Assessing the Dependency of Teamwork Dynamics to Cultural Differences Essay

A debate whether a conglomerate or a analogous ag stem up up is easier to handle and manage has been going on for years. Companies, firms and make up organizations argon starting to make aggroups as the basic unit of their operations. out-of-pocket to this trend, organizational investigateers started to study the correlation between the com fleck of the group and the squads turnout (Earley & adenylic acid Mosakowski, 2000, p. 26). Organizational firearm in toll of the homogeneity and abstruseness of the police squad organic law is comm only when studied done the comparative favours that apiece type of composition seat give to a working group up (Schippers, Hartog, Koopman, &type A Wienk, 2003, p.779). This research paper will try to address the force at hand in the same manner as near organizational researchers do this research paper will compare akin and conglomerate team up compositions through the receiptss they can give to their teams. The hiring str ucture of roughly organizations, companies and firm includes a set of qualification that seeks to sift through the applicants non in terms of credentials but also in terms of their backgrounds (Prat, 2000, p. 3).These sets of qualifications are roughhewnly structured in their own ways to wee a homogenous or a disparate team, depending on the position of the hiring party in terms of its team composition preference. Before miserable on to the advantages of the two-team compositions, it should be noted that the basic differences between the two-team compositions are its team members destination. Culture embodies the system of overlap meanings (Gibson C. B. , 2004). It can even be said, that market-gardening attributes the different reactions of the team members in different managerial approaches and team objectives (Gibson C.B. , 2004). Furthermore, the opport accordance of success and efficiency in team is dependent to the culture of its team members. Identifying the differe nce between leadership a same team or a heterogeneous team can be easily discussed through the extent by which team members share a certain(a) culture. In modern day organizational researches, culture sharing is not the only difference. Factors such as efficiency, efficacy of the leading model, output capabilities and even interlocking resolution mechanisms are considered in organization researches that address homogeneous and heterogeneous team compositions.Describing the actual leaders process in these two team compositions would lead to the discussions on team cohesiveness. group cohesiveness is the degree by which members of a group (both hetero and homo) are attracted to the team (Wendt, Euwemab, & adenine Emmerik, 2009, p. 359). It can be said, that team cohesiveness embodies the soils for connective a team and expected incentives for joining the team (Wendt, Euwemab, & international ampere Emmerik, 2009, p. 359). police squad cohesiveness is present in both homogeneo us and heterogeneous team compositions.However, the burden of insuring that the team would function is not directly related to the team composition it is also determined by the leadership demeanor in the team. Leading leadership styles such as directive and supportive styles feed two very different cause 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 another(prenominal) hand, supportive leadership can work better with heterogeneous team composition since the differences in the shared culture of the team can be compensated 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 opportunity of team inefficiency and failure. Following this logic , it can be said that the leadership style would determine the difference between these two team compositions a certain outfit must be in good order addressed.After discussing the needed fit 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. cod to this, the team leader can expect different opinions and a broad(a) range of ideas to be articulated by the team members (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p. 207). This frame-up is seen in companies that operate on a high technology take aim. engine room based companies tend to function in a transnational level this allows the companies to have an experience in having a heterogeneous team to mitt with their operations. The divers(prenominal) pool that the company can easily access to creates a working environment, which is stark(a) 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 physical composition in workplaces.Following this logic, leading a heterogeneous team has an advantage of being able to pool a good number of ideas and opinions receivable to the different shared cultures among the team members. Practically speaking, a heterogeneous team can come up with more possible solutions needed to address a problem as compared to a team with members that share a uniform culture. miscellaneous team through its cohorts also has the advantage of creating a workplace, which is more conducive for a more receptive attainment behavior (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p.209). The cohort formation that arises from a heterogeneous team creates subgroups that are more receptive to learning t hrough experimentation reflective communication and codification (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, p. 209). The mental 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 range in the creation of a heterogeneous team.This trend is best seen in transnational companies attempts to outsource team members from different places around the globe to get wind 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 protective of their ideas (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003, pp. 2 12-213).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 deep down the heterogeneous team. Advantages in a homogeneous team are the entire solutions to the disadvantages of a heterogeneous team. The probability that too much heterogeneity can impede team growth and efficiency can be cancel out by adapting a homogenized team since the shared culture of the whole 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- cohesion. squad cohesion is at its prime state if the military issue team is a homogeneous team (WordPress. com, 2009). The strong 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 c ulture of a homogeneous team creates a sense of unity among the team members that translates to achievements 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 goal 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 existence is the fact that each of this team composition provides a perfect fit for different organizational arrangements (Gamage, 2006, p. 57). The interpla y 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 enforce in homogeneous team composition allows a consolidated military campaign 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 linear 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 command idea that the team c ompositions effectiveness are dominantly dependent on the factors such as type of leadership and environment such as context of application. Bibliography Adams, S. K. (2007, July 30). Disciplinarily Hetero- and resembling Design Team ConvergenceCommunication Patterns and Perceptions of Teamwork. Retrieved overbearing 6, 2010, from www. scholar. lib. vt. edu http//scholar. lib. vt. edu/theses/ in stock(predicate)/etd-08272007-114555/unrestricted/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 Examine the pith of heathenishDiversity on Team Process and Cultural Adaptability. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from www. ftp. rta. nato. int ftp. rta. nato. int/public//PubFullText/ ///MP-HFM-142-18. doc Casmir, R. (1992). Third-culture building A paradigm sideslip 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 Empirical Test of Transnational Team Functioning. The honorary society 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 within multina-tional corporations Effects of cultural heterogeneity. leaders 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 Learnin g Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2 , 202-239. Leadershipreview. org. (2002). Research summary Creating Hybrid Team Cultures. Retrieved August 6, 2010, from www.leadershipreview. org http//www. leadershipreview. org/2002winter/nelson_winter_2002. asp Mayo, M. (2005, September 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 Performance 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, 2 010, 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/