Cross-Cultural Teams Within International Firms Research Paper

Introduction

The modern trend to globalization becomes a reason for the emergence of a large number of international organizations. These organizations are characterized by the presence of employees with various cultural backgrounds. The concepts of multiculturalism and diversity are similar, although the former is narrower in its description of people. Traditionally, multiculturalism describes the composition of a group with multiple ethnicities, races, and cultures (Basabe & Ros, 2005). Diversity, in contrast, is a general term that may also incorporate people’s gender, age, sexual orientation, and other identifying characteristics that may determine these people’s behavior, experience, habits, and view of the world (Triana, Jayasinghe & Pieper, 2015). Thus, when considering the aspect of cross-cultural teams, one has to acknowledge the further ways in which people may identify themselves. Such distinction also allows one to delve deeper into the understanding of how different cultures and personal characteristics shape one’s attitudes and work ethics.

The analysis of diverse teams is often conducted to determine whether they will yield more professional benefits or drawbacks for the organization and its stakeholders. On the one hand, the co-existence of people from different cultures is associated with numerous advantages. Diverse cultural perspectives can inspire creativity and boost innovation inside firms, while cultural sensitivity promoted by such teams can lead to increased local knowledge and improved targeted marketing (Lambert, 2016). On the other hand, cultural diversity can negatively affect the dynamics of cross-cultural groups if the team is misbalanced. It is clear that discrimination remains an issue in some communities where ethnic and other differentiating characteristics are not commonly accepted (De Mooij, 2015). This is especially true when speaking about groups with clear cultural majorities and minorities. In such groups, the minorities are less likely to be heard, leading to dissatisfaction and decreased productivity among group members (Schwartz 2015). Additionally, the research conducted by Ozgen, Nijkamp, and Poot suggests that cross-cultural teams may not always promote innovation. Therefore, the managers of cross-cultural teams must evaluate the effect of demographic diversity.

Since diverse group composition affects groups’ performance and dynamics, it is vital to assess the ways of mitigating the negative consequences of the matter. One of the problems defined by Mach and Baruch (2015) is the lack of heterogeneity of values among group members. The difference in the cultural background is associated with the divergence of opinions, which may lead to decreased productivity. Additionally, cross-cultural teams may be more likely to be affected by distrust since it is harder to generate and sustain a collective identity of a group with varying ethnic backgrounds (Mach & Baruch, 2015). Therefore, managers of such teams have to make additional efforts to create an environment full of trust and mutual understanding. Such relationships can be promoted by utilizing effective strategies for fostering collective team orientation. This and other problems will be defined in more detail in the following chapter.

When appraising the effectiveness of a team or attempting to construct the best approach to the improvement of cross-cultural collaboration, one can utilize a theoretical framework. One of the most prominent works concerning inter-cultural communication belongs to Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist of the twentieth century. He created a model of six dimensions that help to describe the differences between cultures adequately (Hofstede 1983). The model finds its use in international management, communication, negotiation, and marketing. Even though the model is generally accepted as one of the most comprehensive frameworks of national culture values as it has proven its applicability to various matters throughout the years, it has been extensively criticized. The criticism was based upon the statement that the model is incomplete, and there are other factors on which culture can be analyzed.

Another theoretical framework, which included seven cultural dimensions of cross-cultural communication, was developed by Fons Trompenaars and Halls. The dimensions were meant to be an addition and improvement of Hofstede’s model (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). Even though the authors’ approach met limited success in various spheres, it was open to criticism since it had similar flaws to the six-dimension theory introduced by Hofstede. Other theorists attempted to analyse the difference between cultures from the perspective of context, Edward Hall being one of the major contributors to this methodology. Here, the contrast is more defined between two groups, which further simplified the theorists’ view of different cultures.

The critique of these works, however, is not limited to their small number of characteristics or their simplicity. A primary aspect that defines these and similar frameworks are their western origin. Indeed, it is apparent that the discipline of cross-cultural communication was developed and brought into the light by scholars from western countries, including such prominent nations as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. Therefore, one may pose a question of whether these approaches fully encompass all perceptions from different cultures or account for a western view of the world only. Here, the importance of presenting and examining other opinions arises. In other words, the modern world may need other theoretical frameworks to address the problems of cross-cultural communication.

This research will consider the aspects that guide diverse teams in international organizations. Its purpose is to understand the role and effectiveness of cross-cultural teams from a non-western perspective by analyzing non-western research theories used to operate in other parts of the world (Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). The following research objectives have been set.

• To understand the influences of cross-cultural teams based on primary research.
• To evaluate the dynamics of the dominant culture and its influences in the workforce.
• To assess a firm’s performance and competitive advantage about diversity and these cross-cultural teams.
• To determine which cultural models are appropriate and what ways of managing a cross-cultural team exist.

The structure of the paper is as follows. Chapter 2 will present the synthesis of available academic information about cross-cultural communication and consider the gaps in knowledge that can be found when investigating well-known theoretical frameworks. It will include both western and non-western models that have gained sufficient prominence. Chapter 3 will provide insight into the study’s research methodology and strategy with a focus on the primary methods of data collection and analysis strategies. Next, Chapter 4 will demonstrate the findings discovered as a result of the research; it will consider the themes found within the interview data. The discussion of the key data and its interpretation with the application of the frameworks detailed in the literature review will follow after that. Finally, Chapter 5 will conclude the work, presenting the gathered information and suggesting possible areas for future investigation.

Literature Review

The following chapter is structured to demonstrate the amount of knowledge currently available on the topic as well as make conclusions about the positive and negative conclusions made by various researchers. As the diagram presented below suggests, the first segment of the review will consider multiple western cultural frameworks, including the theories developed by Hofstede, Trompenaars, Hall, and other authors. Then, the literature about non-western based frameworks will be analyzed, paying attention to the issues arising in this sphere of research. After presenting fundamental theories and discussing their importance to the discipline, the basic ideas related to the performance of diverse teams will be investigated. Finally, the summary of the gathered data will be presented, leading the research to suggest some possible gaps in knowledge.

Influence of Diversity of Organisations

The impact of culturally diverse teams on the performance of firms is as complex as the development of successful cross-cultural relationships. One cannot acknowledge only the positive or negative aspects of multiculturalism since this phenomenon dramatically depends on the particular environment of the organization as well as its location, activities, and goals. However, the scholarship shows that multicultural teams display some similar characteristics and results, thus allowing one to make some assumptions about the influence of diversity on performance and interpersonal relationships.

Benefits of Diverse Teams

First of all, one may consider the possible advantages that diverse teams have over culturally homogenous groups. People from different cultures have different past experiences, relating to their personal and professional lives. Therefore, a multicultural team may benefit from these perspectives to drive innovation. Studies show that a multitude of perspectives can be based on people’s cultural backgrounds and explained by their interactions with family, friends, and people from the same culture (Mitchell et al. 2015). In innovation, an ability to look at a problem from a different angle is considered an opportunity for increased creativity (Garcia Martinez, Zouaghi & Garcia Marco 2017). As a result, diversity may increase an organization’s chances to move forward and overcome obstacles.

The second potential advantage is knowledge of the local culture. This factor is especially relevant to companies that expand to other regions and create teams that combine trusted professionals’ skill with new hires’ local experience (Jiang et al. 2016). The deep understanding of the wants and needs of the target population opens up new possibilities for the organization and allows one to compete in various locations. Marketing guided by the specifics of cultural sensitivity, for example, maybe more effective than one’s efforts to penetrate the market without in-depth knowledge. The adaptability of products to local markets is connected to this factor as well.

Another characteristic of diverse teams is its necessity to work in conditions where communication and teamwork matter not only for organizational performance but also for the stability and clarity inside the team. If members speak different languages or possess knowledge that may have been previously inaccessible to other workers, they can share new information. As a result, personal and professional growth is a result of diverse teams’ willingness to collaborate (Bouncken, Brem & Kraus 2016). This benefits the organization as well because it gains workers with a broader understanding of the world.

