Four Strategies for Managing Multicultural Teams

In indirect dialogue, the meaning is clearly on the surface of the words, the speaker does not need to pay too much attention to the context of the conversation and the listener does not need to spend time "interpreting" or guessing the meaning. However, this is not suitable for many other cultures, where the meaning of the conversation is deeply embedded in the message being conveyed. For example, Western negotiators seek important information about the preferences and priorities of their counterparts by asking direct questions such as "Do you prefer option A or B?". But in cultures that use indirect dialogue, people find out the preferences of their counterparts by inferring (rather than asking directly). So in cross-cultural negotiations, Easterners can understand Western direct communication, but Westerners will find it difficult to understand Eastern indirect dialogue.

An American manager who led a project to build an interface for a customer data system, who had experience working with both Americans and Japanese, explained the problem in her team: “In Japan, people like to talk and discuss. They chat when they take breaks. Japanese employees always want harmony in the organization. But one of the lessons I learned the hard way is that when you think they are saying ‘yes’, they are really saying ‘I am listening’!”

Differences in direct and indirect communication across cultures can have serious consequences for team relationships when a project runs into trouble. In this case, when the American manager realized that mistakes were occurring that could bring the entire system to a halt, she emailed her American boss and the Japanese team members. Reactions were mixed. The American boss was grateful for the direct warning. Her Japanese colleagues were embarrassed and ashamed, believing that she had violated their norms for identifying and discussing problems. Their reaction made it even harder for the manager to resolve the problem. She found it harder to get the information she needed.

Maybe you are interested!

necessary to monitor the process. Perhaps Japanese employees would respond more positively if the manager expressed the problem in a tactful, indirect way. For example, the manager could ask them what would happen if the system did not work properly, even though she already knew this.

Difficulties in communication often limit information sharing, create conflicts between individuals, and thus hinder effective teamwork. In Japan, the typical response to direct communication is to isolate the person who violates that norm. The American manager’s actions isolated her in public, not just in social conversation. She recounted that the Japanese took her to a tiny “office,” a warehouse with only a desk and a telephone. Then they tried to distance themselves from her, giving the clearest indication that she was not part of their community, and that they would only communicate with her if necessary.

So the American manager’s direct response to the difficulty seemed to have allowed the project to proceed without any mishaps and resolved the problem. But the violation of behavioral norms exacerbated the challenges of working with Japanese colleagues and thus limited the ability to detect problems that the project might encounter later, causing it to go off track.

b. Trouble with pronunciation and fluency

Although the main language used in international business is English, misunderstandings still occur when speakers use the wrong stress, intonation, speak incoherently, misunderstand or use words inappropriate to the situation.

For example, a Latino member of a multicultural consulting group complained: “Sometimes I feel that because of the language barrier, I don’t have the vocabulary to express my thoughts properly. I notice that when I conduct interviews with an American, he tends to take the lead. This is understandable, but it still makes me feel

frustrated because we were really on the same level. I could think of good questions, but he was the one asking them.”

An American member of a U.S.-Japan team responsible for expanding a U.S. retail company into Japan commented about an American colleague: “He was completely uninterested in the feedback from the Japanese consultants and felt that because they did not speak as fluently as he did, they seemed less intelligent and therefore incapable of adding value.” Here, the American employees underestimated the capabilities of their Japanese colleagues. Clearly, if the team attempted to penetrate the Japanese market without their help, it would run the risk of overstating the chances of success and underestimating the challenges.

A non-linguist may be the best in their field, but communication difficulties prevent others from recognizing and capitalizing on that advantage. If colleagues are dismissive or impatient, interpersonal conflicts are bound to arise. Non-linguists may feel less motivated to contribute to the overall success, or worry about their performance evaluations and future career prospects. The company as a whole pays the price for investing in multinational teams only to receive less than desirable results.

In some cases, groups have used language differences to resolve awkward situations. For example, a purchasing team made up of U.S. and Latin American staff was negotiating with a group of Korean suppliers. The negotiations took place in Korea, but in English. Often, the Koreans “congregated” at the negotiating table by speaking Korean. In response, the purchasing team appeared to congregate in Spanish (although in reality they were just talking about world events or sports news, in case any of the Koreans understood Spanish).

Seeing how their colleagues were reacting, the American members joined in the conversation. The method worked: the Koreans understood that speaking in Korean at the negotiating table was impolite and would anger their counterparts. As a result, both sides cut out side conversations in their local languages.

c. Different views on rank and authority

When we organize groups, we tend to use a fairly homogeneous structure. But when some members of a group come from cultures where people are treated according to their social status, they may feel uncomfortable with this structure. If they always defer to and defer to their superiors, this behavior may be considered adaptive when the majority of members come from hierarchical cultures. However, this may be seen as self-deprecating, even humiliating, in a largely egalitarian group.

“In Mexican culture, you have to be humble,” said a credit manager at a Mexican bank. “So whether you really understand something or not, you ask it in the form of a question. You have to be open-minded if you want to be respected. But when I do that in the U.S., Americans think I really don’t understand the issue. It makes me feel like Americans think I’m hesitant to answer.”

