Introduction
Multicultural teams are dominating in corporate practise to satisfy firms’ requirements, particularly in multinational organizations and traditional classroom based on essential collaborative learning methodology in higher education settings, thanks to the increasing growth of globalisation. The following questions will be investigated in this paper: (1) In the study literature since 2010, what aspects of cultural diversity and collaborative effectiveness have been studied? (2) The relationship between effectiveness and diverse culture of a team. We further confirm that there is a dynamic relationship between team effectiveness and cultural diversity which may be modified or mediated by a variety of factors.
A qualitative research approach in the form of a case study was used to gather perspective into what differences exist between staff of different cultures, what problems can occur as a result of these differences, and how these problems can be overcome through cross cultural management.
Academic Research on Cultural Diversity and Teamwork Effectiveness
Industry and academia are becoming more involved in multicultural contexts as the globalisation process continues. As a result, multicultural teams, whose members come from a variety of national or ethnic cultural backgrounds and have a range of mental frameworks, real issue methods, and perception approaches, have become more prevalent and relevant around the world. (Zellmer-Bruhn & Maloney, 2020). Not just in the sectors of industrial organization and business management but also in education, sports and healthcare there is a growing body of literature on multicultural teams. Many studies have looked at the relation involving culture/diversity and team outcomes and behaviors, however the results are mixed: some studies show favorable effects of culturally varied teams, while others show negative effects, and some studies reveal a favorable connection. However, some disparities remain unfilled, including a lack of systematic coverage of complicated subjects such as culture, diversification, and group performance, as well as slim or constrained explorations of the importance of cultural variety in team efficiency, as well as a scarcity of literature in the field of engineering education. As a result, the purpose of this study is to examine the scopes and elements of cultural diversity and team effectiveness that have been provided in recent articles, as well as the link between them.
Scholars have failed insert all phrases in abstracts or title, or pick a comparable phrase to characterize works they have done, we opted to utilize subject as the field constraint for database search. As a result, we determined that adopting subject as the field constraint was the most effective technique for capturing the broadest range of linked literature. We were aware that including an excessive number of papers could have unintended consequences (West & Hirst, 2005). We only looked for peer-reviewed academic journals published in English in these databases for this investigation. During the screening stage, more exclusion research was carried manually with further qualifying conditions. We utilized the following exclusion criteria when personally assessing papers in terms of their titles, abstracts, and complete texts: (1) investigated various team goals; (2) failed to discuss the influence of cultural variance on the performance or effectiveness of the team; (3) team effectiveness was exclusively judged in terms of creativity or innovation; (4) looked at leadership as the sole element influenced by variety of culture; (5) made a comparison between face-to-face team collaboration and virtual iteration (Zellmer-Bruhn & Maloney, 2020).
Analytical impact on team effectiveness was also published. Furthermore, many teams in engineering education do not have a power structure similar to that of a manager or project leader in industry, thus we eliminated these types of publications. Finally, research of differences between virtual and in-person working environments were not relevant to this project, thus they were excluded. In an exploratory study, we conducted a systematic literature review on culture diversification and team effectiveness. We recommend that the term “cultural diversity” be used to refer to both individual cultural differences and obvious demographic variety (Grossman, & Kalra, 2017). Theoretical frameworks for analyzing the relationship between culture diversification and effectiveness of teams are presented. We describe the variables of cultural diversity and team effectiveness that have been studied in regard to their relationship, as well as how mediators and moderators work in it. The two research issues outlined earlier are the focus of this systematized literature evaluation (Salas & Rosen, 2020). Cultural variety is made up of many different elements that can be divided into two categories: surface and deep diversity (Salas & Lazzara, 2015). As one might expect from a complicated relations, this research finds that cultural diversity has both negative and positive effects on team effectiveness, with varying degrees of strength, and that the results occasionally show a nonsignificant equality and inclusion relationship. The majority of the research examined looked at the impact of surface diversity, particularly national diversity, on team outcomes, assuming a culturally deterministic ideology (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