It should be noted that the competitive advantage of diverse teams is closely linked to the success of the organization to integrate different cultures into its processes. Thus, the failure to foster tolerance and respect in groups will lead to the company suffering from diversity more than benefitting from it. Guillaume et al. (2017) argue that many factors can contribute to or undermine the effectiveness of diverse teams. They can be divided into three major categories – ‘that render demographic differences salient, … engender or prevent intergroup bias, and … enhance or undermine information elaboration (Guillaume et al. 2017, p. 279). One can see that, for an organization to derive the most benefit from a diverse team, it has to create an environment where workers are comfortable with their identity, the culture of others, and their interactions.

Challenges in Diverse Teams

It is also vital to address possible drawbacks of cultural diversity and challenges that may be overcome to lead to success. As mentioned above, many factors determining the harmony in cross-cultural teams exist. The failure to consider them can result in the organization having unbalanced interprofessional relationships. The first challenge is to make sure that all employees feel represented and free to voice their opinion. Here, the issue of the minority should be acknowledged – if a person of a specific cultural background does not have enough support or recognition, they may feel as though their input is not as valuable as that of others.

Such problems are especially relevant to situations where the minority members are also a minority in the country or city in which the organization is located (Lee & Peterson 2000). For example, a non-white person in a predominantly white city or state may feel less comfortable voicing an opinion. Another major problem is the presence of prejudice or negative stereotyping (Imakwuchu & Billy 2018). Similarly, this concern may lead to the teams having an imbalance of power. Underlying problems of a language barrier, misunderstanding, nonverbal cues, and similar cultural differences can significantly affect the performance of workers in teams. The understanding of professional etiquette also varies from one culture to another, and any different standards or habits are crucial to members’ comfort.

Western Cultural Frameworks

Hofstede’ Cultural Dimensions

One of the most recognized theoretical frameworks in cross-cultural communication research is Hofstede’s dimensions of culture. The system of six dimensions is used to determine in which ways people from different cultures tend to approach business negotiations and operations. From its creation in the 1980s to this day, the theory is considered to be the most influential on the research of organizational diversity (Hofstede 2011). The six dimensions can be described as follows:

1. The first dimension considered by Hofstede is power distance, which determines a culture’s view of hierarchical relations among professionals. People may lean towards egalitarian or hierarchy-oriented structures, meaning that they have low and high power distance, respectively (Hofstede 2011). This aspect also entails one’s opinion on bureaucracy, power balance, and participation. As one may assume, low power distance cultures favor shared responsibility, participation, and decentralization. In contrast, high power distance implies respect for authority, strict rules for interprofessional communication between ranks, and acceptance of inequity.
2. The second dimension deals with such notions as individualism and collectivism. Low scores in this index describe collectivist cultures, and high scores reveal individualist cultures (Hofstede 2011). This descriptor determines one’s readiness for group integration as well as one’s view of interdependence and obligation. Individualist cultures value the achievement of personal goals above the completion of group objectives. In contrast, collectivist societies prioritize the well-being and performance of the group, which sometimes leads to personal sacrifices.
3. Uncertainty avoidance is the third characteristic of cultures, according to Hofstede (Hofstede 2011). Here, low scores describe cultures the members of which are comfortable in uncertain situations and conditions. These communities encourage or view positively risk-taking activities, lax rules, and limited regulation possibilities (Hofstede 2011). On the other side of the spectrum, cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance index do not tolerate ambiguous and uncertain conditions. Risk-taking is discouraged, while strict rules, standards, and regulations are enforced.
4. The fourth dimension measures countries’ femininity and masculinity in relation to their values of nurture and assertiveness. Cultures defined by femininity lean towards nurturing environments and behaviours and fluid gender roles, considering the quality of workers’ life an essential aspect of functioning. Masculine societies, as a contrast, establish and follow distinct gender roles. They are more assertive than other cultures, more interested in wealth and power accumulation and reaching material goals.
5. One of the dimensions added later in Hofstede’s research is long- and short-term orientation. In this case, cultures are analyzed based on their focus and view of success. Communities that are lower the value of quick wins and instant gratification, while pursuing significant goals for the future are considered to have a long-term orientation. Societies, where results and success in the present are more central than the future, have a short-term orientation. Here, tradition and standards but not long-term growth are highly valued.
6. Finally, the sixth dimension is the cultures’ choice between restraint and indulgence. The first category describes communities that use social norms to regulate people’s need for gratification. Members of this society are expected to control their impulses. In contrast, the second type of society values fun and one’s fulfillment of wishes without enforcing regulatory, social standards. The expression of emotions is valued as a part of personal comfort.

Hofstede’s framework uses all six characteristics to determine how members of different communities should prepare for cross-culture collaboration. This model usually equated cultures with countries, describing business operations in different nations as rather homogenous and predictable. Here lies one of the main criticisms of the theory since many countries are not homogenous in their population, many having various ethnicities and groups with distinct cultural traditions and experiences (Tung & Verbeke, 2010). Another criticism is tied to Hofstede’s assignment of gender-based characteristics to cultures. The researcher aligns societies’ distinctions with those of gender, believing that women and men can be attributed to two distinctly different cultures that are defined by opposing belief systems. Similar to the country-based approach, such generalization may lead to erroneous data (Zainuddin, Yasin & Arif, 2018; Tsui, Nifadkar & Ou, 2007). Nonetheless, the framework continues to be used in cross-cultural communication.

Trompenaars’ Model of National Culture Differences

Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner developed another theory that presents multiple dimensions of culture. This particular model has seven dichotomies that divide cultures based on their aspirations, regulations, and values. The first pair of descriptions is universalism and particularism, which describe cultures’ views of circumstances (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). Universalist beliefs are grounded in objectivity, emphasizing the role of rules and the low importance of relationships in an organizational setting. In a contrast, particularism implies the role of circumstances in determining the actions and opinions of an individual. Here, relationships have a higher value than standards and many details that may not seem to be directly linked to business matter in context. The second dimension is similar to that of Hofstede, describing cultures through either individualism or communitarianism.

The third pair states that cultures can be neutral or emotional. In this case, the expression of emotions is at the center – neutral cultures regulate their responses, while emotional cultures prefer to show enthusiasm, excitement, and other reactions (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). The next dimension denotes cultures’ view of private and public life separation (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). If a community is presented as having a specific culture, its members have different spaces in which they exist according to an ascribed role. In communities with diffuse culture, these distinctions are less defined, and people behave in public and private circles similarly. The fifth aspect presented by the scholars deals with individuals’ status (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). Achievement-based cultures determine one’s status, depending on their accomplishments and performance. Ascription-based cultures value inherent characteristics, using age and title to determine people’s place in the hierarchy of the group.

The two final categories consider the individuals’ planning and environment. First, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner divide cultures into sequential and synchronic (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). The first group highly values punctuality, scheduling, and deadlines, while the second type prefers multitasking and flexibility. Second, the scholars state that cultures are defined by internal and external control (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). If society decides what happens in the environment, it has internal control. In contrast, if its environment guides the community, the control is external. When compared to Hofstede’s model, this one is very similar in principle; it provides a simplistic, dichotomous approach to categorizing and juxtaposing cultures. However, it uses somewhat different categories, which is why the merging of both frameworks for a more successful and less simplistic analysis might be helpful.

Hall’s Cultural Factors

The use of opposing pairs is prevalent in many theoretical frameworks, including the ones presented above. The model proposed by anthropologist Edward T. Hall is also based on a dichotomy. However, here, one main characteristic determines other qualities of cultures instead of a multitude described in similar works. Hall divides all cultures into high-context and low-context ones, depending on their relationship with information (McSweeney 2015). High-context cultures, for example, are filled with contextual information, including metaphors, implicit rules, traditions, and customs. In such communities, much of the conversation is covert, and people are expected to infer the meaning from various cues (McSweeney 2015). Such a culture is further described as reserved, nonverbal, relationship-oriented, flexible, and driven by personal responsibility.

The other type of culture is low-context – the information is not defined or contextualized by implied knowledge. This means that people from such cultures are not used to reading ‘between the lines’, relying on explicit messages instead (McSweeney 2015). Thus, the focus is shifted from body language (nonverbal communication) to words and visible emotional responses. Hall specifies that such cultures are flexible in their grouping patterns, but organized in time constraints (McSweeney, 2015). Their commitment to relationships is less important than the completion of tasks, and the locus of control is located outside.

Another characteristic that determines people’s choices and values are time. Halls’ framework divides cultures into those that prioritize monochronic or polychronic action. This distinction is similar to Trompenaars’ sequential and synchronic dimensions (McSweeney 2015). Monochronic action implies that people prefer completing one task at a time and focusing on deadlines, achievements, personal property, and promptness. Polychronic action, on the other hand, allows for multitasking, thus contributing to distractions, personal relationships’ importance, and relative promptness based on the quality of the tasks’ result. Secondary descriptors also include cultures’ territoriality (need for personal space and boundaries) and information flow (the speed and quality of delivered messages).

Thus, the third western framework follows the sample principle of singling out factors concerning which cultures may differ and using them to assign particular categories. This model employs another perspective on what could be important for cross-cultural communication. Hall seems to consider features that would indeed be important in business settings, which makes this framework applicable to the present research.

Non-Western Cultural Frameworks

The information-gathering process for non-western cross-cultural theories revealed a lack of famous or well-known frameworks in use by scholars. This disbalance can be explained by the fact that western professors developed the research sphere of cross-cultural communication. The discipline was also guided by colonial history, and countries with a dominating influence on business and education created the need to integrate other cultures with new systems (Roberson, Ryan & Ragins 2017). Thus, the majority of available data describe recent theories that either acknowledge the colonial past of particular nations or try to focus on innovative ways of defining diversity through their culture.

Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values

An Israeli scholar Shalom H. Schwartz introduced one of the frameworks linked to intercultural research. The author presents seven value types that affect cultures in different ways and combine to create unique perceptions of the world. These basic value categories are harmony, egalitarianism, intellectual autonomy, affective autonomy, hierarchy, and conservatism (Schwartz 1999). Similar to western theories, some of the factors are in opposition to each other, although others can coexist and influence each other. The diagram of their structure reveals that the connections between these elements are much more complicated than a dichotomy (Figure 2). From this perspective, Schwartz’s model is somewhat less simple than those of western scholars, although it still operates a limited number of factors and categories.

For instance, hierarchy and conservatism are located next to one another because they both have similar underlying principles (Schwartz 1999). At the same time, hierarchy and egalitarianism lie at the different ends of the structure due to their opposing views. Mastery and harmony are in opposition because they describe one’s focus on either change or acceptance. Thus, mastery can be linked-to hierarchy which supports goals’ achievement and compliance, while egalitarianism and harmony share a link in people’s agreement with the natural order.

Thus, one may see how cultures may be described using these values – the priorities of people demonstrate which areas of the framework are more represented than the others. The use of this model poses some challenges due to its complicated calculations and relative lack of transparency in comparison to popular theories. Nonetheless, Schwartz presents a view that is not based on other scholars’ simplistic descriptions of foreign nations.

Fukuyama’s Analysis of Trust

An approach developed by a Japanese theorist, Francis Fukuyama, is based on the relationship between trust and organizational performance. Fukuyama (2001) divides all cultures into ones with low and high trust. In high trust communities, individuals and, therefore, organizations are more flexible in negotiating and setting goals. Furthermore, they are oriented toward participatory decision-making and group responsibility. Low trust societies have organizations where hierarchies are more rigid since managers do not allow subordinates the same level of autonomy. The author’s use of trust and its relation to performance reveals a different view of business effectiveness. The clear focus on relationships in this framework provides an indirect critique of western theories that often focus on the product rather than employees in a company. Here, the nurturing aspect, which often aligns with less economically prosperous countries, is presented as the most prominent feature of organizations (Fukuyama, 2001). As a result, Fukuyama’s theory provides a different outlook on the factors of cross-cultural success, outlining trust as a significant contributor.

Ubuntu

Ubuntu can be considered a Southern African ethical framework; it is a humanistic approach to framing morality, community, and one’s place within it (Metz 1982). Ubuntu is predicated on several principles, which include the prioritization of morality, one’s moral personhood, attention to others (friendship and friendliness), and solidarity (Metz 2018). As a result, ubuntu presupposes basing one’s identity on one’s commitment to advancing the well-being of one’s community and individuals within that community (Metz 2018). When translated to English, it can be expressed through the following statement: an ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (Metz 2011, p. 540). Thus, ubuntu prioritizes interhuman relationships, which makes it a relevant framework for cross-cultural teams. However, it does not cover the topic of culture specifically; rather, it focuses on humans.

Some of the criticisms of ubuntu include the idea that it is relatively vague and can be mixed with other similar terms; certain critics can also suggest that it is focused on collectivism and is only functional in small-scale communities (Metz 2011). However, Metz (2011) points out that all these points are contestable. Indeed, an individual or an organization can define ubuntu in a way that would enable its use, and collectivism or small-scale application do not have to be a problem, although they can be considered a limitation. Furthermore, Metz (2018) discusses the application of this idea to corporate management and leadership. The author demonstrates that ubuntu can become a ground for moral, ethical decisions, as well as provide some suggestions regarding the organization of a workplace. Specifically, Metz (2018) suggests employing ubuntu in the corporate relationships between organizations and within them with a focus on dignity, respect, and compromise. Thus, the use of ubuntu in corporate contexts may be effective, which justifies its presentation among the non-westernized frameworks which can guide cross-cultural teams, but ubuntu still stands out in that it does not try to categorize cultures because it was not created as a means of analyzing them.

Amilcar Cabral

Amilcar Cabral (192-1973) was a notable political and cultural figure from Guinea-Bissau; he was described as a major theoretician of anti-colonialist movements (Nabolsy 2019). Indeed, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and socialist ideas were expressed by Cabral (1966) directly. These perspectives shaped his understanding of cultures; Cabral (1966) described culture as a means of uniting peoples and constructing socialism. Furthermore, he viewed culture as a factor that could affect (delay or promote) societal change (Jinadu 1978; Luke 1981). In connection to that, he expressed the idea that cultural domination and destruction of culture were major tools in occupation and colonization.

Indeed, Cabral (1974) viewed the westernized theories of cultural assimilation of native people as an example of harmful cultural domination. In general, he offered a criticism of the colonialist attempts at diminishing the value of the cultures of non-white peoples. Therefore, it can be suggested that he supported a framework in which cultures could be viewed in terms of domination and hegemony. As shown by other authors, this problem can be considered a common one within colonized and oppressed countries and communities; cultural hegemony has left its impact on the majority of the planet (Cordeiro-Rodrigues 2018; Jackson 2017; Jinadu 1978; Luckett 2019; Luke 1981; Switzer 1986). Cabral (1974) believed that the coexistence of people within multi-racial communities was possible, but depended on the recognition of the ideals of equality. His understanding and view of the relationships between the oppressors and oppressed, as well as those exploiting people and those who were exploited, was influenced by this perspective.

In summary, Cabral’s view of culture was informed by his understanding and analysis of colonialism and oppression. He did not propose a framework that would highlight various categories of cultures, but he did focus on the analysis of cultures in terms of domination, which can be considered a framework of its own. Such a framework is similar to the dichotomy-based ones, and it is also relatively reductive since it centers around only one category. Still, Cabral’s ideas about the coexistence of multicultural society can help to inform this research.

Franz Fanon

Franz Fanon (1925—1961) was a very prominent figure from the French colony of Martinique who actively opposed colonization, promoted decolonization, and wrote on the topics of freedom, oppression, humanism, and race (Luckett 2019; Nicholls n.d.). As a result, in his view of culture, he focused on the interactions of the cultures of the oppressors and the oppressed, which were hierarchical (Jinadu 1978; Nicholls n.d.; Pithouse 2016). He also viewed language as a major aspect of culture which could carry racism (Nicholls n.d.). Like Cabral, Fanon supposed that culture could become a factor in change that would either oppose or promote it (Jinadu 1978). Fanon was also against the ideas of white supremacy and articulated the term of negrification (internalized racism), which he analyzed from the perspective of existentialism (Nicholls n.d.).

Fanon was a dedicated humanist who thought that all humans were to be considered equal and treated with dignity. He viewed this principle as necessary for the coexistence of a multi-racial society (Nicholls n.d.; Pithouse 2016). His ideas fit the above-proposed framework of viewing cultures from the perspectives of domination and oppression, but he has contributed a lot to the discussion of the impact of any oppression on the well-being of the oppressed. Thus, this form of the same framework can also help to understand interrelationships in cross-cultural groups, although Fanon did not intend for his works to be used to classify and analyze cultures.

Nkrumah and Nyerere

Nkrumah (1909-1972) and Nyerere (1922-1999) can be discussed in the same subsection because they are often considered together as the ‘founding fathers of African socialism’ (Metz 1982, p. 378). Within the socialist framework, the post-colonial, capitalist organization of their society was viewed negatively, and the socialist organization of economy was considered the desired goal (Metz 1982; Žák 2016). Nkrumah and Nyerere believed that this outcome could be achieved through the focus on the traditional African culture and its elements, which was supposed to help to rebuild their communities and make them more socialist (Otunnu 2015; Žák 2016). The primary difference between them was in Nyerere’s focus on the rural economy; he believed that it was most likely to assist in the recreation of traditional African values. Nkrumah postulated that a post-capitalist society needed to develop into something new but also socialist, which defined his interest in industrialization instead (Metz 1982). Other than that, their perspectives on socialism and African ethics were rather similar.

As a result of their attention to traditional ideals and values, Nkrumah and Nyerere were focused on the ideas associated with ubuntu, including those of a humanistic perspective on morality and ethics (Metz 1982; Otunnu 2015). Both suggested that ubuntu and traditional African ethics were in line with the ideas of socialism, especially due to their humanistic and egalitarian nature (Metz 1982). Furthermore, as politicians from Ghana and Tanzania (respectively), Nkrumah and Nyerere recognized the negative outcomes of colonization, including those that resulted in the rejection of the value of African history and culture. Therefore, they also subscribed to the framework of a dominance-based analysis of cultures while highlighting the importance of humanistic ideals and egalitarianism reflective of ubuntu.

Other Theories and Identified Issues

The lack of identified scholars and frameworks leads to the question of whether the popularity of western frameworks is based not only on their simplicity but also on the absence of other widespread views. Jackson (2013) notes that African management research was previously neglected due to the influence of western dominance in the economy following World War II. Thus, its current resurgence is necessary for the culture of the region and the global outlook guided by a different perspective. However, Jackson (2013) also states that the profound impact of colonialism may still influence researchers’ attempts to recover knowledge.

At the present moment, a significant part of all non-western research in the sphere of cross-cultural communication is focused on dismantling the system built by western scholars. Hence, a prominent part of all studies is concerned with criticism of the original methods used by Hofstede, Hall, and others. This insight into the different cultures’ view of this discipline allows one to see the failures of popular western frameworks to capture the individual and societal differences between cultures that lie beyond the established comparisons (Shaiq et al. 2011; Osland 1990). An interesting example that contrasts the western traditions of business relations and another culture’s view is the study by Karrer (2012), who examines the Pashtun culture in the context of cross-cultural communication. The scholar argues that the nature of the Afghan reality, with its political climate, cultural diversity, and outside influence, cannot be evaluated on the national level using western frameworks. Thus, a call to use these theories on a smaller scale is apparent since whole countries may not be subject to homogenization.

The theories of Cabral, Fanon, Nkrumah, and Nyerere, as well as the ideas of ubuntu, are not out of place in this research. They consider non-western cultures and can provide important insights into the management of cross-cultural teams. The research into the application of ubuntu to leadership has been conducted (Metz 2018). Furthermore, Cabral (1974) and others provide significant criticisms of cultural hegemony, highlighting the idea that non-western frameworks are indeed required for the successful promotion of cross-cultural cooperation (Cordeiro-Rodrigues 2018; Luckett 2019). From this perspective, the described theories can be considered a framework that attracts attention to the ability of cultures to dominate each other. However, neither of these authors (or ubuntu) focused on developing an actionable cultural framework, which limits the applicability of their ideas.

Thus, the virtual inexistence of new theories does not present an alternative that could be defined and used as a framework for further research. According to Jackson (2017), many cross-cultural studies fail to acknowledge “the majority world” – the history and opinions of developing countries. Spatially, as the author notes, the input of more than 80% of the landmass’ residents is missing from research (Jackson 2015). As an outcome, the remaining 20% produce systems of appraisal that are biased in the way of benefitting the developed regions. Thus, the current state of knowledge acquisition is challenged by the lack of sources from different cultures. The impact of these evaluations on diverse teams and their performance is limited as well.

Summary of Literature Review

The literature review demonstrates the apparent dominance of western philosophies in the field of cross-cultural communications. The works of Hofstede, Hall, Trompenaars, and Hampden-Turner are widely known by researchers and managers and are considered the standard of cultural evaluation. These theories offer simplistic and transparent systems for categorizing people based on their cultural background, which is often tied to geographic location; the primary trend in these models is the attempt to capture complex phenomena through several categories. Such homogenization has its benefits as it creates a logical structure. Nonetheless, it is also unreliable because many people’s behaviors may not align with the standard expected of their country.

An investigation into the non-western models, especially those associated with socialism and ubuntu, can offer additional insights. It demonstrates that there are approaches that are not aimed at the conventional categorization of cultures that appears to be popularised by the western methods. However, specifically, culture-oriented frameworks are not very numerous among non-western researchers. The two that were identified an attempt to break away from the western-like format and content, though, and the categories of oppression, while somewhat similar to dichotomy-based approaches, are also a powerful analysis tool.

The lack of recognition of non-western theories in scholarship and management presents a danger for cross-cultural teams. It leads to misrepresentation, stereotyping, and simplification of complex cultures that did not have the same influence on the history of the discipline. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the western theorists’ knowledge does not adequately represent the knowledge of the majority populations, demonstrating a bias for countries with colonial and economic power. As an outcome, the potential for further investigation lies in exploring cultural diversity through the lens of non-western scholars. Diversity presents many opportunities for organizational growth, and its improved research may help managers to overcome existing challenges.

Methodology

Research Approach and Design

Objectives and Strategies

This chapter will present the logic and details of the project’s methodology. The goal of this study was to examine cross-cultural team interaction from the perspective of non-western cultures and with various (western and non-western) cultural frameworks as an analytical tool. This goal defined the research approach and design; to reiterate, the following objectives were put forward to guide the project.

• To understand the influences of cross-cultural teams based on primary research.
• To evaluate the dynamics of the dominant culture and its influences in the workforce.
• To assess a firm’s performance and competitive advantage about diversity and these cross-cultural teams.
• To determine which cultural models are appropriate and what ways of managing a cross-cultural team exist.

