shokef-erez global identity in mcts feb 2006...

Global Identity in MCTs

1

Global Work Culture and Global Identity, as a Platform for a Shared Understanding in

Multicultural Teams

Efrat Shokef

Miriam Erez

Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Management

Technion—Israel Institute of Technology

Technion City, Haifa, 32000, Israel

Shokef, E. and Erez, M. (2006). Shared Meaning Systems in Multicultural Teams. In B. Mannix, Neale, M., and Chen, Ya-Ru (Eds.). National culturand groups. Research on Managing Groups and Teams. Volume 9, pp.325-352. Elsevier JAI Press: San-Diego, CA.


2

Global Work Culture and Global Identity, as a Platform for a Shared Understanding in

Multicultural Teams

Abstract

As part of the globalizing work environment, new forms of organizations have

emerged, ranging from international to multinational and transnational organizations.

These forms of organizations require high levels of cross-national interdependence, and

often the formation of multicultural teams, nested within multinational organizations.

Employees who operate in the global multinational context should share common

meanings, values, and codes of behaviors in order to effectively communicate with each

other and coordinate their activities. What helps global multicultural team members create

the social glue that connects them to each other, above and beyond the national cultures to

which they belong? We propose that a more macro-level meaning system of a global

work culture, which is the shared understanding of the visible rules, regulations and

behaviors, and the deeper values and ethics of the global work context, that is formed

outside of the level of national cultures, binds members of multicultural teams. At the

individual level, the representation of these global work values in the self leads to the

emergence of a global identity, which is an individual’s sense of belonging to and

identification with groups (such as multicultural teams), operating in the global work

environment of multinational organizations. The chapter focuses on the potential

influence of a global work culture, and of a global identity on the effectiveness of

multicultural teams.


3

Introduction

Research on work teams has commonly taken place within the boundaries of one

culture. In most of the early research on teams the cultural factor was not even an issue

(i.e., McGrath, 1984). As part of the increased dominance of multinational organizations

(MNO), global multicultural teams (MCT) have been formed. Global MCTs consist of

“individuals from different cultures working together on activities that span national

borders” (Snell, Snow, Davidson & Hambrick, 1998). Most team processes that take

place in teams in general also characterize global MCTs (Ilgen, LePine, & Hollenbeck,

1997). Yet, global MCTs differ from other teams in their team composition and their

communication patterns. Therefore, they face additional challenges that they need to cope

with.

An in-depth study of the challenges faced by 40 managers working in MCTs

revealed that similar to any other team, they cope with interpersonal tensions, and

disagreements about work pace, fairness in the workload distribution, and procedures to

get the work done (Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2006). Nevertheless, in addition, other issues

emerged. These are related to cultural differences such as differences in work norms and

behaviors, violation of respect and hierarchy, lack of common ground, language fluency,

ways of communicating, whether implicit or explicit.

An important factor in overcoming many of the above challenges is the existence

of a shared meaning system that would allow team members to understand each other and

interpret each other’s intentions and behaviors (Earley & Gibson, 2002). Individuals

working in same culture teams have a common cultural ground. Yet, team members

working in the global work environment of MNOs need to develop a shared meaning


4

system that reflects a common global work culture, beyond their different national cultures

(Erez & Gati, 2004; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez & Gibson, 2005).

Culture is a shared meaning system (Erez & Earley, 1993). Cultural values are

represented in the self and help the individual evaluate the meaning of managerial and

motivational approaches in terms of their contributions to a person’s sense of self-worth

and well-being. Positive evaluations will result in enhanced effort and performance, while

negative evaluations will mitigate effort and performance. Yet, people coming from

different value systems may attribute different meanings to the same managerial approach

and react to it in different ways.

Employees working in the same local national culture share the same national

meaning system (Hofstede, 2001), which supports their adaptation to their local

organization. Yet, employees working in MNOs encounter a mosaic of other cultures that

hinders the shared understanding and their ability to correctly interpret the behavioral

responses of other team members. The question is how members of global MCTs develop

a shared meaning system that enables them to effectively communicate with each other, to

correctly interpret the meaning of the other members’ responses, and to share knowledge

and understanding of how they should all act toward achieving their group goal.

Therefore, the first objective of this paper is to examine what helps global MCT members

create the social glue that connect them to each other, beyond what connects each member

to the national cultures to which they belong.

Building upon Erez and Gati (2004)’s multi-level model of culture, we propose

that a global work culture reflects a macro-level meaning system, beyond national

cultures. This macro-level work culture is defined as the shared understanding of the

visible rules, regulations and behaviors, and the deeper values and ethics of the global


5

work context.

The second objective of the present study is to understand how the representation

of the global work values in the self creates a global identity, defined as an individual’s

sense of belonging to and identification with groups (such as MCTs), operating in the

global work environment of MNOs. Finally, this chapter examines the impact of the

emergent global work culture, and the formation of a global identity on MCT

performance. In the next sections we define what MCTs are, review the research

literature, and generate research propositions that lead to possible answers to the above

questions.

Multicultural Teams

A growing number of employees in MNOs work as part of global MCTs.

Members of these teams are natives of different cultural environments, and they hold

diverse cultural identities. These factors affect their understanding, interpreting, and way

of responding to various situations (Erez & Earley, 1993; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

MCTs have emerged in response to the needs of MNOs (Bartlett & Ghoshal,

1989). Truly, MNOs no longer operate their business only from their home country, as

was traditionally done, and they cannot separate their functions according to national

locations. Rather, companies are recognizing the need to leverage the diversity of their

employees in order to sustain their competitive advantage in the global marketplace (Ely,

2004; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Thomas & Ely, 1996). MNOs form MCTs that pool

global talents and meet organizational goals of reaching overseas’ markets and

implementing complex business strategies (Joshi, Labianca, & Caligiuri, 2002). MCTs


6

are typically formed when specialized skills are possessed by experts who are situated in

different places (Prieto & Arias, 1997). MCTs can be recomposed and reassigned to

respond to shifting opportunities in global markets (Solomon, 1995), in order to meet

ever-changing task requirements in highly turbulent and dynamic global business

environments (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Mowshowitz, 1997; Snow, Snell, & Davidson,

1996).

