Assessing the Dependency of Teamwork Dynamics to Cultural Differences Essay

A debate whether a sundry(prenominal) or a undiversified aggroup is easier to handle and manage has been going on for years. Companies, firms and even organizations be starting to come across groups as the basic unit of their operations. callable to this impulsion, organizational inquiryers started to study the correlation between the report of the police squad and the groups output (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000, p. 26). organizational stem in legal injury of the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the group slice is commonly studied with the comparative advantages that each attribute of subject stinkpot give to a running(a) police squad (Schippers, Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003, p.779). This research composition will try to address the issue at hand in the same manner as most organizational researchers do this research makeup will comp atomic number 18 same and compound aggroup compositions through the advantages they can give to their group ups. The hiring structure of most organizations, companies and firm includes a organise of qualification that stresss to sift through the applicants not in terms of credential but similarly in terms of their backgrounds (Prat, 2000, p. 3).These sets of qualifications are commonly coordinate in their own ways to create a homogenous or a involved aggroup, depending on the position of the hiring party in terms of its aggroup composition preference. Before moving on to the advantages of the two-team compositions, it should be tell that the basic differences between the two-team compositions are its team members close. Culture embodies the system of deald out meanings (Gibson C. B. , 2004). It can even be said, that husbandry attributes the different reactions of the team members in different managerial approaches and team objectives (Gibson C.B. , 2004). Furthermore, the probability of success and efficiency in team is dependent to the refining of its team members. Identifying the diffe rence between direct a uniform team or a miscellaneous team can be advantageously discussed through the extent by which team members share a true culture. In modern day organizational researches, culture sharing is not the only difference. Factors such as efficiency, efficiency of the leading model, output capabilities and even conflict resolution mechanisms are considered in organization researches that address undiversified and heterogeneous team compositions.Describing the actual leading process in these two team compositions would lead to the discussions on team gluiness. team cohesiveness is the degree by which members of a group (both hetero and homo) are attracted to the team (Wendt, Euwemab, & Emmerik, 2009, p. 359). It can be said, that team cohesiveness embodies the reasons for joining a team and expected incentives for joining the team (Wendt, Euwemab, & Emmerik, 2009, p. 359). team up cohesiveness is expose in both homogeneous and heterogeneous team composition s.However, the burden of insuring that the team would function is not directly related to the team composition it is withal determined by the leaders agency in the team. Leading leadership styles such as directive and collateral styles get hold of two very different effects to the team depending on the team composition. The exclusivity of the shared culture in homogeneous teams can work better with directive leadership such as seen in autocratic countries (Wendt, Euwemab, & Emmerik, 2009, p. 360).On the other hand, supportive leadership can work better with heterogeneous team composition since the differences in the shared culture of the team can be paying(a) for by the support that the leadership style offers (Wendt, Euwemab, & Emmerik, 2009, p. 360). Interchanging the two leadership styles in heterogeneous and homogeneous team compositions can result to high probability of team inefficiency and failure. Following this logic, it can be said that the leadership style would de termine the difference between these two team compositions a certain harmonize must be mightily addressed.After discussing the needed cope with in the leadership style and the team composition, advantages in terms of properly leading a homogeneous team or a heterogeneous team can now be established. Having a heterogeneous team implies that a team leader would have members with different recognitions of shared culture. Due to this, the team leader can expect different opinions and a simple range of views to be articulated by the team members (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p. 207). This setup is seen in companies that operate on a high technology level.Technology base companies be given to function in a transnational level this allows the companies to have an experience in having a heterogeneous team to deal with their operations. The divers(prenominal) pool that the company can easily access to creates a working environment, which is perfect for the creation of cohorts. According to other related researches, team members tend to speak out their idea or opinion if they have at least one team member that supports their idea (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p. 207). This finding is the coined as the cohort formation in workplaces.Following this logic, leading a heterogeneous team has an advantage of being able to pool a obedient number of ideas and opinions due to the different shared cultures among the team members. Practically speaking, a heterogeneous team can come up with more manageable solutions needed to address a problem as compared to a team with members that share a uniform culture. Heterogeneous team through its cohorts also has the advantage of creating a workplace, which is more conducive for a more undetermined learning behavior (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p.209). The cohort formation that arises from a heterogeneous team creates subgroups that are more receptive to learning through experimentation musing communication and codification (Gibson & Verm eulen, 2003, p. 209). The psychological support provided by team members that share culture allows other team members to learn more (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p. 210). These advantages of heterogeneous teams make many organizations, companies and firms to invest in the creation of a heterogeneous team.This trend is best seen in transnational companies attempts to outsource team members from different places or so the globe to insure that their team has cohorts to cultivate better brainstorming activities (Earley & Gibson, 2002, pp. 230-232). Unfortunately, the advantages of having a heterogeneous team stop at the cohorts. Heterogeneous team, which is too heterogeneous in the sense that it does not allow the formation of cohorts tends to be counterproductive since its team members without some to share his or her culture with, becomes too tutelar of their ideas (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, pp. 212-213).In this situation, organizational researches recommend the full dismantling of the team or the inclusion of other team members that whitethorn allow that formation of cohorts indoors the heterogeneous team. Advantages in a homogeneous team are the radical solutions to the disadvantages of a heterogeneous team. The probability that too much heterogeneity can impede team growth and efficiency can be cancelled out by adapting a homogenized team since the shared culture of the unit team will eradicate the cultural diversity that may have started the problems of a too heterogenic team (Mello & Ruckes, 2010, p. 1022).This is the primary advantage of homogeneous team- coherency. Team cohesion is at its prime state if the subject team is a homogeneous team (WordPress. com, 2009). The sound sense of group cohesion in a homogeneous team allows the whole team to easily accomplish tasks and yield maximum productivity rates (WordPress. com, 2009, p. n. pag. ). The shared culture of a homogeneous team creates a sense of unity among the team members that translates to achi evements that are most probably unattainable for a common heterogeneous group. This is the primary and appears to be the only advantage in a homogeneous group.Unfortunately, it also has its share of disadvantages. The major disadvantage of a homogenous team is that the team is prone to make probable dumb decisions due to the strong sense of groupthink mentality present in this team composition (WordPress. com, 2009). This attributes of homogeneous team composition allows homogeneous teams to be the perfect team composition for productivity and design oriented organizations, companies and firms. Conclusion Heterogeneous and homogeneous team compositions have been existing ever since basic groups have been formed.The reason for their globe is the fact that each of this team composition provides a perfect fit for different organizational arrangements (Gamage, 2006, p. 57). The interplay between organizational cultures, team composition and the type of leadership determines the needed fit implied in this research paper. Conclusively, this research paper takes the position that homogeneous team composition is an advantage for organizations, companies and firms that are goal and production oriented, while heterogeneous team composition is an advantage for organizations, companies and firms that seek to provide solutions.The cohesive team culture cultured and enforced in homogeneous team composition allows a consolidated movement of the whole team towards the attainment of their teams objectives. On the other hand, the differences of the team members of a heterogeneous team allow the utilization of the multi perspective orientations in the advantage of the whole team. The different ideas and cultural inclinations of a heterogeneous team allow the development of holistic solutions.These points when summed up results to a general idea that the team compositions effectiveness are dominantly dependent on the factors such as type of leadership and environment such as co ntext of application. Bibliography Adams, S. K. (2007, July 30). Disciplinarily Hetero- and homogenized Design Team Convergence chat Patterns and Perceptions of Teamwork. Retrieved venerable 6, 2010, from www. scholar. lib. vt. edu http//scholar. lib. vt. edu/theses/available/etd-08272007-114555/ open-ended/MastersThesis. pdf Adler, N. (1991).International dimensions of organi-zational behavior (2nd ed. ). Boston PWS-Kent. Burke, S. , Wilson, K. , & Salas, E. (2010). Varying Team Composition to take in the establish of CulturalDiversity on Team Process and Cultural Adaptability. Retrieved sniffy 6, 2010, from www. ftp. rta. nato. int ftp. rta. nato. int/ earthly concern//PubFullText/ ///MP-HFM-142-18. doc Casmir, R. (1992). Third-culture building A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. Communication Yearbook , 407-428. Cox, T. (1992). Cultural diversity in organizations.San Francisco Berrett Koehler. Earley, P. C. , & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating Hybrid Team Cultures An empiric Test of Transnational Team Functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1 , 26-49. Earley, P. , & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational Work Teams A New Perspective. Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. . Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams in spite of appearance multina-tional corporations Effects of cultural heterogeneity. leadership Quarterly , 393-412. Gamage, D. (2006). Professional Development for Leaders and Managers .Dordrecht Springer Publications. Gibson, C. B. (2004). Building Multicultural TeamsLearning to Manage Homogeneity and Heterogeneity. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from http//web. gsm. uci. edu http//web. gsm. uci. edu/cgibson/Publication%20files/Articles/Crossing%20cultures%20chapter. pdf Gibson, C. , & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A Healthy Divide Subgroups as a Stimulus for Team Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2 , 202-239. Leadershipreview. org. (2002). Research Synopsis Creating Hyb rid Team Cultures. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from www.leadershipreview. org http//www. leadershipreview. org/2002winter/nelson_winter_2002. asp Mayo, M. (2005, kinfolk 2). Networks and Effectiveness in Work Teams The Impact of Diversity. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from www. latienda. ie. edu http//latienda. ie. edu/working_papers_economia/WP05-10. pdf Maznevski, M. (1994). Understanding our differences exploit in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations , 531-552. McGrath, J. (1984). Groups Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall. Mello, A. S. , & Ruckes, M.E. (2010). Team Composition. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from http//finance. fbv. uni-karlsruhe. d http//finance. fbv. uni-karlsruhe. de/download/Ruckes_TeamCompositionJB. pdf Prat, A. (2000, August 16). Shoul a Team Be Homogeneous? Retrieved August 6, 2010, from www. econ. lse. ac. uk http//econ. lse. ac. uk/staff/prat/papers/sharedeer2. pdf Schippers, M. C. , Hartog, D. N. , Koopman, P. L. , & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and Team Outcomes The Moderating Effects of Outcome Interdependence and Group Longevity and the Mediating Effect of Reflexivity.Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 6 , 779-802. Wendt, H. , Euwemab, M. C. , & Emmerik, I. H. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from http//hettyvanemmerik. com http//hettyvanemmerik. com/ScientificPublications/+Enl2009=Article_LQ_Wendt_Euwema_Van_Emmerik_Leadership_and_team_cohesiveness. pdf WordPress. com. (2009, March 10). Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Teams and Creativity. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from www. wordpress. com http//asifjmir. wordpress. com/2009/03/10/homogeneous-or-heterogeneous-teams-and-creativity/