Samenvatting
Managing Cultural Differences Summary All Articles
This summary includes all articles for the MSc International Business & Management course Managing Cultural Differences
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 58 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 58 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
2 beoordelingen
Door: albertoruozzo • 1 jaar geleden
Door: jannet1 • 3 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 1 Cultural intelligence working in multicultural teamsKlitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media
richness, cultural difference and language commonality.
Results show that certain types of media are more useful for certain types of knowledge sharing
depending on the cultural and linguistic variation between the communicating parties.
Virtual teams are based on individuals collaborating in geographically dispersed work groups and
who may reside in different time zones and countries. While virtual teams with members distributed
globally hold the promise of increased organizational flexibility and resource utilization, existing
research suggests that it is more challenging to manage communication processes in such teams than
in co-located teams. This is primarily due to challenges inherent in communicating through what has
been termed a lean media (e.g. e-mails). Such challenges can be misinterpretations of messages due
to absence of body language and tone of voice and slow or missing feedback. Accordingly, a number
of researchers have argued that rich media communication (e.g. video conferences) is more suitable
when sharing knowledge that is of a complex, equivocal nature. While these studies have given
important insights into virtual team dynamics, they tend to neglect the cultural and linguistic aspects
of virtual team collaboration. This could be an important omission since cultural and linguistic issues
are at the heart of knowledge sharing processes in global virtual teams. More importantly, including
these dimensions might force us to rethink the relation between media and knowledge sharing as it
is reflected in extant research.
Rich media, such as a videoconference, allows for backchanneling verbal and non-verbal signs of
support or disagreement with a speaker’s message. Conversely, lean media, such as an e-mail,
removes social presence cues and thereby a joint contextual background that may lead to
communication breakdown. It has been suggested that various media can be placed on a continuum
where is the lowest as it does not allow for physical presence and nonverbal cues, and face-to-face is
the highest as it allows for both.
Media richness theory (MRT) proposes that team members engage in communication in order to
reduce complexity about a given task and that media differ in their ability to handle multiple,
conflicting interpretations of sent information. MRT prescribes using rich media for complex,
equivocal messages, while using leaner media for sharing simple and explicit or what is often termed
canonical information. Equivocal messages could include information about questions that have no
definite or clear answer or that are part of a discussion with different positions. Canonical messages
could be the reporting of numbers or other types of unambiguous data. Equivocality, put differently,
arises when a given task is open to varying interpretations and is imbedded in contextual knowledge,
while canonical knowledge is less dependent on contextual cues.
The term cultural difference is constructed to describe the dissimilarities in basic aspects of culture,
such as core values, beliefs, customs and rituals, as well as legal, political and economic systems. The
combination of a rich media and complex, ambivalent knowledge to be shared and debated is likely
to be beneficial. This is even more important in situations where cultural differences between team
members are outspoken because more detailed communication may be necessary in order to reach
understanding across cultural divides. Moreover, is seems plausible that a rich media paired with
canonical knowledge could provide an unnecessary excess of cultural cues hampering understanding.
Shared language commonality refers to linguistic proficiency in the English language but also to the
extent to which team members have overlapping knowledge and styles of communication, e.g.
commonly used vocabulary, phrases, spellings and accents.
,It was apparent that communication concerning equivocal tasks was more effective face-to-face than
virtually as it lowered cultural and verbal misunderstandings and conflicts. However, in sharing of
canonical knowledge, face-to-face communication was not reported to be notably more effective
compared to virtual communication.
Proposition 1a: Face-to-face communication is more effective for equivocal knowledge sharing than
virtual communication.
Proposition 1b: In virtual settings cultural difference and low language commonality are negatively
associated with communication effectiveness.
Culture: The challenges of the team could have been addressed if team members had used the
telephone for equivocal messages in order to get immediate feedback on doubt and used for more
canonical knowledge sharing. In order to avoid language barriers, they used email which led to
conflict and lack of knowledge sharing instead of using a rich media. This suggests that language and
culture might have opposing effects on communication in global virtual teams
Proposition 2a: In situations with high cultural difference, rich media communication will be more
effective for equivocal knowledge sharing than lean media.
Proposition 2b: In situations with high cultural difference, lean media will be more effective for
canonical knowledge sharing than rich media.
Language: The main reason why some of the team members used for equivocal knowledge sharing,
thereby encountering cultural challenges and communication breakdown, was to avoid language
barriers. As such, several teams tried to use telephone calls and telephone conferences to share
knowledge of a more complex nature, and while this led to the breakdown of cultural barriers, the
variation in pronunciation and verbal proficiency became much more apparent.
It seemed that variance in language use had a negative impact on sharing both equivocal and
canonical knowledge. However, since e-mails erased verbal misunderstandings thereby raising the
certainty level, it was a more prevalent praxis in bigger and more equivocal knowledge-sharing
processes.
,Proposition 3a: In situations with low degree of language commonality, lean media will be more
effective for equivocal knowledge sharing than rich media.
Proposition 3b: In situations with low degree of language commonality, rich media will be more
effective for canonical knowledge sharing than lean media.