People, on the other hand, react to their surroundings and alter their behaviour as a result. For example, one of the studies we included conducted research in a developmental manner, recognizing the constraints to team growth and outcomes as well as the influence of tenure (Zellmer-Bruhn & Maloney, 2020). We propose that greater research into the impact of cultural diversity on team growth, encompassing both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects, as well as team performance, is needed. In the practice of team building and mentoring with pedagogy connected to team-based learning or project-based learning, engineering education researchers and instructors should critically analyze the influence of cultural diversity on team effectiveness and the interaction between them (Salas & Passmore, 2017). Gender diversity appears to have a detrimental effect on the functioning of a team, according to our findings. While instructors could address this when allocating students to teams, Schneid et al urge that instructors should make efforts to break the negative social categorization phenomenon that gender diversity can generate (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Another crucial consideration for engineering education researchers and educators is that more than half of the articles chosen are from industries where the power difference between team leaders / managers and employees is clear and stable. In academic teams, this phenomenon is less likely to be promoted or prevalent. In the context of engineering education, the role of leadership in modulating the link between team effectiveness and cultural diversity may not be a relevant element (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Diversity Effect on Team
As per the information-processing technique, diversity in a team increases the team’s information, knowledge, skills, and talents. As a result, having more information and a larger pool of resources may help the group perform better. Diversity fosters innovation and creativity as a result of knowledge, backgrounds, experiences, and diverse opinions according to studies that support the information-processing approach (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). It also lowers group-thinking. Cultural variety offers creativity to the team by permitting the establishment of creative processes as well as providing creative contributions into the processes. Not only is diversity associated with the production of new ideas, but it is also associated with the deployment of innovative services and products. Other studies that support the processing information approach found that diversity leads to quick and high-quality solutions through knowledge and expertise, rational decision, efficacious ideas, more information-processing behaviors, higher satisfaction, and a more balanced approach (Zellmer-Bruhn & Maloney, 2020). The inclusion of culturally diverse people brings the group closer to the target countries/cultures and results in more generally valid outcomes.
Negative Effect
According to numerous studies, diversification has a detrimental influence on team. Subordinates’ performance and effectiveness suffer as a result of racial and gender diversity (Drouin & Bourgault, 2013). Lower performance is associated with ethnic and national diversity. According to researchers, cultural distance between team members, in addition to diversification, has impact that is negative on performance of team. The majority of recent studies have shown that diversity has a negative influence on team productivity. These studies conclude that variety in terms of sociocultural, achievement motivation, and gender leads to lower productivity and organisational efficiency, with time constraint acting as a catalyst (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Positive Impact
Some research, on the other hand, suggested that diversity and performance have positive benefits. A lot of studies have discovered positivity between age/gender diversity and group performance. Cultural variety improves team success by improving team effectiveness, satisfaction, communication, and participative decision-making processes, according to certain research (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). Team performance is enhanced by temporal variation (pacing style and time urgency). There’s a link between academic culture and corporate effectiveness, especially when there’s a lot of participatory and prescriptive leadership. A recent research indicates that ability variability (rather than homogeneity) has a beneficial influence on performance (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 2009). The study identified three possible basic processes for this effect: learning (pre – intermediate peers learn from their highly gifted counterparts), motivation (high- and low ability peers are both motivated to perform better despite their counterparts’ abilities or inability thereof), and coordination gains (high- and low skill peers choose duties that will provide the greatest profit margin to their team) (Bergman, et al.2017,).