In coordination with the objectives and the project’s questions, only qualitative designs could guide this research. Indeed, quantitative research is necessary to make conclusions about large populations and produce generalizable knowledge. However, it cannot offer an insightful and deep investigation of a phenomenon that would enable its understanding; qualitative research, on the other hand, is meant for this task (Tracy 2019). Figure 3 represents the research strategy that was employed; the goal was to align all the methods of the project. Interviews are a suitable tool for collecting qualitative data (Tracy 2019), and the descriptive analytical approach that was developed for this study has been employed with interview data (Ryan, Pelly & Purcell 2017). Therefore, the aim of the research design was achieved; it produced a project that had aligned methods and could produce the themes and interpretations that would enable the researcher to respond to the research questions.

Data Collection Method and Analysis Techniques

Interviews were chosen as the method of collecting the primary data for this project. Interviews are an effective approach to gaining qualitative data for research purposes (Tracy 2019). This method ensures the generation of insights into a studied phenomenon, which aligns it with the project’s objectives. From the respective of data analysis, the project’s descriptive-analytical approach incorporated a thematic analysis of the interview data and their comparative investigation with the application of cultural frameworks. This method is also in line with the needs of the study, and it has been applied to qualitative data, including that produced by interviews (Ryan, Pelly & Purcell 2017), which justifies its integration in the research strategy.

It should also be stated that the semi-structured interview type was chosen for the project. Its main advantage is its ability to balance the structure offered by a question guide with the flexibility ensured by the interviewer’s readiness to explore any additional topics. These features facilitate the exploration of a phenomenon (Kallio et al. 2016; McIntosh & Morse 2015). Thus, semi-structured interviews fit the requirements of the project and can assist it in accomplishing its objectives. Figure 4 contains the question guide that was used for the interviews’ structure; each interview took approximately 20 minutes.

Figure 4: The semi-structured interview guide.

Data Sampling

The sampling consisted of contacting the representatives of well-established companies in varied industries. This targeted non-probability sampling is a relatively common approach for qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell 2015). It resulted in a diverse group of twelve minority employees who had experienced more than one culture due to working outside of their country of origin. Small samples are typical for interviews since large ones are commonly intended to achieve a level of generalisability (Boddy 2016). When the objective is to generate insights, smaller samples are a possibility if the data saturation is achieved (Hagaman & Wutich 2017; Saunders & Townsend 2016). In this project, data saturation was achieved since the themes that appeared in the responses were replicated in most of them.

Figure 5 presents the de-identified information of the participants; as can be seen from it, they came from trade, construction, education, healthcare, mining, oil and gas, and warehousing industries, as well as government. Furthermore, their posts ranged from those of a teaching assistant to project manager. Finally, the nationality of the participants was very diverse; they had Chinese, Indian, Nigerian, and Egyptian heritage; many people identified their nationality as mixed. This diversity was intentional; the project recruited people with different backgrounds and experiences to attempt to analyze varied cross-cultural teams.

Figure 5: Interviewee list.

Limitations and Issues

Certain aspects of the described project can be viewed as potential limitations. First, one cannot view qualitative research as a method of obtaining generalizable findings; the fact that the project employs a relatively small number of people highlights this issue (Noble & Smith 2015; Tracy 2019). Indeed, the results of this study are not to be interpreted as representative of large groups of people. However, the objectives of the project were not intended for generalisability; rather, they are exploratory, which is a common goal in qualitative investigations. Therefore, while this limitation needs to be considered, it does not prevent the project from reaching its goals.

The use of a small sample is fully justified both by the project’s design and its data collection methods. Interviews are commonly meant to have relatively small samples, which is explained by their aim of obtaining insights (Hagaman & Wutich 2017; Saunders & Townsend 2016). Also, it should be noted that since the project worked to recruit individuals with very varied backgrounds and from various industries and positions, no particular group is specifically represented in it. The non-probability sampling method does not enable the generalization of findings either (Merriam & Tisdell 2015). Therefore, the sampling choices limit the generalisability of the study, which does not interfere with the project’s aim.

Additional concerns include the fact that the data presented in the study will predominantly consist of rather subjective ideas expressed through self-reporting interviews. Still, this issue is in line with the described generalisability limitation. Furthermore, as can be checked in the literature review section, the number of non-western frameworks is rather limited, and most of them are not very recent, which may be considered a limitation. Still, use of frameworks and theories from non-western regions and thinkers was used to mitigate this concern.

Finally, the problems that occurred during the study can be mentioned. In particular, as predicted, the participants would sometimes focus on unrelated topics or otherwise misdirect the discussion. However, the above-presented guiding questions helped to prevent this tendency from becoming a concern. To improve the quality of this study, the project incorporates a detailed discussion of its methodology and presents the raw data (see Appendix A) while also explaining the procedures and frameworks associated with their interpretation (Noble & Smith 2015). To summarise, the limitations and issues that have been encountered while planning or conducting the study have not hindered the achievement of its objectives.

Findings and Discussions

This chapter will present the findings of the interviews, which consist of the results of their analysis. They will include themes that have been identified and their interpretation with the application of the theoretical frameworks and other findings of the literature review. The chapter will demonstrate the interrelationships between the primary and secondary sources and use the data from both to respond to the research objective.

Themes of the Interviews

Cultural Differences

Several themes have been identified in the data, and the first one of them is cultural differences. Due to their experience with various countries and cultures, the participants recognized the fact that multi-cultural teams may require particular approaches to their management. Some respondents reported feeling a culture shock; only two people used this term, but others highlighted the differences between the culture of their origin and resident country, as well as the negative impact of these differences. Certain common differences between western and non-western cultures were pinpointed. Thus, the former cultures were described as more individualistic and resource- and outcome-driven but less direct and emotionally expressive. For instance, according to TCM (which is a code assigned to one of the participants), people in Canada and Columbia have a different understanding of personal space (with Canadians needing more of it), emotions (which are more easily expressed in Columbia), and directness (with Canada being less direct and more focused on sensitivity issues).

On the other hand, non-western cultures were described as less formal and more collective. SCO, for example, stated that Nigerian organizations were significantly more informal and casual than Canadian ones. However, according to the participants, non-western cultures demonstrated more interest in politeness, especially when hierarchical structures were considered. Thus, TA noted that students in China were better behaved and more obedient than those in the United Kingdom. Also, several people from Nigeria stated that in the country, rank could be dependent on one’s age, gender, or societal position.

Certain aspects of cultural differences could affect specific work-related events. Thus, TA pointed out the variations in the teaching approaches of the West and East. As a Chinese teacher, she was more familiar with the latter, which could lead to professional conflicts and difficulties for her western students. Furthermore, depending on their culture, a participant could report feeling underprepared to work in the country of residence. For example, SCO stated that from her perspective, Nigerian culture did not prioritize soft skill development, and she had failed to develop them before coming to Canada.

Specific cultural features of particular countries were shown to be both positive and negative. Thus, some of the non-western cultures (Columbia and Nigeria) were described as more community-focused with family-like organizational relationships. This feature was shown to be good for building trust, but it also opened opportunities for misuse. Conversely, western cultures (for example, Canada) were described as significantly less community-focused and more individualistic, which could improve rule-following but would also reduce trust and the quality of team relationships.

The perspective on political correctness that was expressed by the participants is also noteworthy. In particular, it was characterized as a duplicitous approach to interaction. The participants reported a level of cautiousness toward the representatives of western cultures because of passive-aggressiveness and the lack of forthcoming statements, which could be masked by political correctness. Thus, the participants highlighted differences between cultures, and this tendency suggests that the idea of categorizing them could have its merits.

Communication

Certain aspects of communication were influenced by cultural differences. For example, the participants stated that directness was not appreciated in western cultures, but they were focused on political correctness. However, the discussion of cultural differences was introduced as a solution to the problem. Therefore, communication issues that were attributable to cultural differences could be resolved through communication, which made this phenomenon a problem and a solution.