Because of different cultural norms, when team members believe they are being treated disrespectfully, the entire project is at risk of falling apart. In a US-South Korean negotiation, the American team members had a hard time getting information from the Korean side, so they complained directly to the company's senior management. As a result, the contract was almost canceled. This is because in Korean businesses and culture, hierarchy is always strictly respected. Therefore, the American complaints offended the Korean senior managers. The

The Americans should have conveyed their complaints to their Korean counterparts who were negotiating with them. Complaining to senior Korean managers escalated the conflict in the negotiations before the Korean negotiators could resolve the issue. The tension was resolved only when senior American managers flew to Korea, placated their Korean counterparts, and showed their respect.

d. Conflicting standards in the decision-making process

Cultural differences are most evident in the decision-making process, with regard to the time taken to make a decision and the level of analysis required before making a decision. Not surprisingly, American managers are less likely to analyze a situation and make decisions more quickly than managers of other nationalities.

“On the first day, we agreed on three terms,” said a Brazilian manager who works for an American company and is in charge of negotiating a purchase with a Korean company. “On the second day, the Americans wanted to negotiate the fourth term, but the Koreans wanted to come back and discuss the first three terms. My boss was almost shocked.”

What American negotiators learn from this case is that the American style cannot be applied to other cultures. For example, managers from non-American cultures often refrain from sharing information until they understand the full scope of a project. But they also learn that they cannot easily ignore their American counterparts’ desire for quick decisions. What to do? The best approach is to pace yourself, try to make concessions when possible, and be responsive to the other side’s decisions. For example, American managers can try to reassure their impatient superiors, avoid having them participate directly in team meetings, and send frequent progress reports. Managers from other cultures can present their work in a straightforward manner.

your wishes, and say something like “We need to look at the big picture before getting into the details.”

2.4.2. Four strategies for managing multicultural teams

Successful cross-cultural managers typically employ one of four strategies to deal with challenges: Adapt (openly accept cultural differences and learn to live with them); Structural Intervention ( change the structure of the team); Management Intervention ( establish rules and standards early or escalate issues and conflicts to higher management); and Transfer ( move a team member to another job when there is no better way). There is no single way to solve problems in cross-cultural teams, and identifying the right challenge is only the beginning. More importantly, we should identify the context in which the conflict occurs, the situational conditions that can lead to misunderstandings.

a. Adaptation

Some multicultural teams have found ways to work together or to identify challenges, and they have adapted to different practices or attitudes without changing the team members. The adaptation strategy is effective only when team members have knowledge and understanding of cultural differences and feel responsible for finding ways to “live with” them. This is often the most effective way to solve problems because it saves management time and because team members find their own solutions, they learn from the experience. Once they have this attitude, they are more creative in finding ways to defend their differences while still accepting the ways of others.

An American software engineer in Ireland who worked with an Israeli network administrator told how shocked he was by the Israelis' “in-your-face” approach: “They have different approaches and

debate is really different. There is something about Israeli culture that you should know: They love to debate. Even though I tried to be cooperative, the situation only made me tense until I found a way to reconcile the two cultures.”

The software engineer adapted. He tried to prepare for his conversations with Israelis and accepted the way of life. He also noticed that Israelis did not “confront” him alone, but they confronted each other and were still able to collaborate effectively. He realized that the arguments and quarrels here were not personal, but cultural.

In another example, an American member of a merger consulting team was frustrated by the hierarchy of a French company. He felt that conversations with French executives who were not directly involved in the merger “did not contribute anything useful to me or to the project objectives.” However, he later learned that such conversations were “really important to getting everyone on board after the merger” if the deal actually went through.

b. Intervening in organizational structure

This method involves intentionally reorganizing the group or reassigning tasks to reduce interpersonal conflict or to shift the source of conflict. It is especially effective when the group is divided into small groups, or when members are arrogant, defensive, difficult, or prone to negative stereotypes.

A member of an investment research team that included members from mainland Europe, the UK and the US described how the manager resolved the conflict caused by cultural differences between the three “tribes” in the team. The manager first organized a meeting with all members of the team twice a year, not to discuss daily minutiae but to define a set of values the team wanted to achieve. At the first meeting, the manager realized that every time he started talking, everyone suddenly “shut up” and listened attentively. So he decided to hire a consultant to help him run the team.

subsequent meetings. Because the consultant does not instill a sense of hierarchy,

Because of his position, the manager heard a lot of good ideas from the members.

Another way to intervene in organizational structure is to divide the group into smaller groups with different cultural and/or business perspectives. This approach was adopted by a manager in charge of a distribution group in the Japanese market. Realizing that Japanese female consultants were not effective when the group was too large or when the superiors were men, she divided the group into smaller groups. She used this method many times and diligently rotated members between groups, helping everyone understand and respect each other better.

However, the teaming technique is not without its risks. For one reason or another, it helps people who do not cooperate with each other avoid frequent conflicts, but sooner or later, the results of the teams must be brought together. Therefore, to implement the teaming technique successfully, the team manager must be someone who knows how to put the pieces together so that the team can achieve its goals.

c. Administrative intervention

When the manager acts as a referee or judge, making final decisions without the participation of the team, it can be difficult to understand why team performance is at a standstill. However, there is a way out of this problem, which is to use management intervention.

An American safety expert with extensive experience working in East Asia was having trouble getting a project done in China. She decided to call her supervisor in the Beijing office and ask him to alert the higher-level manager on the Chinese side. Unlike other Westerners, this expert understood the hierarchical roles in Eastern societies and respected them. “When we tried to resolve the issue, the plant management decided to stop talking to our Beijing office,” she said.

Comment