THE IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND COGNITIVE DIVERSITY ON
CROSS-BORDER TEAMS
M E L A N I E E B N E R & M A R T I N A G A I S C H
1
A M I C R O - A N A L Y S I S O F A H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E T T I N G
INTRODUCTION
• Ever-growing globalisation and demographic change
• Intercultural communication & cross-border cooperation
• Increasingly vital in today‘s world
• Culture: different worldviews
• Ambiguity and misunderstandings
• More resources available ; more creative solutions
• Major challenges in intercultural project teams
• How to constructively use these differences
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Which challenges does cooperation in cross-border project groups bring along?
• Which factors are necessary to enable successful intercultural
cooperation and to use demographic and cognitive diversity
as a resource?
LITERATURE REVIEW
A N D D E F I N I T I O N S
DIVERSITY
• “the fact of many different types of things or people being included in something;”
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2014)
• Heterogenity, variety, difference
• Tries to identify ways in which a connection is possible by understanding each other, pointing out the similarities and encompassing acceptance and respect.
(Sievert, 2014)
HEAD WHEEL
• Holistic perspective on diversity at the tertiary level
• Demografic diversity
• Race & ethnicity
• Cognitive diversity
• Value structures
• Knowledge structures
• Disciplinary diversity
• Interdisciplinarity
• Transdisciplinarity
• Exchange of subject-specific expertise & perspectives
• Functional diversity
• Institutional diversity
CULTURE
• „the collective programming of the mind“
(Hofstede, 2001, S.9)
• Concept that deals with traditional ideas and values which are passed on from generation to generation through symbols and communication
(Kroeber & Kluckholm, 1952)
• Structured way of thinking, feelings and actions that were given to people through experiences or knowledge of previous generations.
(Rammer, 2016)
CROSS-CULTURAL
• Comparison of different cultures
• Differences understood & acknowledged
• Dominant culture - „the norm“
• Individual change
(https://www.springinstitute.org/whats-difference-multicultural-intercultural-cross-cultural-communication/)
TEAMS
TEAMS
• groups of people “who come together to achieve certain results or performance goals”
(Gardenswartz & Rowe, 2008, p. 22)
TEAMWORK
• Is a process
• “where two or more employees
• interact interdependently
• toward a common and valued goal or objective,
• and who have each been assigned specific roles or functions to perform”
(Ellis & Bell, 2005, p.641)
CROSS-BORDER TEAMWORK
• Due to their cultural background people make assumptions about the way things should be. This can influence their behavior.
(Adler, 2002)
• Promoted by higher education institutions
• Widen the students’ horizon
• Open minds to different cultural perspectives -> more tolerant
(Burdett, 2014)
• Barriers:
• Direct vs. indirect communication
• Troubles with accents and fluency
• Different attitudes toward hierarchy
• Conflicting decision making norms
(Brett, Behfar and Kern, 2006)
GLOBE STUDY
• “Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness”
• Largest cross-cultural research on culture and leadership
• 9 DIMENSIONS:
• Performance Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Power Distance
• Gender Egalitarianism
• Humane Orientation
• In-Group Collectivism
• Institutional Collectivism
• Future Orientation
• Assertiveness
GLOBE STUDY – CLUSTER (EU)
(House et al, 2014)
GLOBE STUDY - PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION
STUDY
METHODOLOGY
• Semi-structured interviews
• General information: age, gender, nationality
• Open questions
• Participants
• Universitat Politecnica, Valencia
• EPS, WS 2016/17
• 49 students
• 10 nationalities
• 10 projects
• 3-6 persons per team
(www.upv.es)PARTICIPANTS
• 32 - 52 min (Ø 43)
• Diverse fields of studies
Communication & Multimedia Design, Infrastructure Construction Management, Media Technology, Global Business Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Mechatronics, Product Design
• 8 different nationalities
Denmark, Germany, England, Finland, France, Netherlands, Austria, Poland
• 5 female
• 5 male
• 20 - 26 years (Ø 21,7)
• 10 interviews
ANALYSIS
• Transcription
• Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
• 7 Categories
• General Teamwork
• Performance Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance and Future Orientation
• In-group collectivism
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Assertiveness
FINDINGS – GENERAL TEAMWORK 1/7
FINDINGS - GENERAL TEAMWORK 2/7
“It started still a little bit difficult because of the language barrier.
Sometimes we found out that not everyone understood what we
thought they understood.”
(Interview 1)
“Sometimes there were a view communication problems with the guys from France. Because in the beginning they were from the level a bit lower so it was hard for
them to express what they wanted to say.”
(Interview 4)
FINDINGS – PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION 3/7
FINDINGS - PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION 4/7
FINDINGS – PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION 5/7
“We just picked the person that is best in the task and let them do it. Because that
is the fastest way.”
(Interview 1)
“We are not as ambitious as they
are. They really want this to be perfect and the best project ever
but we are like – of course we want
it to be good but it doesn’t have to
be perfect.”
(Interview 3)
“In the middle of the
meeting we just take a break and
have a coffee or we talk..yeah like
friends.”