Building Relationships; Respect and Trust

The topic of interpersonal relationships, as well as respect and trust, was specifically covered by the question guide. These features were affected by cultural differences. For example, when describing non-western cultures, the participants highlighted the importance of signs of respect, especially titles; for instance, in Nigeria, ‘use of titles like “sir/Ma’am” expresses respect and is expected of every subordinate.’ Similar signs were reported for other western countries; for example, in Scotland, according to ASO, the tone of voice and lack of interruptions would be important. In some other countries (such as Canada), this approach was not applicable. Therefore, the findings illustrate the fact that the process of building relationships and demonstrating respect can be affected by cultural specifics, which emphasizes the importance of cultural awareness.

The same influence of cultural factors could be found for trust. Thus, participants noted that different peoples expressed different levels of trust. Some countries (for example, Scotland) were described as less trusting than other ones (for example, Nigeria). Moreover, different factors were shown to instill trust or respect in different cultures. In Columbia, respect depended on seniority to a significant extent, which could lead to ageism. Similarly, hierarchies were especially respected in some non-western cultures. For instance, PCM reported that his respect toward managers appeared to be greater than that of his Canadian co-workers. On the other hand, performance, competence, and particular character traits could help to improve the trust of colleagues in Canada.

Some of the participants noted that particular groups could inspire more trust in them than other ones. In general, in-group trust appeared to be easier to establish; the participants were more likely to trust those who had shared origins. For example, MA, HCA, TA2, SA, ASO, and AO directly stated that they would be more open and trusting with people of similar backgrounds and more cautious with other groups of people. MA pointed out that her inability to fully understand Canadians may be a cause for that, but HCA felt distrust toward Caucasians. On the other hand, TA2 and AO suggested that people could understand each other easier ‘due to the common background’ and viewed it as the primary reason for in-group trust. AO noted that the minority clients of her company might feel the same as they were more likely to make eye contact with her. Therefore, the in-group trust could be an asset for a company since a cross-cultural team is more likely to include people with diverse backgrounds who can connect with minority clients.

Different dimensions of trust were also considered. Thus, CPM noted that he would trust Canadians to do their work in time, but his trust in Nigerians was a more community- and ubuntu-based one. In addition, participants reported that trust was destroyed by negative behaviors (for example, scheming or nepotism), and it could also be affected by prejudice or racism. The latter topic is an important aspect of interpersonal relationships in a multicultural team.

Prejudice and Discrimination

The participants encountered various forms of bias, prejudice, and even discrimination that could be associated with cultural specifics. For instance, TCM commented on ageism and sexism, the latter of which she attributed to a male-dominated culture of the organization. Similarly, some of the employers could have ‘no real trust in one’s abilities because of their youth. Most commonly, though, the participants discussed racism. For example, racist prejudice could be associated with a limited knowledge of the language of the country of residence. Furthermore, the above-described in-group trust could have the negative effect of favouritism toward people of shared backgrounds. According to the interviews, this approach led to direct discrimination against minorities or the lack of support provided to them. Conversely, their mistakes could be reprimanded more harshly than those of white people, and they could be given greater workloads. The psychological outcomes of racism, including cautiousness and lack of trust, were mentioned by the participants as well. Direct examples of racist jokes or slurs were also present in the interviews (‘be careful, don’t wash all the brown away’). In general, it is apparent that discrimination based on various factors, especially skin colour and ethnicity, was a major aspect of the participants’ lives.

Some participants suggested that prejudices could be dispelled. For example, TA reported that she explained her difficulties with the language and worked hard to prove that she could overcome her problems. Similarly, MA said that her good work improved the attitude of colleagues toward her. TA2, however, focused on the people exhibiting prejudice and suggested that they needed to be provided with information on cultural differences in case they were ‘willing to listen and make the effort.’ These suggestions can assist in managing diverse teams and reducing racism in the workplace.

Managing Diverse Teams

The above-presented difficulties indicate that appropriate management of diverse teams is required. Certain findings from the interviews can offer advice on the management of diverse teams, and diversity training is one of the primary themes. Some of the participants stated that their companies provided diversity training, but they also reported that improvements were necessary, especially in making the programs more “focused” and “in-depth.” The rest noted that no training was available to them. The interviews allow establishing that cultural sensitivity and diversity training are required to reduce bias, improve communication and understanding, and help people to become more open-minded. SCO suggested that in a culturally aware team or an organization that prioritizes diversity, minority individuals could feel safer and be treated more justly. This improved well-being of team members and enhanced interrelationships within the team can be viewed as strategic advantages useful for a company, which justifies the goal of the appropriate management of diverse teams.

The responses suggest that there are cultures (for example, Columbia) where teams are supposed to be formed like families with rather close interaction. Other countries (for instance, Canada) were described as more business-like and formal. Such peculiar features of the organization should be taken into account when managing a multicultural team, which emphasizes the importance of the cultural awareness of a team leader. In connection to that, the role of the manager was highlighted as well; managers were expected to pay attention to cultural conflicts and assist people with cultural shock. Also, managers were held responsible for introducing diversity awareness training. However, the role of individual team members was considered in greater detail.

First, the issue of confrontational behaviors was noted; the participants suggested that unnecessary conflicts needed to be avoided or resolved through the search for a compromise. The value of discussing cultural differences was demonstrated as well. Furthermore, it was proposed that a team requires a common goal and objectives, and the commitment to them is needed from every participant. However, the importance of personal boundaries was also highlighted. Finally, WW proposed standing up to other minority members. All these factors could be characterized as the contribution of individual members to the successful functioning of a diverse team. A summary of the actions required for managing a diverse team is presented in Figure 6.

Assimilation

Learning the culture of other countries was viewed as an approach to reducing the issues at the workplace and solving the problem of culture shock. Assimilation results in one’s adaptation to the dominant culture, and it tends to require time and effort. As a result, it is a good idea to facilitate it; for instance, SCO noted that a University Preparation Program assisted her with the task. The theme of adjustment and assimilation was prominent in the interviews.

One of the participants (TA) had the opportunity to work predominantly with Chinese-British students, which was why she remained in contact with the people who were first- or second-generation migrants from her country. She commented that the community prevented her from experiencing culture shock since the social environment was not too different from China. However, she still noted differences in the culture and mentality of Chinese-British people as compared to Chinese people. She described her origin culture (Chinese) as the dominant one specifically within her community. However, she did state that she needed to adapt to the culture of Scotland, and she believed that she had successfully adjusted. A somewhat similar experience was expressed by SCO, who was from Nigeria, worked in Canada, but felt like the Brazilian culture was the dominant one at her workplace. She still had to adjust to Canadian culture.

Thus, depending on the situation, an immigrant could find a community in which their culture was not dominated by one of the countries of residence. The need to adjust to the dominant culture outside of that community might still be present even in such a case. However, many participants stated that they did not feel like the dominant culture had affected them very much. For instance, SA felt like remembering himself and his origins were important. According to him, it was possible to adjust to a new culture without being assimilated or giving up one’s culture. Thus, the reaction to assimilation processes may vary for particular individuals (see Figure 7).

Discussion: Interpretation and Frameworks

Theoretical Application: Applying the Frameworks

The application of the frameworks from the literature review can help to discuss the findings. Thus, the differences that were reported by the participants could be considered from the perspective of Hofstede, Trompenaars, and Schwartz. Indeed, when discussing the possible categories within cultures, Hofstede (1983) considered elements like power distance, individualism, and collectivism. The participants directly commented on the differences in the power distance in western and non-western cultures. For example, they emphasized the need for particular titles in the latter environment and discussed how western cultures were less focused on hierarchies, which led to more egalitarian organizational structures. Moreover, the same can be said about Hofstede’s ideas of individualism; according to the interviews, the western countries are more likely to be individualistic, but the non-western ones are more focused on collectivism, which facilitated the development of relationships within teams. Also, the participants’ comments about sexism could be indicative of highly masculine culture in one of the countries (see the “male-dominated culture” described by TCM), and the discussion of emotionally more open non-western cultures could be led in terms of high indulgence as defined by Hofstede. The rest of the dimensions were not directly covered by the interviews, but still, this analysis suggests that the most commonly used framework has been reflected in the responses and can be used to analyze them.