Shared Meaning Systems in MCTs

One of the challenges faced by organizations operating globally is to create MCTs

that work effectively (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). The highly diverse nature

of MCTs may either facilitate or inhibit group performance. On the one hand, the

culturally diverse composition of MCTs enables a broad range of perspectives, skills and

insights, which can increase the group’s creativity and problem solving capabilities,

thereby enhancing performance (Cox, 1993; Cox & Black, 1991). On the other hand,

MCTs can also have high levels of conflicts and misunderstandings (Armstrong & Cole,

1995; Behfar et al., 2006; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Joshi et al., 2002; Salk &

Brannen, 2000; Shenkar & Zeira, 1992). In-group conflicts mitigate the ability of the

group to perform effectively over time, and to provide satisfying experiences for its

members (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Ravlin, Thomas, &

Ilsev, 2000). This process loss potentially results from different perceptions, attributions,

and communication pattern that vary by national cultures (Adler, 1991).

Furthermore, most people have a preference for interacting with similar others and

find such interactions easier, reinforcing, and more desirable compared to interactions

with others who are different (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Similarity among team


7

members is positively associated with team effectiveness and interpersonal attraction

(Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Members of homogeneous

teams report a stronger affinity for their team members compared to members of

heterogeneous teams (Ibarra, 1992). Therefore, creating a shared meaning system in

MCTs may help overcome the negative impact of cultural diversity, as it helps overcome

frictions and team conflicts (Earley & Gibson, 2002).

A shared meaning system at the team level develops through socialization to the

team and through contacts and interactions among team members. A team culture

develops over time in response to common goals that the team strives to accomplish

(Earley & Gibson, 2002). The shared team culture results in decreased variability in the

team’s values and behavioral patterns (Erez & Earley, 1993). The strength of the team

culture is determined by the degree of homogeneity in the perceptions, values and

behavioral norms held by its members (Chan, Gelfand, Triandis, & Tzeng, 1996; Schwartz

& Sagie, 2000).

Working together enables team members to develop a shared mental model, which

is a shared psychological representation of the team’s environment. This, in turn, helps the

members communicate and coordinate their activities effectively (Klimoski & Mohhamed,

1994).

The strength, or the degree of homogeneity of the team members’ shared mental

model and culture, was found to have a positive effect on team performance (Kotter &

Hasket, 1992; Gorden & DiTomaso, 1992; Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner, Salas, Cannon-

Bowers, 2000). For example, Earley and Mozakowski (2000) showed that effective teams

had a strong team culture that facilitated team communication and team performance.

They showed that national heterogeneity was detrimental to performance during the initial


8

interaction phase of MCTs. However, over time, heterogeneous teams improved their

communication and appeared to create a common identity that reduced the detrimental

effect of team heterogeneity on team performance. Klimoski and Mohammed (1994)

showed that over time teams developed shared mental models that increased the

propensity to trust each other and hence, improved team performance. Thus, for a group

to be integrative and effective it must develop, share, and enact a simplified set of rules

and actions. h

Earley and Mosakowski (2000) referred to the unique team culture developed in

MCTs as a hybrid culture, which is “an emergent and simplified set of rules and actions,

work capabilities, and expectations shared and enacted after mutual interactions” (Earley

& Gibson, 2002, p.61). Others referred to it as team synergy (Adler, 1991), or as a third

culture (Casmir, 1992) defined as an emergent simplified set of cognitions and behaviors

that provide an identity to an MCT that shares and enacts them (Adair, Tinsley, & Taylor,

2006). Third cultures exist when a group develops shared schemas containing not only

the knowledge of the group and its task, but also a shared system of beliefs, values, and

norms, providing a group identity (Adair et al., 2006). The third culture approach is often

characterized by behaviors facilitating trust, mutual respect and cooperation (Graen, Hui,

Wakabayahsi, & Wang, 1997). Following the above discussion, we propose:

Proposition 1: MCTs with a shared team culture perform better than MCTs

without a shared team culture.

These models of a hybrid culture (Earley & Gibson, 2002) and third culture (Adair

et al., 2006; Casmir, 1992) focus mainly on the processes taking place within the MCTs to


9

create the unique team culture that may facilitate its success. We, however, argue that

these teams do not necessarily develop an exclusive third culture, as they are nested within

the MNO and they internalize its corporate values. MNOs operate beyond national

cultures. Therefore, their cultural values should reflect the characteristics of the global

work context, and should accommodate the cross-cultural diversity of their labor force. In

the next section we discuss the characteristics of the global work environment and

examine the shared meaning system of members of MNOs and MCTs that provides them

with a common ground for understanding one another, and for overcoming possible

misunderstandings.

Is There a Meaning System Shared by Individuals Working in MNOs?

Groups are commonly nested within organizations, which are nested within

nations. Hence, the values and norms adopted by group members are shaped to some

degree by the cultural values of their organizations, and the latter are shaped to some

degree by the surrounding national culture (Erez & Gati, 2004). MCTs are part of MNOs,

which operate above and beyond one’s national culture. MNOs emerge in response to

global competition (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001), and are major actors in the global work

environment (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994). They make important contributions to

globalization by creating economic interdependence among countries via the increased

cross-border flow of goods and services, capital, know-how (Govindarajan & Gupta,

2001), and human resources (Erez & Gati, 2004). Simultaneously, the MNO culture is

shaped by the globalization it is helping to establish.


10

Globalization has accelerated as a result of advances in telecommunication, and a

rapid increase in economic and financial interdependence among different cultures and

world regions (Arnett, 2002). This process leads to greater interdependence and mutual

awareness among economic, political and social units in the world, and among actors in

general (Guillen, 2001), and by which cultures influence one another through trade,

immigration, and the exchange of information and ideas (Arnett, 2002). Contrary to the

national environment, the global environment exists outside the usual reference to

geographical territory, is considered as not being tied to specific place or time

(Featherstone, Lash, & Robertson, 1995; Morley & Robins, 1995), and as being in

continuous motion and change (Appadurai, 2001).

Work organizations differ in their level of global involvement. They range from

domestic organizations with some international involvement (e.g., importing or

exporting), through international organizations (Abbas, 2000), and up to MNOs and

transnational organizations (Barlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Ghoshal & Nohria, 1993).

Organizations involved in global activities differ than domestic organizations by being

geographically dispersed, multicultural, and operating in more than one country

(Miroshnik, 2002; Thurow, 2003). MNOs confront an external environment that is more

complex, dynamic, and competitive than local environments (Francesco & Gold, 1998).

They face different systems of foreign currency, taxation, customs regulations, and so

forth, and at the same time, they must comply with a global system that has its own set of

international laws and standards that regulate all the MNOs’ global operations, linking all

these local contexts together into one global organization (Miroshnik, 2002).

As a major factor in the global environment, MNOs are considered to be important

repositories of resources and knowledge. They are a key source of wealth generation as


11

they continuously improve their productivity and competitiveness. Moreover, their share

in defining, creating, and distributing values makes MNOs one of society’s major agents

of social change (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994). We argue that while individual MNOs have

their own unique organizational characteristics, as a group these organizations, operating

in the same external global environment, share some common characteristics. Building

upon an ecological approach (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992), these common

characteristics of MNOs shape the values, which guide the behaviors of individuals

working in MNOs and create a shared global work culture.

A Global Work Culture

Culture is often defined as a set of shared meaning systems (Schweder & LeVine,

1984), a set of mental programs (Hofstede, 1980), or as a shared knowledge structure that

results in decreased variability in values and behavioral patterns (Erez & Earley, 1993). It

is what a group learns over a period of time while it solves its problems of survival in an

external environment and its problems of internal integration (Schein, 1992). Culture has

different layers of depth, ranging from the most visible layer of artifacts, practices and

behaviors, to the less visible layer of values, and down to the least visible layer of basic

assumptions (Schein, 1992).

A shared meaning system can be formed at different levels, from the micro level of

the group, the meso level of organizations, and up to the macro level of nations and beyond.

A cultural system can also be formed by members of global organizations who transcend

national cultural borders in sharing a common understanding of what it means to operate in

the global work environment (Erez & Gati, 2004). This macro level of a global work culture,

developed over time, is based on the experience gained by individuals, groups, and


12

organizations working in the global work environment as they solve their problems of

survival in the global, multicultural environment. Although not all MNOs corporate

cultures are the same, we suggest that they have a common denominator, shared by

individuals working in MNOs and other forms of international organizations, which

differentiates them from local organizations by virtue of their being part of the same

context.

Therefore, we define a global work culture as the shared understanding of the

visible rules, regulations and behaviors, and the deeper values and ethics of the global

work context.

Values of the Global Work Culture

Culture is often conveyed by its values (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1992).

Following an ecological perspective, it can be said that cultural values facilitate adaptation

to the environment (Berry et al., 1992). Building upon this approach, we suggest that the

global work culture consists of the values that facilitate the adaptation to the global work

environment. These global work values can be derived from the characteristics of the

global environment (Berson, Erez & Adler, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006a). Table 1

summarizes major unique characteristics of the global environment and the values derived

from them.

----- Insert Table 1 about here -----

The global environment of MNOs is known to be highly competitive

(Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). Consequently, emphasis on a competitive performance


13

orientation was identified as a major cultural value of this environment. A competitive

performance orientation involves a strong emphasis on quality, customer orientation, and

innovation (Kilduff & Dougherty, 2000). Furthermore, the global context is considered to

be highly dynamic, characterized by a high level of uncertainty. Adaptation to this

context is facilitated by low uncertainty avoidance, high flexibility, openness to change

(McKinley & Scherer, 2000), and a learning orientation. Operating successfully in a

geographically dispersed and culturally diverse environment necessitates high levels of

interdependence and coordination among the various organizational units to assure that

they all accomplish the shared organizational goals (Berson et al., 2004; Bhagat, Kedia,

Harveston, & Triandis, 2002; Leung et al., 2005; Naisbitt, 1994). Adherence to, and

compliance with international agreements, laws and standards regulate the MNOs’

activities beyond national borders. Moreover, these also facilitate the shared

understanding of what is ‘good or bad,’ permitted or restricted. Finally, the culturally

diverse environment, internal to the MNOs as reflected in their diverse workforce, and

external to it, as shown by their diverse markets and customers, promotes the value of

openness to cultural diversity. In this varied environment, where members of one culture

have limited or no familiarity with others, and where the likelihood of conflicting interests

and misunderstandings is quite high, trust and ethical behavior become key factors in the

smooth integration and communication among the various organizational branches

(Friedman, 2000), units and members.

While some of these values have been part of existing typologies of organizational

culture, others, such as competitive performance orientation, openness to cultural

diversity, trust and ethical behavior, emerge out of the direct characteristics of the global

work environment. We suggest that these values are shared not only by MNOs and other


14

international alliances, but also influence the cultures of domestic organizations with some

international involvement that may have stakeholders, suppliers, or customers that are not

necessarily locally based.

These proposed global work values, derived from the characteristics of the global

work environment of MNOs, were supported by the findings of two recent studies. First,

Berson et al. (2004), in an empirical study conducted in a large MNO, distinguished

between global and local managerial roles. Global managerial roles include strategic

planning and managing innovation and change. These were homogeneously perceived by

managers from different cultures. In contrast, managers across cultures differed in their

perceptions of local managerial roles, reflecting their relationships with their subordinates

in terms of people-focused and task-focused leadership. Furthermore, Berson et al. (2004)

analyzed CEO communication as shown in their speeches and in the company’s annual

reports, and found that the CEOs espoused the values of diversity, performance

orientation, and individualism as well as interdependence, low power distance and low

uncertainty avoidance.

Recently, Shokef and Erez (2006a) conducted a content analysis of MNOs’

cultural values based on the public information on the Internet sites of 77 MNOs

appearing on the 2003-2004 Fortune Global 500. The analysis was based on the

proportion of MNOs that included each of the above mentioned values in their declared

MNO culture. The values that appeared most frequently on companies’ website consisted

of competitive performance orientation, quality, customer orientation, innovation,

openness to change and learning. Others referred to relational focused values emphasizing

interdependence and teamwork, openness to diversity, trust and ethical behavior, and

social and environmental responsibility (Shokef & Erez, 2006a).


15

The findings of these two studies suggest that indeed MNOs share some of the

values derived from the characteristics of the global environment in which they operate,

suggesting that there is a global work culture embodied in MNOs and other international

alliances operating in the global work environment. Such global work values seem to be

shared by members of MCTs working in MNOs, helping them to relate to each other, and

understand each others’ work norms and codes of behavior.

Proposition 2: Members of MCTs, working in MNOs, share a set of global work

values that differentiate them from teams working in local-domestic organizations.

MCTs will attribute higher importance than local homogenous teams to the global

cultural values of: competitive performance orientation, learning and innovation,

openness to change, openness to diversity, trust, social and environmental

responsibility.

Proposition 3: MCTs whose members share the global work values will be more

effective than MCTs whose members do not share these values.

This macro-layer global work culture is internalized by the members of MCTs, and

is represented in the self. Individuals hold multiple identities that correspond to the roles

and social groups to which they belong (Brickson, 2000; Hitlin, 2003). We contend that

members of MCTs develop a global self-identity. In the next section we elaborate on the

construct of global identity, its relationship to the global work culture, and its emergence

in MCTs.


16

Global Identity

Basic questions such as “Who am I? “Where do I belong?” and “How do I fit

(in)?” reflect self identity (Oyserman, 2004). They represent both the personal and social

self, conveying what we know or can know about ourselves (Neisser, 1993; Stryker, 1980;

Stryker & Burke, 2000; Tajfel, 1981). The personal or private self contains notions about

one’s own attitudes, traits, feelings and behaviors, while the social self contains

affiliations, and group memberships (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991). Selves are

created within contexts and take into account the values, norms, and mores of the others

likely to participate in that context (Oyserman, 2004).

Working in the global work environment provides individuals with additional

answers to the above questions of “Who am I?”. For example, people may start defining

themselves as: “a member of an MNO”, “a world traveler”, “a cosmopolitan”, “a member

of a multicultural team” etc. These possible answers reflect a person’s sense of belonging

to groups existing in the global work context, which we define as a global identity. A

global identity is individual’s sense of belonging to and identification with groups (such

as MCTs), operating in the global work environment of MNOs.

Often, MCTs and other groups operating in the global work environment are

virtual in their nature (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). We infer that in order for an

individual to develop a social identity related to a specific group, that group should have a

psychological meaning to that individual (Tajfel, 1978). Nonetheless, the meaning does

not necessarily have to include physical interaction with any of its members. In a study

conducted on virtual groups, McKenna and Bargh (1998) showed that participation in a

virtual newsgroup had significant effects on the transformation of an individual’s social

identity. Increased involvement led to increased salience of the virtual group, followed by


17

increased self acceptance of the group identity (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). Thus, non

physical, virtual group identities can become an important part of the self (Earley &

Gibson, 2002).

Being part of a global work team with team members of diverse cultural

backgrounds is different than being a member of a culturally homogeneous team, to which

most people belong in their local cultural settings. A person may hold multiple identities,

reflecting his/her belonging to multiple groups (Stryker & Burke, 2000; Tajfel & Turner,

1979). Therefore, a global and a local identity do not necessarily compete with each

other. Rather, individuals may hold both types of identities, and sample the relevant

identity depending on the situation.

Following Stryker’s (1980) identity theory, a global identity and a local identity

may become salient in different situations according to the level of commitment of the

individual to the social network in which the identity is played out. The level of

commitment is influenced by the costs of not expressing the identity based roles and

behaviors relevant to the salient social network (Stryker, 1987; Stryker & Burke, 2000).

In the work environment, employees respond to role-expectations in line with the most

salient identity in a given situation. When a work situation stimulates two identities that

conflict with each other, the one with the stronger commitment determines the behavioral

responses (Stryker, 1987; Stryker & Burke, 2000). For example, in an MCT there is a

higher probability that a global identity will become salient whereas, in a homogenous,

same culture team, the local identity will be dominant.

Furthermore, individuals are motivated to become valued by virtue of their ability

to maintain relationships with their team members, and to avoid being rejected. Social

inclusion or acceptance versus social exclusion or rejection contribute to a person’s


18

positive self-concept (Kirpatrick & Ellis, 2004), and a sense of belonging positively

influences self-esteem (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1981;

Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1984) focused on the meaning of belonging to a

psychological group, and proposed that a shared social identity emerges when people’s

perceptions of their mutual and collective similarities are enhanced. Along these lines,

members of global organizations and, in particular, those working in MCTs are also

motivated by the need to maintain relationships with others on their team and to overcome

cultural barriers. Once MCT members develop close relationships with each other, they

reduce prejudice towards others and increase the sense of inclusion (Aron, Aron, &

Norman, 2004).

Global identity and global work values are closely related. Theories of identity

disagree on the casual link between social identity and social values. Social identity

theory proposes that one’s identity affects what one thinks, feels, and does in all social

domains (Gergen, 1991; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Meal & Ashforth, 1992; Tajfel & Turner,

1979). The belonging to specific groups is prior to the acceptance of the groups’ norms

and values. Yet, other theories suggest that acceptance of organizational values influences

employees’ identification with their organization (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991),

and that cultural values, through a process of socialization, are represented in the self

(Erez & Earley, 1993). Most likely, the relationships between global identity and global

work values in MCTs are reciprocal, and that having a global identity influences the

acceptance of the global work values, which reciprocally influence the development of

global identity. Once employees work in an MNO or an MCT, they develop a sense of

belonging to that group and learn what is expected of them as part of their role as

employees in this environment. This brings them to adopt the values of the global work


19

culture. Reciprocally, individuals endorsing the values of the global work culture, such as

openness to diversity, are more likely to feel at ease in multicultural groups. Once they

are part of such groups, they are likely to develop a global identity. Thus, we expect that

as employees gain experience in working for MNOs and MCTs, their global identity

emerges in parallel to their adoption of the global work values.

Preliminary findings of a recent study showed that experience in working as part

of MCTs enhanced the development of a global identity, and that MCTs whose members

had a strong global identity performed better than others (Shokef & Erez, 2006b).

Furthermore, participants’ global identity in this study was also positively related to the

number of languages they spoke, whether they lived in different countries for more than a

year, and the extent to which they traveled around the world (Shokef & Erez, 2006b).

These additional effects on global identity suggest that the sense of identity can develop

on the basis of a more general experience in being part of the global environment.

Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 4a: Experience in working in MCTs enhances the team members’

sense of a global identity.

Based on the reciprocal relationship between a global identity and a global work

culture, we propose:

Proposition 4b: Members of MCTs will adopt the global work values more than

members working in local homogenous work teams.


20

Local cultures and adaptation to MCTs

The emergence of a global identity and the adoption of global work values as part

of working in MNOs and MCTs are likely to be affected by the cultural background of the

team members. Harzing and Hofstede (1996) proposed that the values of power distance,

collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance strengthen the resistance to change, while

individualism, low power distance and low uncertainty avoidance reduces it. Unlike

individualistic cultures, collective societies foster collective perceptions, which are harder

to change than individual perceptions, and they develop a strong sense of belonging to a

smaller number of groups than individualists (Triandis, 1995). In a collectivistic culture,

developing a sense of belonging to a group outside one’s own culture may put at risk

one’s group membership. In contrast, in individualistic societies that endorse the value of

independence, changing one’s reference groups is perceived as possible and natural

(Harzing & Hofstede, 1996). Similarly, in cultures with high power distance, where

people comply with the authority figures, they are less likely to deviate from the norms

and relate to a new social group than people in societies of low power distance. In some

cultures, people are inherently more anxious about the unpredictability of the future than

people in other cultures (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Steensma,

Marino, & Dickson, 2000). Members of high uncertainty-avoidance cultures may be less

likely to adopt new values and develop a sense of belonging to a new social context, and

hence a global identity than members of low uncertainty-avoidance cultures.

The level of tightness-looseness is also related to the willingness to adopt new

cultural values and belong to new groups. Tight cultures are less tolerant to deviant

behaviors, and therefore, are less likely to accept a new set of norms and rules of behavior


21

(Chan et al., 1996) as may be presented by MNOs. On the other hand, cultures of high

tolerance for uncertainty are more likely to accept a new set of norms, and adapt to it.

Individuals from loose cultures, who endorse the values of individualism, low power

distance, and low uncertainty avoidance, may be more open to adopt the global work

values and to adapt to the global work environment than their counterparts. Hence, we

propose:

Proposition 5a: The strength of one’s global identity differs as a function of one’s

national cultural values: employees coming from cultures of low collectivism, low

power distance and low uncertainty avoidance will get more easily involved in

global activities, such as working in MCTs, and will develop a stronger global

identity than employees coming from collectivistic cultures, with high power

distance and of high uncertainty avoidance.

Proposition 5b: The adoption of global work values differs as a function of one’s

national cultural values: employees coming from cultures of low collectivism, low

power distance and low uncertainty avoidance will be more likely to adopt new

values of the global work culture than employees coming from collectivistic

cultures, with high power distance and of high uncertainty avoidance.

Acculturation to the global work environment

Individuals working in MCTs are exposed to the global work context while at the

same time they continue to belong to groups of their cultures of origin as they often work

in the MCTs from their home country. The global work values and the norms of working


22

in MCTs often differ from those of individuals’ national cultures, and the question is

whether employees acculturate themselves to the roles of the global environment.

“Acculturation refers to cultural and psychological change brought about by contact with

other people belonging to different cultures, and exhibiting different behaviors” (Berry et

al., 1992, p.19). Different forms of acculturation may emerge depending on two factors,

the level of attraction to the new culture, and the importance of preserving one’s own

values. The integration type of acculturation occurs when people are highly attracted to

the new culture, but also preserve their own culture. The segregation type means that

people preserve their own values and reject the new cultural values. Assimilation occurs

when people adopt the new culture and reject their own cultural values. When people are

not attracted to the new culture, but at the same time degrade the value of their own

culture, they become marginalized.

Berry’s (1980) general model of acculturation could serve for generating a specific

model of acculturation to the global work culture of MCTs, as shown in Figure 1.

Membership in local national groups and a high preservation of one’s local values,

combined with a low acceptance of global work values, is typical for the local type who

has a strong local identity but a weak global identity, avoiding adaptation to global

groups. Acceptance of the global work values combined with a low preservation of one’s

own local national values connotes the global identity type who fully adopt the values and

the sense of belonging to the global work context, while abandoning his/her local culture.

Employees who preserve their own local national values while accepting the global work

values comprise the “glocal” identity type, consisting of both a local and a global identity,

and integrating both local and global values.


23

Insert Figure 1 about here

“Glocal,” does not mean that individuals hold a third identity that is neither local

nor global. Rather, it represents both a strong global identity as well as a strong local

identity. Employees holding a “glocal” identity hold both the values of their local national

groups and the values of the global work culture endorsed in their global groups, drawing

upon each identity, based on its salience at a given situation. Integration is considered as

the best way of coping with change and adaptation to a new culture (Berry, 1980). In the

global context, MCTs are more successful when they manage to preserve the cultural

diversity of their members and allow the coexistence of differences (Janssens & Brett,

2005). Bi-cultural managers also seem to adapt more successfully to global organizations

than mono-cultural individuals (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore we propose:

Proposition 6: MCTs members who adopt the global work values while preserving

their local national values will better adapt to work in MCTs and show higher

coping behaviors, compared with employees holding other forms of acculturation.

How could MCTs nested within MNOs enable their employees to maintain their

local cultural values, and identity, while at the same time socialize them into the global

work culture, and develop their global identity? One effective strategy could be to have

different levels of tightness/looseness (Chan et al., 1996) of culture with respect to

different cultural values. For example, Berson et al. (2004) found that managers in MNOs

had similar global role perceptions about the dimensions of innovation and change, and

planning and strategizing, across cultures. Yet, they differed with respect to their micro


24

management roles that focused on managing their employees, their tasks and missions.

These findings suggest that the balance between the global and local identities can be

maintained by enforcing homogeneity with respect to the global role components, and

allowing for heterogeneity with respect to how managers manage their employees and

their immediate tasks. These findings support the notion that MNOs operating in a

dynamic environment, and MCTs nested within them need to respond to the forces of both

global integration and of local responsiveness (Rosenzweig & Singh, 1991). A strong

culture may not leave room for responsiveness to local needs, as facilitated by the

acceptance of cultural diversity. Recently, Sorensen (2002) found that strong cultures

contribute to organizational performance only in stable environments. However, the

global environment in which MCTs operate is far from being stable. Thus, we propose

that although cultural strength has been proven to facilitate performance in MCTs, there is

a need to diversify the level of tightness/looseness, requiring a tight culture with respect to

some values, and a loose culture with respect to other values.

Finding a way to accept the coexistence of differences in MCTs (Janssens & Brett,

2005) is not enough. According to Janssens and Brett (2005), a fusion model of

collaboration and coexistence of cultural differences is characterized by flexibility of

choosing compatible preconceptions about teamwork, based on one’s cultural background.

Global teams choose the most compatible work method, relevant at that time to the task.

These methods, anchored in team members’ cultural backgrounds, may be replaced by,

added to, or mixed with methods of other team members.

We argue that in order for MCTs to have the ability to allow coexistence of

differences and channel them into productive team performance, there is a need to build a

common ground. In line with the fusion model, building a common ground does not mean


25

disrespecting members’ diverse cultural backgrounds. This duality can be obtained by

having MNOs create a global corporate value system that fits in with the global context,

while at the same time respecting the diversity of the local cultures. This enables the

members of MCTs to develop a sense of belonging to their MCT—a global identity—

while in parallel allows them to preserve their diverse local identities, embracing both

their local and global work values.

Can shared global work values, and a shared global identity enhance MCT performance?

Differences between experienced teams and newly formed teams reveal that a

shared meaning system, a shared cognitive map (Mathieu et al., 2000), and a transactive

memory (Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995) facilitate team performance. New teams

often face the threat of interpersonal conflicts, uncertainty about the group norms, lack of

knowledge about their relative strengths (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Moreland,

Argote, & Krishnan, 1998), and lack of a psychological safety when they have to openly

express themselves (Edmondson, 1999). These team processes and knowledge sharing

develop overtime, as team members learn to work with each other, learn who knows what,

and share a common organizational knowledge that allows them to predict their team

members’ behaviors.

The need to develop a shared meaning system becomes even more crucial for

MCTs, as their a priori shared knowledge is relatively small. Earley and Gibson (2002)

suggested that after mutual interactions, members of MCTs develop a shared hybrid

culture, composed of an emergent and simplified set of rules and actions that facilitate

team interactions (Earley & Gibson, 2002). This hybrid culture develops in a specific


26

MCT and may not be shared by other MCTs. An alternative approach suggests that MCTs

also share a common meaning system that conveys the global work values. This meaning

system is common to all employees working in the global work context, thus, providing

MCT members with a general shared meaning system that is not specifically tailored as a

hybrid culture of their immediate MCT. For example, employees who share the global

work culture endorse the global work values of openness to diversity, they respect each

other’s diverse culture and work methods, which in turn increases their psychological

safety, their motivation to work together, and their sense of belonging to the MCT,

thereby improving the MCT’s performance.

We suggest that the relationship between an MCT’s success and global identity is

reciprocal. While positive experiences of team members in MCTs facilitate the

development of a global identity, a strong global identity shared by members of MCTs can

facilitate the MCT’s effectiveness. Hambrick, Davison, Snell, and Snow (1998)

demonstrated that members of effective MCTs were “internationalists”. When placed in

the MCT, these people encountered relatively few nationality-based difficulties in

functioning. Cultural intelligence, which is an individual’s capability to deal effectively in

situations characterized by cultural diversity, was also found to enhance MCT

performance. In their study of multicultural MBA teams, Moynihan, Peterson, and Earley

(2006) showed that the mean level of cultural intelligence measured at the formation of

the MCT, was positively correlated with the levels of group cohesion and trust three

months into the joint project (Moynihan et al., 2006). In addition, the mean level of the

team cultural intelligence was positively related to team performance.

A recent study by Shokef and Erez (2006b) conducted on 69 MCTs supported the

positive effect of an MCT’s global identity on team performance. Participants in this


27

study were 288 MBA students from seven different countries around the world who

worked in multicultural, virtual teams on a joint class project. The project assigned to all

teams was to develop guidelines for an expatriate who visits a host country, selected by

the team members. In addition to the guidelines, the teams were also asked to analyze the

difficulties that managers from their own countries may encounter while visiting the host

country, and to compare the challenges faced by each of them, as a native of his own

culture. They were also asked to reflect on their team processes. Team members

communicated mainly by using computer mediated tools, such as a website prepared

especially for the project, which lasted for three weeks. The final products of all the teams

were power-point presentations that were evaluated by the instructors, and by independent

evaluators. The average mean evaluation score served as the team performance measure.

Data on team members’ characteristics, and team processes were collected by means of

electronic questionnaires that were administered twice—once before the beginning of the

project and again after the teams submitted their projects. Using HLM analyses, the

findings showed that after controlling for class membership, team size, and number of

nationalities represented on the team, teams with a priori higher mean levels of global

identity achieved higher performance levels and were more satisfied with their team as a

whole than other teams (see Figure 2). Furthermore, the level of global identity was

positively related to the level of the individual’s openness to diversity, referring to the

degree of receptivity to perceived dissimilarity (Hartel, 2004). Similar to the teams’ levels

of global identity, teams whose members scored high, rather than low, on openness to

diversity, achieved higher performance levels and were more satisfied with their teams.

Working as part of an MCT increases the likelihood of learning about diverse cultures,

and hence, of becoming open to diversity. Reciprocally, openness to diversity facilitates


28

the emergence of a shared culture in MCTs. Awareness of cultural variations and

openness to cultural diversity are crucial factors in achieving effective cooperation across

cultural borders (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001; Maznevski, 1994). Interestingly, the level

of local identity, although significantly higher than the level of global identity, was not

related to team performance and satisfaction.

----- Insert Figure 2 about here -----

These findings suggest that experience and exposure to the global work context

through working as part of an MCT facilitate individuals’ adaptation to the global

multicultural work environment. It is often suggested that familiarity with other cultures

may temper misunderstandings (Martin & Hammer, 1989) and thus enable the

development of a global identity. Global identity becomes salient in the context of MCTs,

and it evokes and facilitates attitudinal and behavioral responses that are adaptive to the

global work context, such as mutual respect, trust, openness to change, and openness to

diversity (Shokef & Erez, 2006a; Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002).

Based on the reciprocal relationship between global identity and global work

culture, we propose:

Proposition 7: The global work values shared by members of MCTs, and the

global identity expressing the sense of belonging to the MCT increase MCT

performance.


29

Discussion

The purpose of this chapter was to introduce the concepts of a global work culture

and of a global identity, as mechanisms that increase adaptation to the global work

context, and the effectiveness of MCTs. This chapter builds upon the multi-level model of

culture (Erez & Gati, 2004), and the model of cultural self-representation (Erez & Earley,

1993) to further understand the process of adaptation to and the adoption of global work

values. We propose that members of MCTs hold multiple cultural meaning systems, and

multiple identities that help them adapt to multiple work contexts. We analyze the

interrelationships between these multiple cultures and identities by using the multi-level

model of culture. Following this model, members of MCTs hold three cultural systems: a)

The hybrid culture of their immediate team that serves as the immediate social glue,

enabling team interdependence; b) The national culture, representing the cultural diversity

of the MCT composition. This cultural level conveys the differences rather than the

similarities, and therefore, may hinder cultural adaptation. However, in our view this level

is essential for cultural adaptation, as it conveys the MCT members’ self definitions as

persons, beyond their work context; c) The global work culture, which represents the most

macro level of culture above national cultures. This level helps overcome cultural

diversity by creating the common ground for a shared understanding, and for a sense of

belonging to the MCT.

Working in the global context provides a meta-culture that defines what is right and

wrong, and what types of behaviors are most adaptable to this environment. We propose

that the values that facilitate adaptation to the global work context are: competitive

performance orientation, learning and innovation, openness to change, openness to

diversity, trust and ethical behavior, and social and environmental responsibility (Berson


30

et al., 2004; Leung et al., 2005; Shokef & Erez, 2006a). This shared meaning system of

global work values creates the similarity among MCT members, on which they could build a

common ground for working as one team, and for overcoming their national differences.

Values serve for evaluating the meaning of managerial and motivational

approaches in terms of their contribution to a person’s sense of self worth and well being,

and are represented in the self (Erez & Earley, 1993). A person’s self consists of multiple

facets (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). We assert that the values of the global work culture are

represented in the facet of a global identity, enhancing the sense of belonging to the MCT,

and clarifying the role expectations of members of MCTs. Once they belong to an MCT,

members of such teams are motivated to be valued by other team members, as positive

evaluations strengthen their overall sense of self-worth and well-being. The desire to

maintain relationships with other team members, and to be valued by them, helps the

MCT members overcome cultural barriers, and strengthens their role definition.

