respondents after they received their grade (performance objective) to elaborate on the amount of trust, conflict and group involvement in the team process leading towards the performance result. A positive objective performance result, in this case a high grade, can neutralize feelings of distrust, non-work group involvement and high conflict experienced during the work team process because in the end a positive result was received. Therefore, a better set-up of the study would be to follow the entire process of the international work team working on an assignment by measuring the level of trust, work group involvement and conflict already at the beginning of the work group assignment, half-way through the assignment and at the end of the assignment before the grade was given. This gives a more reliably view of how an individual felt during the international work team assignment resulting in a more reliable trust, work group involvement and conflict score.
Contributions:
This effective international work team can deal with the difficulties that are a consequence of more cultural differences within the team. This is expected to be done by selecting and training individuals to achieve a certain level of cross-cultural competency that helps them to deal appropriately with cultural differences within an international work team.
Limitations and future research:
Despite the fact that this research contributes to the current literature, there are also some limitations that can explain why no support was found for the hypotheses.
Firstly, the sample only includes students of the Economics and Business Faculty of the University of Groningen. These students study at the same faculty, follow the same kind of courses, and are educated in the same way. Furthermore, the University of Groningen offers a high level of education. As a result, the sample could be described as relatively homogeneous. The international work team described in the literature has some different characteristics compared to the international work team used in this study. The most important difference is that a work team at university is created for a limited amount of time. International work teams mentioned in most literature, are created for the long-term, resulting in teams that have more time to develop and create a team identity (Gersick, 1988). Therefore, this sample did not represent the average international work team within a company or even at other faculties or universities. In a follow-up study, this could be improved by executing the research within other settings, like different universities or within a company.
or validated, so there was a possibility that the questions selected did not represent the constructs they were supposed to represent in the right way. Therefore, for future research question 6 should be replaced by a different question from the IDI that represents the acceptation stage. This will ensure that the acceptation stage is also measured in the right way.
Thirdly, the DMIS model shows in which stage an individual’s cross-cultural competency level is located. With the first stage representing the lowest level of cross-cultural competency and the last stage the highest level of cross-cultural competency. It was expected that after an individual scored the highest in one of the stages, the following stage scores would be lower. The cross-cultural competency level of the individual would be reflected in that highest scoring stage and the following stages still needed to be more developed resulting in a lower score. The results showed that this was not always the case. A possible explanation for this is that the acceptation stage was not measured correctly because question 6 was left out of the research. Therefore, it was more difficult to establish a representative score for this stage. Another possible reason is that the shortened version of IDI did not capture all the dimensions to their full extent, making a distinctive distinction between the dimensions not possible. Therefore, the shortened version of IDI should be tested and validated to see if the questions capture the essence of the concepts they are supposed to measure. If this is not the case, the shortened version should be altered. If this is the case, maybe the sample group of young adults was not a right target group for this specific cross-cultural competency measurement.
Fifthly, the distance is measured using a Euclidian distance formula. The Euclidean distance is a general method of measuring distances, introduced by Mahalanobis (1936). It is a useful method of determining the similarity between two elements. The Euclidean distance is mostly used because of its simplicity. The formula could also be used for all the six value dimensions of Hofstede. To measure cultural distance, most often the Kogut and Singh standardized quantitative measure of cultural distance is used based on the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (Kandogan, 2012). The Kogut and Singh measurement takes into account variance, and this is left out by the simplistic Euclidian distance formula. To get a more specific cultural distance score, future research could measure the cultural distance score of an international work team using the Kogut and Singh formula. Although, this formula also has some limitations because it does not measure the last two cultural value dimensions of Hofstede.
Sixthly, the objective performance measurement was based on the grade an international work team received from the teacher for the group assignment. This measurement is not completely objective because it can be biased by the cross-cultural competency level of the teacher (McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Ingram & Howard, 1998). If the teacher has a really high level of cross-cultural competency, it is more likely that he or she appreciates and understands the assignment made by a very multinational work team. This is the case, because a cross-cultural competent individual can better understand different cultural perspectives, that might be presented in the assignment. Therefore, to make sure that the objective performance measurement is totally objective, future research could also consider the cross-cultural competency level of the teacher. This might influence the grade received for the international work team assignment. If this is the case, it should be added to the research as a control variable.