(Interview 7)
“For me it’s not necessary to be the best, in the middle level
is fine for me.”
(Interview 3)
FINDINGS - OVERVIEW 6/7
FINDINGS - OVERVIEW 7/7
LIMITATIONS
• Qualitative study
• small sample size
• not representative
• Important not to think in stereotypes
• small group of participants
• questioned at 1 point of the project
• Researcher‘s culture
• bias
• interviewer effect
• personal involvement
REFLECTION
• Demographic diversity
• people not aware of differences
• think that all cultures are similar (EU)
• blind to own cultural coding
• Cognitive & disciplinary diversity
• perceived strongly
• own methods & patterns
• diffrences = disruptive
• working style, background knowledge
• Lack of diversity sensitive management
• ressources of diversity not used
THANK YOU!
GLOBE STUDY – VALUES FOR DIMENSIONS 1/2
(GLOBE Foundation, 2016; Walther, 2006, p. 27-40;)
GLOBE STUDY – VALUES FOR DIMENSIONS 2/2
REFERENCES 1/2
• Adler, N. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behaviour (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western: Thomson Learning.
• Aichinger, S. & Gaisch, M. (2016). A Holistic Governance Framework for Diversity Management at the Tertiary Level. In Cher annual conference (pp. 1–8). Cambridge, UK.
• Bickman, L. & Rog, D. J. (2008). The sage handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Bouchard, G. & Taylor, C. (2008). Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation. Quebec, Canada: Gouvernment of Quebec.
• Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. In Qualitative research in psychology (Vol. 3, 2, pp.
77–101).
• Brett, J., Behfar, K. & Kern, M. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. In Harvard business review (Vol. 84, 11, pp. 85–91).
• Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burdett, J. (2014). Students achieving intercultural competence through group work: Realised or idealised? In Journal of international education in business (Vol. 17, 1, pp. 14–30).
• Cambridge Dictionary. (2014). diversity. Cambridge University Press.
• Chevrier, S. (2003). Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups. In Journal of world business (Vol. 38, pp.
141–149).
• Cicchelli, V. (2013a). How Do People Engage with Globalisation? A Cosmopolitan Socialisation Approach. In V.
Cotesta, V. Cicchelli & M.
• Nocenzi (Eds.), Global society, cosmopolitanism and human rights (pp. 197–210). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Cicchelli, V. (2013b). The Cosmopolitan ‚Bildung’ of Erasmus students going abroad. In Y. Hébert & A. Abdi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on international education (pp. 205–208). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
• Sense Publishers.
• Ellis, A. & Bell, B. (2005). An Evaluation of Generic Teamwork Skills Training with Action Teams: Effects on Cognitive and Skill-Based Outcomes. In Personnel psychology (Vol. 58, 3, pp. 641–672).
• Engle, J. & Engle, L. (2002). Neither international nor educative: Study abroad in the time of globalization. In Rockin’in red square: Critical approaches to international education in the age of cyberculture (pp. 25–39).
REFERENCES 2/2
• Gaisch, M., Holzmann, C., Kurschl, W., Mayr, H. & Selinger, S. (2013).
• EPSIAE-European Exchange of Higher Education. In Proceedings of cross-cultural conference 2013 (pp. 253–263). Steyr, Österreich.
• Gardenswartz, L. & Rowe, A. (2008). Diverse teams at work: capitalizing on the power of diversity. US: Society for Human Resource Management.
• GLOBE Foundation. (2016). About The Studies: Overview. 28.02.2017. Retrieved from http://globeproject.com/studies
• Grove, C. (2005). Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings.
16.02.2017. Retrieved from https://www.grovewell.com/wp-content/uploads/pub-GLOBE-dimensions.pdf
• House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
• Kim, J. & Meyers, R. A. (2012). Cultural differences in conflict management styles in East and West organizations. In Journal of intercultural communication (Vol. 29).
• Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckholm, C. (1952). Culture; a critical review of concepts and definitions. New York, US: Vintage Books.
• Rammer, V. (2016). An Analysis of Different Cultures and Their Impact on Exchange Students. A Comparitive Study of Austria and Sweden. In Proceedings of cross-cultural conference 2016 (pp. 202–211). Steyr, Österreich.
• Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem-solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
• Schulz, A. (2009). Strategisches Diversitätsmanagement: Unternehmensführung im Zeitalter der kulturellen Vielfalt.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
• Sievert, S. (2014). Diversity Management: Wie können durch interkulturelle Kompetenz in Unternehmen Synergien geschaffen und Konflikte bewältigt werden? (Master’s thesis, Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht in Berlin).
• Soli, M. (n.d.). What’s the difference between multicultural, intercultural, and cross-cultural communication? 24.04.2017.
Retrieved from https://www.springinstitute.org/whats- difference- multicultural-intercultural-cross-cultural- communication/
• Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behaviour. New York, US: McGraw-Hill.
• Walther, J. (2006). Unterschiede der Kulturen: Eine Analyse und Bewertungkulturvergleichender Studien unter Aufnahme