The reciprocal relationship between values and identities suggests that these two

attributes reinforce each other. The adoption of global work values enables people to

develop a sense of belonging to the global work context, and this sense of belonging

facilitate the adoption of global work values. Holding a global identity and endorsing the

global work values assist the adaptation of individuals to the global work environment.

In parallel, individuals continue to hold their local national identity, among other

identities, drawing on each identity according to the situation (Stryker, 1980; Tajfel &

Turner, 1979). The successful integration of global and local identities requires a delicate

balance between the two sets of values. MNOs develop this balance by respecting the

local national cultures of their employees, while at the same time socializing them into the

global work culture. These two sets of values support the sense of belonging to the two


31

environments. A “glocal” identity represents both a strong global identity as well as a

strong local identity, and it seems to enable individuals to shift from one social context to

another.

It is not clear whether the “glocal” identity is a third identity, similar to the third

culture that emerges in the interface between members of different cultures (Casmir, 1992;

Graen et al., 1997), or are the local and global identities two independent identities that

co-exist and their salience varies across situations, depending on their relevance for a

particular context. Theories of identity (Stryker, 1987; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and

Triandis’ (1995) theory of the self suggest that multiple identities can coexist. Yet, their

co-existence may lead to a meta-type of a multifaceted person who is more adaptable to

the changing nature of the work environment. Future research may take up the challenge

of answering these questions.

In this chapter we generated a series of propositions pertaining to the two

constructs of a global work culture and a global identity, their interrelationship, and their

effects on MCT performance. We integrated two lines of theories and research: theories

of teams—composition, structure and processes, and theories of culture— values and their

representation in the self. However, there is very little empirical research that explores the

issues raised in this chapter. We hope that the propositions in this chapter will stimulate

and challenge researchers to explore new research areas, and enrich our theories and their

practical implications for new work contexts.


32

References

Abbas, J.A. (2000). Globalization of business: Practice and theory, New York:

International Business Press.

Adair, W., Tinsley, C., & Taylor, M. (2006). Managing the intercultural interface: Third

cultures, antecedents, and consequences. In E.A.M. Mannix, M. Neale, and Y.

Chen (Eds.), Research in managing groups and teams: National culture and

groups. Oxford: Elsevier Science Press.

Adler, N.J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior (2nd edition).

Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

Appadurai, A. (2001). Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Armstrong, D.J. & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distance and differences in geographically

distributed work groups. In S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in

work teams: Research paradigms for changing work place (pp.187-215).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Arnett, J.J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774-

783.

Aron, A., Aron, E.N., & Norman, C. (2004). Self-expansion model of motivation and

cognition in close relationships and beyond. In M.B. Brewer & M. Hewstone, Self

and social identity (pp. 99-123). MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational

solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bartlett, C.A. & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management: Beyond

strategy and purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 79-88.


33

Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-

529.

Behfar, K., Kern, M., & Brett, J. (2006). Managing challenges in multicultural teams. In

E.A.M. Mannix, M. Neale, and Y.Chen (Eds.), Research in managing groups and

teams: National culture and groups. Oxford: Elsevier Science Press.

Berry, J.W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H.C. Triandis and R.W. Brislin (Eds.),

Handbook of cross cultural psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 211-280). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P.R. (1992). Cross-cultural

psychology: Research and application. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Berson, Y., Erez, M., & Adler, S. (2004). Reflections of organizational identity and

national culture on managerial roles in a multinational corporation. Academy of

Management Best Paper Proceedings.

Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D. & Triandis, H. C. 2002. Cultural variations in

the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework.

Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.

Brickson, S. (2000). Exploring identity: Where are we now? Academy of Management

Review, 25(1), 147-149.

Casmir, R. (1992). Third culture building: A paradigm shift for international and

intercultural communication. Communication Yearbook, 16, 407-428.

Chan, D. K. S., Gelfand, M. J., Triandis, H. C., & Tzeng, O. (1996). Tightness-looseness

revisited: A systematic examination in Japan and the United States. International

Journal of Psychology, 31, 1-12.


34

Cox, T.H.Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in Organizations: Theory, research, and practice.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cox, T.H.Jr., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for

organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56.

De Dreu, C.K.W. & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team

performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 741-749.

Earley, P.C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test

of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Ely, R.J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education

programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 755-780.

Erez, M., & Earley, P.C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Erez, M. & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro-

level of the individual to the macro-level of a global culture. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 53(4), 583-598.

Featherstone, M., Lash, S. & Robertson, R. (1995). Global maternities. London: Sage.

Francesco, A.M. & Gold, B.A. (1998). International organizational behavior. NJ:

Prentice-Hall.


35

Friedman, T.L. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New

York: Anchor.

Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New

York: Basic Books.

Ghoshal, S. & Nohria, N. (1993). Horses for courses: organizational forms for

multinational corporations, In J. Drew, (Ed.), Readings in international enterprise,

London: Routledge – The Open University.

Gorden, G.G. & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from

organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 783-799.

Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A.K. (2001). The quest for global dominance. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Graen, G.B., Hui, C., Wakabayashi, M., & Wang, Z.M. (1997). Cross cultural research

alliances in organizational research. In D.C. Earley, and M. Erez, New perspectives

on international industrial/organizational psychology. A volume in the series:

Frontiers of industrial and organizational psychology (Series Ed., Sheldon

Sedeck), Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Guillen, M.F. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive, or feeble? A critique of five

key debates in the social sciences literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235-

260.

Hambrick, D.C., Davison, S.C., Snell, S.A., & Snow, C.C. (1998). When groups consist of

multiple nationalities: Toward a new understanding of the implication.

Organization Studies, 19, 181-205.

Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection

of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.


36

Hartel, C.E.J. (2004). Towards a multicultural world: Identifying work systems, practices

and employee attitudes that embrace diversity. Australian Journal of Management,

29(2), 189-200.

Harzing, A.W., & Hofstede, G. (1996). Planned change in organizations: The influence of

national culture. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 14, 297-340.

Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two

theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions

and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousands Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure

and access in and advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422-477.

Ilgen, D.R., LePine, J.A., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1997). Effective decision making in

multinational teams. In P.C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on

industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 377-409). San Francisco, CA: The New

Lexington Press.

Janssens, M., & Brett, J. (in press). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model

of collaboration. Group and Organization Management.


37

Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.

Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.

Jehn, K.A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity. Workgroup context,

and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 703-729.