Some research, on the other hand, found no influence of group diversity on team effectiveness in either way. Researchers discovered no link between diversity and collaborative interaction or transfer of knowledge, for example (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Team Members Response
Research comparing the views of members to members of similarity, it was observed not all ‘kinds’ of members of the team express diversity in similar way . People of color shared and engaged, linked more reluctantly, and communicated less effectively. according to these research, resulting in poor performance in culturally diverse teams. Minorities, on the other hand, improved faster than non-minorities over time by increasing their use of constructive disputes (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). According to O’Reilly’s research, individuals of diverse teams who are farther apart in terms of age and team tenure are more inclined to leave the team (Bergman, et al.2017,). Similarly, personnel of a multicultural team who are members of the larger society are more cooperative (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). The effects of variety can also differ between team members of various ages. The findings revealed that younger and older employees’ health (both physiological and psychological) suffers as a result of age diversity, although middle-aged employees’ health is unaffected. Because of the potential learning gains, ability diversity in teams is more useful for low-ability team members than for high-ability team members (Ochieng & Price, 2009). Williams and O’Reilly argued in their review study that gender diversity had a negative impact on group members, particularly males (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). Men show less contentment and dedication when they are in the minority, whereas women are unaffected. It’s important to remember that the significance of being in the minority is determined not only by one’s own unique characteristics, but also by how one’s social group is seen and valued by the entire group (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
A thorough examination of prior meta-analytic review studies indicated that there is no universally acknowledged direct effect of diversity on team effectiveness. The “zero-relationship” and inconsistent results revealed in the review studies can be attributed to a variety of factors (Bergman, et al.2017,). To begin with, each diversity study aimed to answer the same issue from several perspectives: “How does diversity effect team performance?” These studies looked into the effects of various forms of cultures on various types of teams. These studies looked into the effects of various sorts of diversity on various types of teams of various sizes and tenure/longevity, as well as in various companies (Wei & Ferguson, 2020). Because the factors included were so dissimilar, the results were incomparable and insufficient to draw a conclusion. Across research, the meaning given to performance of the team and the methods used to quantify it differed (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Diversity of gender effects different categories of performance, such as contextual performance, objective task performance, and subjective task performance, according to a recent meta-analysis. The term “task performance” refers to the accomplishment of a certain task. whereas contextual performance refers to the components of an employee’s performance that sustain and enhance a company’s networking site and the mental wellbeing that support technical tasks. (Bergman, et al.2017,). Gender impact on diversity is unfavourable work engagement, but not on task performance, according to the researchers. Furthermore, the measurement method, measurement type, and study circumstances varied between investigations (Salas & Passmore, 2017). These variances lead to inaccurate study results in a meaningful way. The majority of diversity research failed to recognise and account for variability, while review studies attempted to synthesise findings from studies including populations with varying variety structures (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 2009). While analysing diversity, a new review research on perceived diversity approves this claim not only perceptions. Scholars contend that contradictory outcomes are caused, in part, by categorising diversities into groups. They claimed that categorising diversity hides the true relationship between diversification and team success (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Cultural Diversity and Teamwork Effectiveness at KPMG
Diversity and inclusivity are commercial and imperatives of morals for KPMG, allowing them to create trust and flourish while also forcing them to stand up for equality. Diverse teams, according to KMPG, are much more likely to be creative and perform well. According to KPMG, open and collaborative cultures that value ethical behaviour enable their employees to achieve their goals (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). An inclusive culture, in our opinion, extends well beyond gender. It is concerned with various aspects of a person, including, but not limited to, gender, ethnic heritage, temperament, ability, personal attributes, and life stages. They believe that if you can’t lead an inclusive culture within a diversified workforce, you can’t operate a company. They prioritize diversity and inclusion as a corporate strategy. Goal setting and demanding their leaders responsible is part of this (Bergman, et al.2017,).
They focus on increasing cultural diversity in senior positions, for example, and develop cultural multiple mentorship program. Their ability coaching approach fosters long-term adoption of disabled employees or with chronic medical conditions (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). They also collaborate with organizations that support the hiring of IT professionals with autism. The Mentoring Programme welcomed its first KPMG participants in FY19. This initiative aligns with their goals of developing ethnic diversity among executives (West, 2012). The Talent to the Top Charter offers a set of guidelines and unambiguous commitments for KPMG to follow in order to achieve long-term and consistent solutions (Bergman, et al.2017,). They make nine commitments to help diverse talent rise to the top. They took advantage of more learning opportunities at places like Workplace Pride. They arranged a special KPMG Pride Lunch to talk about the problems LGBTQ colleagues experience at the firm. They flew the Rainbow Flag on International Coming Out Day during Amsterdam Pride Week, under the supervision of one of their board members (Levitt, 2019). KPMG participates in cultural celebrations. Large numbers of our coworkers took part in the ‘Ramadan for a Day’ event or the Diwali celebration. One Christian holiday can be substituted for a holiday from another culture starting in FY20. For example, Pentecost may be replaced by the Sugar Festival. KPMG is a partner in a Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam research project focused on how to establish more culturally diversified leadership in senior positions (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