Individualism was also considered by Trompenaars, and Schwartz’s (1999) interpretation of hierarchies can be applied to the way power distance is treated differently in the two categories of cultures. Furthermore, Trompenaars’ discussion of emotions fits the participants’ comments regarding the different levels of acceptable emotional expression in the cultures that they had experienced (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996). Hall’s ideas of high- and low-context cultures (especially as related to emotional expressiveness) could also apply to the same parameter of culture discussed by the participants. Moreover, Fukuyama’s approach to trust could be used as well. In particular, according to Fukuyama (2001), countries with more rigid ideas about hierarchies, especially from the perspective of high power distance (using Hofstede’s typology), would be viewed as low-trust. This perspective on trust differs from the one that the participants were using, though. In general, western and non-western frameworks that categorize cultures apply to the participants’ own attempts to describe their experiences, which legitimises both the frameworks and participants’ observations.

The participants also utilized the concept of a dominant culture because it was part of the questionnaire, but they did not explicitly focus on the notions of oppression in this context. However, they demonstrated that discrimination and prejudice were an aspect of their lives, which indicates that the dichotomy of the oppressive and oppressed groups and cultures can still help analyze their responses. In other words, the findings demonstrate that this cultural model, which was extracted from the works of thinkers like Cabral (1966), could also inform the work of cross-cultural teams.

It is also noteworthy that the participants almost universally described features like collectivism and more family-like organizational structures as characteristic of non-western cultures. This finding is in line with the analysis of the frameworks of Cabral, Fanon, Nkrumah, and Nyerere, as well as the general concept of ubuntu. This conclusion is significant since the works of the named people are not very recent, but they appear to apply to non-western cultures even nowadays. The finding suggests that the investigation of non-western cultural phenomena and models of culture can assist in understanding non-western cultures, which demonstrates their importance.

Interpretation: Responding to the Questions

The questions of the project can be responded to with the data from the findings. Thus, the analysis of the frameworks and their applications to the interview data demonstrates that the described cultural models can indeed be helpful. The frameworks that take into account the specifics of non-western cultures and values, as well as the interactions between cultures that are affected by their dominance, may be especially helpful in working with non-western cultures and in diverse communities. The dominance of the adoptive culture is notable, especially when an individual cannot find a like-minded community, which means that a lot of minorities have to adapt to and employ values of the culture that is different from their native one. However, they tend to prize their own culture as well. In addition, the transition to adopting new values can be difficult unless it is facilitated by particular programs. Many such programs appear to be substandard, but they are necessary to enable interaction in cross-cultural teams. To make them better, it is necessary to expand the programs to include diverse minority cultures and focus on understanding and respect toward them.

In the work of a cross-cultural team, the roles of managers and team members are noteworthy. Both these groups require training, especially in cultural competence and interpersonal skills. After that, they need to focus on cooperation, communication, and conflict management. This way, diversity might result in competitive advantages, including better experiences of minority groups, increased trust within the team, and, potentially, the ability of the company to respond to the needs of minority clients. These findings are partially in line with those from the literature review (Bouncken, Brem & Kraus 2016). In general, however, many of the participants, as well as the literature review, reported the examples of diversity being mismanaged, especially concerning racism or miscommunication (Guillaume et al. 2017; Imakwuchu & Billy 2018; Lee & Peterson 2000). This tendency proves the importance of studying the topic. Figure 8 represents the results of this analysis, showing the contribution of this project to the understanding of diversity and culture dominance dynamics in cross-cultural teams, as well as the means of managing and converting diversity into a competitive advantage.

It should be mentioned that the above-presented dimensions are interconnected. The graph is linear in that the problems of a diverse team should call for improvements in their management, and the outcomes should follow from proper management. Still, the process of managing such teams is not linear. Many of the participants reported attending some form of diversity training or other interventions and then commented on their ineffectiveness. This issue is aligned with the literature review’s consideration of the negative outcomes of diversity mismanagement (Guillaume et al. 2017). Therefore, a more accurate representation of diverse team management is presented in Figure 9. As an ongoing process, it requires the constant attention of managers to achieve the desired outcomes, which should, in turn, facilitate the management of the team. The consideration of the factors from Figures 8 and 9 can help to appraise the effectiveness of multi-cultural teams.

Summary

The primary data that were gathered for this study responded to the research questions and corresponded to the objectives established for it. Thus, the findings demonstrate that cross-cultural teams can encounter multiple issues associated with cultural differences, misunderstandings, and prejudice. As the interaction between the original and dominant cultures forces people to assimilate, they can also experience difficulties. The interviews suggest that the problems can be handled through the cooperation and communication of managers and employees. Well-developed, in-depth cultural awareness training is also capable of helping, and the frameworks covered by the literature review appear to be applicable despite their age, especially non-western ones. When managed appropriately, diversity can become an advantage with employees’ well-being and teams’ cohesiveness improving. A multicultural team may also be better at responding to the needs of diverse clients. However, the participants focused on how diversity tends to be mismanaged, which results in problems rather than competitive advantages.

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion and Further Researches

Cross-cultural teams present a challenge for an organization or a leader. On the one hand, such teams are likely to have significant advantages, including the boost to creativity and innovation associated with diverse perspectives (Garcia Martinez, Zouaghi & Garcia Marco 2017; Lambert 2016). Furthermore, well-managed cross-cultural teams can improve the well-being of their members (Guillaume et al. 2017). However, the mismanagement of such teams tends to have a revere effect (Bouncken, Brem & Kraus 2016; Guillaume et al. 2017). The question of how to manage diverse teams and extract competitive advantages out of them became a research objective of this paper.

The analysis of relevant sources suggest that several frameworks for classifying cultures exist. They are not particularly recent, and most of them are developed by western people with western cultures in mind. Thus, Hofstede, Trompenaars, and Hall introduced their frameworks, which aimed to categorize cultures by the criteria that each of these authors viewed as the most important ones. When non-western frameworks are concerned, Fukuyama’s and Schwartz’s models are somewhat similar to the western versions, but the one by Schwartz is more nuanced and less dichotomy-based. Another framework was also extracted from the works of non-western thinkers, as well as the concept of ubuntu. According to this model, the power dynamics between cultures should be considered. In general, however, non-western frameworks are not overrepresented in related research.

An analysis of the perspectives of minority people who had experienced different cultures demonstrates that these frameworks can still be applied despite their age. Furthermore, the participants’ observations showed the validity of the concept of ubuntu, as well as the concerns regarding power dynamics in which one of the cultures becomes dominant. As shown by the interview responses, the members of cross-cultural teams often experience difficulties associated with adjusting to a new culture. The lack of adjustment results in communication barriers and culture shock. Furthermore, many minority individuals experience racism, which limits their trust and ability to connect with a team. To manage a diverse team, both managers and employees need to communicate and cooperate, but diversity training is required. The possible outcomes of good diverse team management include better trust within the team, improved employee well-being, and potential for connecting with minority clients (Guillaume et al. 2017). Thus, the presented research offers an analysis of the impact of diverse cultures on a workplace environment and provides recommendations for possible solutions.

The project’s limitations prevent it from being exhaustive. Its findings, while having some validity as recommendations, cannot reliably demonstrate any relationships between various approaches to managing cross-cultural teams and particular outcomes. Future research may involve checking such approaches for effectiveness; for instance, cultural awareness training programs could be considered.

Reflection

The work on this project was beneficial from multiple perspectives. On the one hand, the reviewing of the literature provided improved knowledge in multiple areas, including cross-cultural communication and team management. On the other hand, it was a useful experience that presupposed practicing multiple skills, including those related to planning, research design, and data reporting. All of them are going to be helpful in the long run, which is why the project had direct positive outcomes.