Jehn, K.A., Northcraftm G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1997). Why differences make a difference:

A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

Joshi, A., Labianca, G., & Caligiuri, P.M. (2002). Getting along long distance:

Understanding conflict in a multinational team through network analysis. Journal

of World Business, 37, 277-284.

Kilduff, M., & Dougherty, D. (2000). Editorial team essay – change and development in a

pluralistic world: The view from the classics. The Academy of Management

Review, 25, pp. 777-782.

Kirpatrick, L.A., & Ellis, B.J. (2004). An evolutionary-psychological approach to self

esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions. In M.B. Brewer & M. Hewstone,

Self and social identity (pp. 52-77). MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Klimoski, R., & Mohhamed, S. (1994). Team mental models: construct or metaphor?

Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.

Kotter, J.P. & Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free

Press.

Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N.R, Erez, M., and Gibson, C.B. (2005). Culture and

international business: Recent advanced and future directions. Journal of

International Business Studies 36, 357-378.


38

Liang, D.W., Moreland, R. & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and

group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams. Executive Excellence, 16, 14-15.

Mathieu, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Heffner, T.S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The

influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273-283.

Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,

emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Martin, J.N., & Hammer, M.R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural

communication competences: Everyday communicators’ perceptions.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 303-332.

Maznevski, M.L. (1994). Understanding our differences: performance in decision making

groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531-552.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interactions and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

McKenna, K.Y.A., & Bargh, J.A. (1998). Interpersonal relations and group processes:

Corning out in the age of the internet: Identity demarginalization through virtual

group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 681-

698.

McKinley, W., & Scherer (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organizations’

restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 735-752.


39

Meal, F.A. & Ashforth B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma matter: A partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Miroshnik, V. (2002). Culture and international management: A review. The Journal of

Management Development, 21(7/8), 521-544.

Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Massey, A.P., Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal

coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 44(6), 1251-1262.

Moreland, R.L., Arogte, L. & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In

R.S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E.J. Posavac, F.B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar,

E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.). Theory and research on small groups (pp.

37-60). New York: Plenum.

Moreland, R.L. & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group

training: Transactive memory or improved communication. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117-133.

Morley, D. & Robin, K. (1995). Spaces of identity: Global media, electronic landscape

and cultural boundaries. London: Routledge.

Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organization. Association for Computing Machinery.

Communications of the ACM, 40 (9), 30-37.

Moynihan, L.M., Peterson, R.S., & Earley, P.C. (2006). Cultural intelligence and the

multinational team experience: Does experience of working in a multinational

team improve cultural intelligence? In E.A.M.,Mannix, M. Neale, and Y. Chen

(Eds), Research in managing groups and teams: National culture and groups.

Oxford: Elsevier Science Press.


40

Naisbitt, J. (1994). Global paradox. New York: Avon.

Neisser, U. (1993). The perceived self: Ecological and interpersonal sources of self

knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture:

A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of


Oyserman, D. (2004). Self concept and identity. In M.B. Brewer & M. Hewstone, Self and

social identity (pp. 5-24). MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Prieto, J.M., & Arias, R.M. (1997). Those things yonder are no giants, but decision

makers in international teams. In P.C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives

on industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 410-445). San Francisco, CA: The

New Lexington Press.

Ravlin, E.C., Thomas, D.C., & Ilsev, A. (2000). Beliefs about values, status, and

legitimacy in multicultural groups: Influences on intra-group conflict. In P.C.

Earley, & H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in international and cross-cultural

management (pp. 58-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rosenzweig, P.M. & Singh, J.V. (1991). Organizational environment and the

multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 16, 340-361.

Salk, J.E., & Brannen, M.Y. (2000). National culture, networks, and individual influence

in a multinational management team. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2),

191-202.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schweder, R.A., & LeVine, R.A. (1984). Cultural theory: Essays on mind, self and

emotion, New York: Cambridge University Press.


41

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, 25, 1-65. NY: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S.H. & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross national

study. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 564-497.

Shenkar, O., & Zeira, Y. (1992). Role conflict and role ambiguity of chief executives

offices in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies,

23, 55-75.

Shokef, E. & Erez, M. (2006a). The global work culture: A new typology of

organizational values in multinational organizations. Submitted.

Shokef, E. & Erez, M. (2006b). Global identity in multicultural teams: Lessons from a

student multicultural team project. Working paper, Technion, Haifa, Israel.

Snell, S. A., Snow, C.C., Canney-Davidson, S., & Hambrick D. C. (1998) Designing and

supporting transnational teams: The human resource agenda. Human Resource

Management, 37, 147–158

Snow, C.C., Snell, S.A., & Davidson., S.C. (1996). Using transnational teams to globalize

your company. Organization Dynamics, 24(4), 50-67.

Solomon, C.M. (1995). Global teams: The ultimate collaboration. Personnel Journal, 74(9),

49-58.

Sorensen, J.B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm

performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70-91.

Steensma, H.K., Marino, L., & Dickson, P.H. (2000). The influence of national culture on

the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of



42

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Palo Alto, CA:

Benjamin/Cummings.

Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T Honess

(Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 89-103). London: Wiley.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H, (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of group relations (pp. 33-47).

Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Thomas, D.A., & Ely, R. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing

diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79-91.

Thurow, L (2003). Fortune favors the bold. NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between

the private and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

60, 649-655.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. In J.B.,

Veroff, & N.R., Goldberger (Eds.), The culture and psychology reader. (pp. 326-

365). New York: New York University Press.

Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography

and organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.


43

Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel

(Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol 2,

pp. 518-538). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Van Oudenhoven, J.P., & Van der Zee, K.I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness

of international students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679-694.

Williams, K.Y., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A

review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.


44

Table 1

Global Values Derived from the Characteristics of the Global Work Environment

Characteristics of the Global Work Environment

Global Values

Globally Competitive .…....… ................................................. ………………………………. ……………………………….

Competitive performance orientation Quality Customer orientation Innovation

Highly dynamic with high uncertainty ..........……………

Openness to change Learning orientation

Geographical dispersion and culturally diverse……………. ………………………………

Interdependence & coordination Openness to cultural diversity Trust and ethical behavior


45

Figure 1: A Model of Acculturation to the Global Work Environment of MCTs

Global

Local

Glocal

Marginal

Acceptance of the global work values

Preservation of one’s own local national values

Hig

hLo

w

HighLow

Global

Local

Glocal

Marginal

Acceptance of the global work values

Preservation of one’s own local national values

Hig

hLo

w

HighLow


46

Figure 2: The Effect of Prior Global Identity on the Team Performance

70

75

80

85

90

Low HighTeam Global Identity Prior to the Project

Team

Per

form

ance

shokef-erez global identity in mcts feb 2006...

Documents