Conclusion: This exploratory study aimed to examine the role of culture and language in global
virtual teams. Our findings suggest that both are of importance for knowledge-sharing effectiveness;
yet, they affect virtual team communication in opposing ways.
In teams characterized by a high degree of cultural difference and language diversity face-to-face
interaction was preferable for sharing equivocal knowledge as these ways of communicating allowed
the members to use non-verbal signs and physically move, touch and correct objects. However, for
canonical knowledge sharing virtual communication was observed to be just as effective as face-to-
face interaction. In teams characterized by high cultural difference, and where face-to-face
interaction was not possible, a rich media was more effective than a lean media for equivocal
knowledge sharing as it allowed members to address misinterpretations or lack of necessary
information immediately. For more canonical knowledge sharing a lean media was used because it
formalized communication and reduced cultural cues and thereby misinterpretations that increased
conflict.
When members sought to address the cultural challenges inherent in the lean media they
encountered language challenges. As such, lack of language commonality mixed with rich media
affected equivocal knowledge sharing negatively due to differences in verbal language use such as
accents. Furthermore, lean media allowed individuals to reflect on their writing and correct mistakes
and misspellings and thereby removed verbal cues that enhanced the possibility of
misunderstandings. Thereby, lean media enhanced equivocal knowledge sharing as it reduced
miscommunication thereby reducing uncertainty.
In the literature it has been suggested that virtuality might reduce negative effects of intercultural
communication. This study, however, suggests that cultural factors, such as a cultural difference, are
best addressed using the richest medium possible while difference in common language usage
should be confronted by using a leaner media. This novel finding suggests that differences in shared
language commonality have a more prolific impact on knowledge sharing than one might at first
assume. Hence, language use should be taken into consideration when choosing media to facilitate
intercultural knowledge-sharing processes between geographically dispersed MNC units.
Javidan, M., Teagarden, M., & Bowen, D. (2010). Making it overseas.
A global mind-set has three main components:
- Intellectual capital, or knowledge of international business and the capacity to learn
- Psychological capital, or openness to different cultures and the capacity to change
- Social capital, the ability to form connections, to bring people together, and to influence
stakeholders—including colleagues, clients, suppliers, and regulatory agencies—who are
unlike you in cultural heritage, professional background, or political outlook.
The most effective international leaders are strong in all three dimensions. First, however, you need
to figure out where you stand today.
In our research, we’ve found that the three components of a global mindset— intellectual,
psychological, and social capital—are each defined by three specific attributes. To determine
, whether you’re ready for an overseas leadership role, you will need to take a personal inventory of
all nine attributes.
For intellectual capital, your capacity to understand how your business works on a global level, the
three key attributes are:
- Global business savvy—a strong grasp of how the industry operates worldwide, how global
customers behave, how your competitors target their needs and habits, and how strategic
risk varies by geography.
- Cognitive complexity—the ability to piece together multiple scenarios with many moving
parts, without becoming paralyzed by the number of options.
- Cosmopolitan outlook—an active interest in the culture, history, geography, and political and
economic systems of different parts of the world.
When it comes to psychological capital, receptiveness to new ideas and experiences is critical. The
main attributes are:
- Passion for diversity—a penchant for exploring other parts of the world, experiencing other
cultures, and trying new ways of doing things.
- Thirst for adventure—an appreciation for and ability to thrive in unpredictable and complex
environments.
- Self-assurance—self-confidence, a sense of humor, a willingness to take risks in new
contexts, and high levels of energy; the ability to be energized, rather than drained, by a
foreign context.
For social capital, which helps you build trusting relationships with people who are different from
you, the three most important attributes are:
- Intercultural empathy—the ability to engage and connect emotionally with people from
other parts of the world.
- Interpersonal impact—the ability to bring together divergent views, develop consensus, and
maintain credibility; and skill at building networks—not just with peers and senior leaders
but with other, less obvious potential connections.
- Diplomacy—listening to what is said and what is not said, ease in conversations with people
who are different from you, and a greater inclination to ask than to answer.
The advice we give managers is to pursue a variety of activities that will build the three kinds of
capital, focusing first on the area where they are weakest. We organize these activities into the
categories “read,” “surf,” “watch,” ”do,” and “listen.”
Building intellectual capital. You cannot effectively influence people who are different from yourself
without a good understanding of what those differences are. Managers can learn more about cross-
cultural similarities and differences not just in classrooms but by reading publications with strong
global coverage, like the Economist and Foreign Affairs. Other ways to build intellectual capital
include attending lectures and workshops on doing business in a specific country or region.
Intellectual capital is by far the easiest of the three types of capital to develop.
Building psychological capital. This is the most difficult type of capital to develop because there are
limits to how much you can (or should try to) change your personality. We recommend that you start
with deep reflection on two questions, which will increase your self-awareness and, ideally, inspire a
desire to change. First, ask yourself, How do I feel about people, places, and things that are foreign to
me? Why? And second, ask, Do I feel the need to change my feelings in any way? Why? What’s in it
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper RUGstudent. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 75619 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen