DOES MULTINTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTS TEAM
PERFORMANCE?
Diana Simkhovych
(dianasimkhovych@yahoo.ca)
M.Sc. in Project Management
Université du Québec en Outaouais
ABSTRACT
Many projects fail due to lack of competence within the multicultural teams to
communicate and work together. Is this competence something personnel can acquire or
it’s the individual traits that one should posses to be able to work successfully?
Though the issue of intercultural1 effectiveness is extensively discussed in recent
researches, the question of its impact to the performance of multicultural teams and thus
project success was little studied before. This research conducted in the Canadian
university environment attempts to unveil the performance of multicultural teams.
Starting with the hypothesis that intercultural effectiveness affects the performance of
multicultural teams, we employed the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire and GDQ
to compare students working in multicultural teams. The correlation and linear regression
analysis confirmed the hypothesised relationship based on the collected data from 41
students.
1
The use of the words multicultural and intercultural varies from author to author. In this work these terms
are synonyms, and therefore, used to denote the same notion.
Cahier de recherche exploratoire en gestion, Vol.3, No.1, 2006, 107-135
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Team performance is often seen as a factor of project success. Accordingly, team
performance depends on personal qualities and skills of the personnel. As to international
projects (Vulpe, Kealey, Protheroe, & MacDonald, 2000), there has always been debate
among experts and managers as to relative importance of the individual versus the
environment and organizational factors in determining the success of the assignments.
The authors explain that the focus in research recently was shifted partly due to the
limited success researchers have had in trying to predict intercultural outcomes based on
assessment of individual traits.
The objective of the present study is to examine and describe the relationship between
intercultural effectiveness and the performance of the project team. The study equipped
with the recent achievements and instruments developed, will make an attempt to explore
whether relationship exists between the level of intercultural effectiveness of project
teams’ members and the overall performance of the correspondent teams.
For the reason that the present study builds on previous researches, the following is the
detailed review of the research literature with regard to interculturally effectiveness, and
instruments to measure it.
A Profile for Intercultural Effectiveness is an integrated approach that moves beyond
psychological competencies and personal traits. The authors (Vulpe, Kealey, Protheroe &
MacDonald, 2000) identify 3 key factors of international project success: the
organisational aspect; the environment; the personal qualities and intercultural skills of
the individuals involved. The profile focuses on the third component - personal qualities
and intercultural skills of individuals and from there, the authors attempt to give a
comprehensive picture of the qualities that an ideal interculturally effective person would
possess.
The term Intercultural Sensitivity (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003) refers to the
ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences, as opposed to
Intercultural Competence, which means the ability to think and act in interculturally
appropriate ways. Intercultural sensitivity is associated with potential for exercising
intercultural competence. According to this study, greater intercultural sensitivity is
associated with a greater potential for exercising intercultural competence. While all
these notions present intercultural effectiveness from different angles, the framework of
recent research has shifted to psychological characteristics.
The most recent work by Earley & Mosakowski (2004) introduces a new term called
Cultural Intelligence (CQ), and a new assessment tool. This new tool includes six CQ
profiles that are based on the results of an assessment test. The diagnosis of CQ consists
of 3 sets of different facets of CQ: cognitive, physical, and emotional/motivational. This
test seems to answer the question of why some people act effectively in new cultures or
among people with unfamiliar background while others flounder. Indeed, the answer
doesn’t lie in tacit knowledge and, as mentioned above, presents a problem for the study
108
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
to measure the psychological competencies and personal traits that are often implicit and
indistinct.
However, the most reliable assessment instrument was developed to ensure that the
personnel selected to be involved in the project are interculturally effective. According to
Karen I. van der Zee et al (2003), selection of international employees until recently has
suffered from two major pitfalls. First, many agencies select local high performers for
international assignments, assuming that their success will translate into the foreign
environment. Second, agencies focus primarily on the required technical competencies,
whereas research has clearly revealed support for the importance of psychological
dimensions. In their research, Karen I. van der Zee et al (2003) seem to propose a new
tool that can be used in assessment and selection of international employees focusing on
their psychological competencies. The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ)
was developed as a questionnaire aimed at measuring multicultural effectiveness. The
MPQ scales are more tailored to predictions regarding multicultural success than general
personality questionnaires referring to behaviour in multicultural situations.
There is not sufficient number of empirical researches to study potential determinants in
multicultural teams, including intercultural effectiveness. Most intercultural studies
especially in the project management domain compare multiple determinants, such as
national culture on the example of two and more cultures: American and Russian
(Matveev, 2002; Matveev & Nelson, 2004), Chinese and Singaporean (Pheng & Yuquan,
2002). While these studies touch upon the personal traits that compose multicultural
effectiveness, little attention is given as to how the individual personal traits shape team
performance.
However, there are few studies conducted that bring us closer to our research objectives.
Among them, Dalton and Wilson (2000) studies in the United States and Europe have
investigated the relationship of the Five-Factor Model of personality to effectiveness for
domestic managers. The research reports on the relationship of the Five-Factor Model of
personality to job performance for a group of Middle Eastern expatriate managers. Job
performance ratings from the expatriate’s host- and home-country bosses indicate that
agreeableness and conscientiousness were related to home-country ratings of job
performance, but not host-country ratings. There are several limitations as to relevance of
the methodology used in this research to our objective: the Five-Factor Model doesn’t
focus on intercultural effectiveness and provides us with general personality traits
relevant to job performance. Job performance itself is measured only by three items to
capture boss perceptions of expatriate managerial job performance: (a) This person is
effective in his expatriate role, (b) this person has done what was expected of him on this
expatriate assignment, and (c) this person is achieving the company’s goals during his
expatriate assignment.
The literature review shows that the objective of this research lies within the scope of
recent trends in project management, cross-cultural studies, and international
development perspective. However, it also shows the lack of knowledge in this fields,
109
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
and more importantly, that there are new validated instruments available to approach the
methodology of this research.
So, the objective of the present study is to examine the relationship between intercultural
effectiveness and the performance of the project team.
CONCEPTUAL OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS
Intercultural Effectiveness
For the purposes of this study, Intercultural Effectiveness is defined as an ability to relate
with people from different cultural backgrounds so as to maximise the chance of
mutually beneficial outcomes. Although the previous researches show that there are
differences in terminology of Intercultural Effectiveness, there is a considerable overlap
in such definitions as:
· Interculturally Effective person is someone who is able to live
contentedly and work successfully in another country (Vulpe,
Kealey, Protheroe, & MacDonald, 2000);
· Intercultural sensitivity refers to the ability to discriminate and
experience relevant cultural differences (Hammer, Bennett &
Wiseman, 2003);
· Intercultural competence is the ability to communicate effectively
in cross-cultural situation and to relate appropriately in a variety of
cultural contexts (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003);
· Cultural intelligence: an outsider’s seemingly natural ability to
interpret someone’s unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures the way
that person’s compatriots would (Earley & Mosakowski; 2004).
In order to measure personal traits relevant to Intercultural Effectiveness of the project
teams, the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) is used. MPQ (Van der Zee &
Van Oudenhoven, 2002) is an instrument developed to measure traits relevant to
intercultural effectiveness in any international environment. The MPQ measures
personality traits that previous research and theorizing picked out as critical to the
success of international assignees (e.g. Arthur & Bennett, 1995). The instrument
measures Cultural Empathy, Open-mindedness, Social Initiative, Emotional Stability, and
Flexibility (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2002).
· Cultural Empathy is described as an interest in other people and a
sensitivity towards others feelings and beliefs. The Cultural
Empathy scale of the MPQ includes items such as ‘‘Understands
other people’s feelings’’ (+) and ‘‘Notices when someone is in
trouble’’ (+). 18 items: 8, 14, 17, 31(-), 45, 46(-), 51, 60, 61, 63,
64, 68, 70, 71, 80, 82, 86, 89 (Appendix II).
· Open-mindedness refers to the absence of rigid prejudices towards
other cultural groups, their behaviors and cultural habits (Arthur &
Bennett, 1995) and to an open attitude towards those groups. (e.g.,
‘‘Gets involved in other cultures’’ (+) and ‘‘Is interested in other
110
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
cultures’’ (+)).18 items: 10, 13, 20, 27, 35, 54, 58, 59, 62, 66, 73,
74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 84, 87 (Appendix II).
· Social Initiative reflects the individual’s tendency to actively
approach social situations and to take the initiative (e.g., ‘‘Is
inclined to speak out’’ (+) and ‘‘Takes the lead’’ (+)).17 items: 2,
4, 7(-), 9(-), 18, 24(-), 25, 26(-), 29, 30, 34, 39, 40, 41(-), 47, 48,
49(-) (Appendix II).