KPMG has a long and proud history of collaborating with Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal peoples and communities in Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander colleagues can advance their careers by creating a culturally safe and knowledgeable workplace, such as the Emerging Indigenous Executive Leaders Program (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). Through their Indigenous Tertiary Scholarships at select universities, they pledge to inspire and nurture future Indigenous brilliance. They provide university students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds with paid internship opportunities through the CareerTrackers Indigenous Internship Program (Paulus & Kenworthy. 2016). Diversity, according to Timothy Copnell, Associate Partner, Board Leadership Centre, is more than just about sexual identity, race, or socioeconomic background, but these factors are significant (Bergman, et al.2017,). Rather, it’s about how diversity may be used to improve the effectiveness of boards. It’s about the diversity of the board as a whole, and the combined input of a group of people with a variety of skills and viewpoints (Salas & Passmore, 2017). People from various backgrounds, experiences, and lifestyles who, when combined, are better able to analyse issues in a broader, more holistic manner and provide an attention to detail that may not be apparent on less diversified boards. In polls conducted by the KPMG Board Leadership Centre over multiple years, ‘diversity of thought’ has consistently been regarded as the factor that will most increase effectiveness of the board (Thomas, 1999). Race,gender and other ‘observable’ aspects of diversification are still important, but they believe that if we corporations are committed to having truly diverse boards, diversity of thought must be the top priority moving ahead. If personality differences are the most important sort of diversity, the next considerations must be around assessment and whether boards have the correct mix to maximise their efficacy (Dinh, & Salas, 2017).
Conclusion
In an exploratory study, we conducted a systematic literature review on cultural diversity and team effectiveness. We recommend that the term “cultural diversity” be used to refer to both individual cultural differences and obvious demographic variety. Theoretical frameworks for evaluating the relationship between ethnic diversity and team effectiveness are presented (Dinh, & Salas, 2017). We describe the variables of cultural diversification and effectiveness of a team that have been studied in regard to their relationship, as well as how mediators and moderators work in it. The two research issues outlined earlier are the focus of this systematised literature evaluation (Laroche, L., 2012). The majority of the research examined looked at the impact of surface diversity, particularly national diversity, on team outcomes, assuming a culturally deterministic ideology.
Reference
Bergman, B., Norman, A., Carlsson, C., Nåfors, D., & Skoogh, A. (2017, June). Forming effective culturally diverse work teams in project courses. In Proceedings of the 13th International CDIO Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada (pp. 18-22).
Dinh, J. V., & Salas, E. (2017). Factors that influence teamwork. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes, 13-41.
Drouin, N., & Bourgault, M. (2013). How organizations support distributed project teams: Key dimensions and their impact on decision making and teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Management Development.
Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (2009). The effective management of cultural diversity. Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations, 35-43.
Grossman, R., Friedman, S. B., & Kalra, S. (2017). Teamwork processes and emergent states. The wiley blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes, 243-269.
Laroche, L. (2012). Managing cultural diversity in technical professions. Routledge.
Levitt, S. R. (2019). Cultural dialectics in international teamwork dynamics. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(3), 326-348.
Ochieng, E. G., & Price, A. D. (2009). Framework for managing multicultural project teams. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Paulus, P. B., Zee, K. I., & Kenworthy, J. (2016). Cultural diversity and team creativity. In The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 57-76). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Salas, E., Bisbey, T. M., Traylor, A. M., & Rosen, M. A. (2020). Can teamwork promote safety in organizations?. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 283-313.
Salas, E., Rico, R., & Passmore, J. (2017). The psychology of teamwork and collaborative processes. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes, 1-11.
Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human resource management, 54(4), 599-622.
Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 30(2), 242-263.
Wei, S., Zakharov, W., Ohland, M. W., Jin, L., & Ferguson, D. M. (2020, June). Work in Progress: Cultural Diversity and Teamwork Effectiveness: A Systematized Literature Review. In 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.
West, M. A. (2012). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research. John Wiley & Sons.
West, M. A., & Hirst, G. (2005). Cooperation and teamwork for innovation. The essentials of team working. International perspectives, 257-279.
Yousofpourfard, H. (2010). Cultural intelligence: A new approach to manage teamwork in culturally diverse teams.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Maloney, M. M. (2020). Cross-cultural teamwork. In The Sage handbook of contemporary cross-cultural management (pp. 340-356). London: Sage Publications.
write