In addition to that, the research was interesting to conduct. The interviews with the participants were especially insightful. Aside from providing helpful recommendations, they offered the opportunity of considering in great detail the experiences of individuals across industries. The fact that their narratives were similar came as a surprise and indicated common issues that people from cross-cultural teams face. While the present project cannot offer any generalizations, such consistencies hint at existing patterns, which may be interesting to investigate in the future.

Reference List

Acharya, A & Buzan, B 2017, ‘Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten years on’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 341-370.

Basabe, N & Ros, M 2005, ‘Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance’, International Review of Social Psychology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 189-225.

Boddy, C 2016, ‘Sample size for qualitative research’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 426-432.

Bouncken, R, Brem, A & Kraus, S 2016, ‘Multi-cultural teams as sources for creativity and innovation: the role of cultural diversity on team performance’, International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1650012-1-1650012-34.

Cabral, A 1966, The weapon of theory. Web.

Cabral, A 1974, ‘National liberation and culture’, Transition, no. 45, pp. 12-17.

Cordeiro-Rodrigues, L 2018, ‘Integrating African philosophy into the western philosophy curriculum’, Teaching Philosophy, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 21-43.

De Mooij, M 2015, ‘Cross-cultural research in international marketing: clearing up some of the confusion’, International Marketing Review, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 646-662.

Fukuyama, F 2001, ‘Social capital, civil society and development’, Third world Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 7-20.

Garcia Martinez, M, Zouaghi, F & Garcia Marco, T 2017, ‘Diversity is strategy: the effect of R&D team diversity on innovative performance’, R&D Management, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 311-329.

Guillaume, YR, Dawson, JF, Otaye‐Ebede, L, Woods, SA & West, MA 2017, ‘Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: what moderates the effects of workplace diversity?’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 276-303.

Hagaman, A & Wutich, A 2017, ‘How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study’, Field Methods, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 23-41.

Hofstede, G 1983, ‘National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations’, International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 13, no.1-2, pp. 46–74.

Hofstede, G 2011, ‘Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context’, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 8.

Imakwuchu, O & Billy, I 2018, ‘Cross-cultural team management’, The Business & Management Review, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 575-580.

Jackson, T 2013, ‘Reconstructing the indigenous in African management research’, Management International Review, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 13-38.

Jackson, T 2015, ‘Management studies from Africa: a cross-cultural critique’, Africa Journal of Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 78-88.

Jackson, T 2017, Why does cross-cultural management studies ignore the majority world? Indigeneity, geopolitical dynamics, diversity and the influence of new media.Web.

Jiang, X, Flores, HR, Leelawong, R & Manz, CC 2016, ‘The effect of team empowerment on team performance: a cross-cultural perspective on the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and intra-group conflict’, International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 62-87.

Jinadu, L 1978, ‘Some African theorists of culture and modernization: Fanon, Cabral and some others’, African Studies Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 121-138.

Kallio, H, Pietilä, A, Johnson, M & Kangasniemi, M 2016, ‘Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 2954-2965.

Karrer, L 2012, Pashtun traditions versus Western perceptions: cross-cultural negotiations in Afghanistan, Graduate Institute Publications, Geneva.

Lambert, J 2016, ‘Cultural diversity as a mechanism for innovation: workplace diversity and the absorptive capacity framework’, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 68.

Lee, SM & Peterson, SJ 2000, ‘Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness’, Journal of World Business, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 401-416.

Luckett, K 2019, ‘Gazes in the post-colony: an analysis of African philosophies using Legitimation Code Theory’, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 197-211.

Luke, T 1981, ‘Cabral’s Marxism: an African strategy for socialist development’, Studies in Comparative Communism, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 307-330.

Mach, M & Baruch, Y 2015, ‘Team performance in cross cultural project teams: The moderated mediation role of consensus, heterogeneity, faultlines and trust’, Cross Cultural Management, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 464-486.

McIntosh, M & Morse, J 2015, ‘Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews’, Global Qualitative Nursing Research, vol. 2, pp. 1-12.

McSweeney, B 2015, ‘Hall, Hofstede, Huntington, Trompenaars, GLOBE: common foundations, common flaws, in Y Sáchez & CF Brühwiller (eds) Transculturalism and business in the BRIC states, Gower, Farnham, pp. 13-58.

Merriam, S & Tisdell, E 2015, Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation, 4th edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

Metz, S 1982, ‘In lieu of orthodoxy: the socialist theories of Nkrumah and Nyerere’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 377-392.

Metz, T 2011, ‘Ubuntu as a moral theory and human rights in South Africa’, African Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 532-559.

Metz, T 2018, ‘An African theory of good leadership’, African Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 36-53.

Mitchell, R, Boyle, B, Parker, V, Giles, M, Chiang, V & Joyce, P 2015 ‘Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: how leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity’, Human Resource Management, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 217-239.

Nabolsy, Z 2019, ‘Amílcar Cabral’s modernist philosophy of culture and cultural liberation’, Journal of African Cultural Studies, vol. 2019, pp. 1-20.

Nerenz, T, Jameson, P, Walker, R & Jarreau, B 2019, ‘Lunch Bucket D&I: Turning diversity and inclusion into competitive advantage at UMUC Europe’, Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 261-276.

Noble, H & Smith, J 2015, ‘Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research’, Evidence Based Nursing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 34-35.

Osland, GE 1990, ‘Doing business in China: a framework for cross-cultural understanding,’ Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 4-14.

Otunnu, O 2015, ‘Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere’s philosophy, contribution, and legacies’, African Identities, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 18-33.

Ozgen, C, Nijkamp, P, & Poot, J 2017, ‘The elusive effects of workplace diversity on innovation’, Papers in Regional Science, vol. 96, no. S1, pp. S29-S49.

Pithouse, R 2016, ‘Frantz Fanon: philosophy, praxis, and the occult zone’, Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 116-138.

Roberson, Q, Ryan, AM & Ragins, BR 2017, ‘The evolution and future of diversity at work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 483-499.

Ryan, D, Pelly, F & Purcell, E 2017, ‘Exploring extended scope of practice in dietetics: a systems approach’, Nutrition & Dietetics, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 334-340.

Saunders, M & Townsend, K 2016, ‘Reporting and justifying the number of interview participants in organization and workplace research’, British Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 836-852.

Schwartz, SH 1999, ‘A theory of cultural values and some implications for work’, Applied Psychology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 23-47.

Schwartz, SH, 2015, ‘Cultural values influence and constrain economic and social change’, in L Harrison & Y Yasin (eds), Culture matters: in Russia and everywhere, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, pp. 287-302.

Shaiq, HMA, Khalid, HMS, Akram, A & Ali, B 2011, ‘Why not everybody loves Hofstede? What are the alternative approaches to study of culture?’, European Journal of Business and Management, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 101-111.

Smith, P, Dugan, S, & Trompenaars, F 1996, ‘National culture and the values of organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 231-264.

Switzer, L 1986, ‘Cultural studies and African culture’, Cahiers D’études Africaines, vol. 26, no. 101, pp. 257-263.

Tracy, S 2019, Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

Triana, MDC, Jayasinghe, M & Pieper, JR 2015, ‘Perceived workplace racial discrimination and its correlates: a meta‐analysis’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 491-513.

Tsui, AS, Nifadkar, SS & Ou, AY 2007, ‘Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations’, Journal of Management, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 426-478.

Tung, RL & Verbeke, A 2010, ‘Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: improving the quality of cross-cultural research’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1259-1274.

Zainuddin, M, Yasin, IM & Arif, I 2018, ‘Alternative cross-cultural theories: why still Hofstede?’, in Proceedings of International Conference on Economics, Management and Social Study, International Society for Engineering Research and Development (ISERD), Jakarta, pp. 4-6.

Žák, T 2016, ‘Applying the weapon of theory: comparing the philosophy of Julius Kambarage Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah’, Journal of African Cultural Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 147-160.