· Emotional Stability is defined as the ability to remain calm when
facing stressing environments and events and to perform
effectively under stressful circumstances. The concept is close to
adaptation skills defined by Vulpe et al (2000) as an ability to cope
personally, professionally, and in their family context with the
conditions and challenges of living and working in another
country. (e.g., ‘‘Can put setbacks in perspective’’ (+), and ‘‘Keeps
calm at ill-luck’’ (+)). 20 items: 3(-), 5, 6(-), 15(-), 23, 28, 33, 36,
38(-), 44(-), 52, 53(-), 55(-), 57, 65, 67(-), 69(-), 72(-), 75(-), 76
(Appendix II).
· Flexibility refers to an individuals’ ability to switch from habitual
and long held behaviors to new standards and procedures that
promote adaptation to the new cultural environment (e.g. ‘‘Works
mostly according to a strict scheme’’ (-) and ‘‘Works according to
plan’’ (-)). This construct also focuses on flexibility in the way
new tasks and professional procedures are tackled. 18 items: 1,
11(-), 12, 16(-), 19(-), 21(-), 22(-), 32(-), 37(-), 42(-), 43(-), 50(-),
56(-), 83(-), 85, 88, 90, 91(-) (Appendix II).
These items must be mirrored: 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26,
31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 67, 69, 72, 75, 83,
91.
Team Performance
The review of literature on group or work performance has revealed a numerous
characteristics. Table 1 provides a synopsis of the characteristics of productive groups put
together by Wheelan & Buzaglo (1999) and comprised of characteristics identified by
various authors from 1951-1991. According to Wheelan & Buzaglo (1999), an effective
and productive work group is one that has successfully navigated the earlier stages of
group development and has emerged as a mature high performing unit capable of
achieving its goals and tasks. Taking this into consideration, team performance is an
ability of a team to achieve successfully its goals and tasks.
TABLE 1: Synopsis of the Factors Associated With Group Effectiveness and
Productivity by Wheelan & Buzaglo (1999)1
_______________________________________________________________________
1
Synopsis of the characteristics of productive groups presented by Wheelan (1999). All references are as
they appear in her work.
111
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
1. Members are clear about and agree with group goals (e.g., Guzzo, 1990; Weiss, 1984).
2. Tasks are appropriate to group versus individual solution (Hackman, 1983; Latane,
Williams, & Harkins, 1979).
3. Members are clear about and accept their roles (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Kemery,
Bedeian, Mossholder, & Touliatos, 1985).
4. Role assignments match member abilities (Steiner, 1972).
5. The leadership style matches the group’s developmental level (Hershey &
Blanchard, 1982; Vroom & Jago, 1978).
6. The group has an open communication structure in which all members may
participate (Goetsch & McFarland, 1980; Kano, 1971)
7. The group gets, gives, and utilizes feedback about its effectiveness and productivity
(Ketchum, 1984; Kolodny & Kiggundu, 1980).
8. The group spends time defining and discussing problems it must solve or decisions it
must make. Members also spend time planning how they will solve problems and make
decisions (Hackman & Morris, 1975; Harper & Askling, 1980; Laughlin, 1988).
9. The group has effective decision-making strategies that were outlined in advance
(Hirokawa, 1980; Vinokur, Burnstein, Sechrest, & Wortman, 1985).
10. The group implements and evaluates its solutions and decisions (Lewin, 1951).
11. Task-related deviance is tolerated (Hollander, 1960; Katz, 1982).
12. The group norms encourage high performance and quality, success, and innovation
(Bassin, 1988; Cummings, 1981; Hackman, 1987; Shea & Guzzo, 1987a).
13. Subgroups are integrated into the group-as-a-whole (Kolodny & Dresner, 1986;
Mills, 1967).
14. The group contains the smallest number of members necessary to accomplish its
goal or goals (Gladstein, 1984; McGrath, 1984).
15. The group has sufficient time together to develop as a mature working unit and to
accomplish its goals (Heinen & Jacobson, 1976).
16. The group is highly cohesive and cooperative (Evans & Dion, 1991; Greene, 1989).
17. Periods of conflict are frequent but brief, and the group has effective conflict
management strategies (Bormann, 1975).
18. The group has access to the technical and people resources necessary to accomplish
its task (e.g., Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1990).
19. The group has access to technical or interpersonal experts and training as needed
(Hackman, 1983; Manz & Sims, 1987).
20. The group has a defined work territory (Sundstrom & Altman, 1989).
21. Group achievement is recognized and rewarded by the larger organization
(Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1988).
22. The group’s mission is clear to the organization and to other organizational
groups (Galagan, 1986; Shea & Guzzo, 1987b).
23. The group has sufficient autonomy to do its work (Glickman et al., 1987;
Manz & Sims, 1987).
24. The group is embedded in an organizational culture that values innovation and
quality (Peters & Waterman, 1982).
25. The group has effective relationships with other groups with which it interacts
(Ancona, 1987; Schein, 1980).
______________________________________________________________________________
Wheelan identifies (1996; 1999) 4 stages of group development: dependency/inclusion;
counterdependancy/fight; true/structure; work and productivity. The scale for a high
112
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
performance team should be the fourth - work and productivity. It should be noted that
the factors identified in Table 1 are almost the same as the list of characteristics that
describes the fourth stage of group development. Hence, the same adapted questions can
be used to identify the level of team performance.
Hypothesis
The researches found that the best predictors of team performance were interpersonal
skills. More specifically, the study (Van der Zee, Atsma & Brodbeck, 2004a) examined
the influence of social identity and personality on work outcomes among business
students who worked together in culturally diverse teams. As predicted, the intercultural
traits of Emotional Stability and Flexibility were found to have a positive effect on work
outcomes under conditions of high diversity. Another study (Van der Zee, Van
Oudenhoven & Grijs, 2004b) examined individual differences in appraisal of and
affective reactions to intercultural situations. A sample of 160 students filled out the
MPQ and participated in an experiment in which they received a description of an
intercultural situation that was either high or low in potential stressfulness. Individuals
with high scores on the intercultural dimensions appraised the potentially stressful
situation more positively and showed more positive and less negative reactions to the
situation than did individuals with low scores on the MPQ. The results of these two
studies suggest that these findings not only have some specificity to intercultural
personality dimensions, but that these intercultural dimensions relate to teamperformance. Accordingly, the hypothesis of this research:
·
H1 - the higher the mean of intercultural effectiveness, the higher
team performance would be.
And thus, there will be a positive and significant relationship between each of
MPQ dimensions and overall team performance:
·
·
·
·
·
H1a - The higher cultural empathy score, the higher team
performance would be.
H1b - The higher open-mindedness score, the higher team
performance would be.
H1c - The higher social initiative score, the higher team
performance would be.
H1d - The higher emotional stability score, the higher team
performance would be.
H1e - The higher flexibility score, the higher team performance
would be.
The second hypothesis:
· H2 - the mean score of intercultural effectiveness vary for different
groups of respondents based on their age, length/frequency of
work with multicultural teams, and length of international
experience.
113
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this section is to describe the research methodology used to investigate
the perceptions of intercultural effectiveness and its impact on performance of
multicultural teams by graduate students (the majority are the students in Project
Management of the Department of Administrative Science). The nature and the desired
results of the proposed study guided the choice of research methodology. The desired
results of this study were to understand how different demographic and individual
characteristics influence the level of intercultural effectiveness, to investigate how
students perceive intercultural effectiveness competence and its impact on multicultural
team performance, and to describe a relationship between intercultural effectiveness
competence and the performance of multicultural teams. The researcher used the survey
method to solicit information from the respondents – a commonly used methodology in
research – to learn about characteristics of a large population and to ask questions of
respondents representing a specific population about their beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviours. Each of these steps will be described in the next sections of this chapter.
Data Collection Procedure
The data collection procedure varied depending on the type, location, and accessibility of
the respondent’s group. In general, the researcher used an on-line process to collect data
from students. The researcher contacted the students via e-mail to inform them about the
study and to invite them to take part in the research.
An integrated version of the MPQ and GDQ questionnaires was administered to the
respondents in English. The respondents were asked to first provide general information
about themselves (see Appendix II), and then to answer the questionnaire choosing from
the scale of 1 “totally not applicable” to 5 “completely applicable”. The scale was
originally used in validated version of MPQ, however for the High Performance, the
scale was adapted to conform the MPQ scale, and the respondents.
Additionally, we crosschecked for the levels of the MPQ and performance of
multicultural teams by employing other data collection methods direct observations. The
goal of this qualitative part of the research was to obtain more in-depth information about
how the respondents perceive intercultural effectiveness an its relationship with the
performance of multicultural teams.
Research Instruments
This study of intercultural effectiveness employed a survey method to collect data from
students with different levels of intercultural effectiveness to achieve a high level of
validity and reliability of data. The researcher used two research questionnaires to solicit
information about each student’s perceptions of intercultural effectiveness and
performance of multicultural teams. Using questionnaires increased the reliability of this
study because of the uniformity of the questions being asked across different research
114
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
participants. Other advantages of using a questionnaire included low cost, high
penetration rate, high accessibility, high consistency, and low biasing error.
Validity of Instruments
MPQ
The first version of the MPQ (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000) was administered
to a sample of Dutch college students. Reliabilities of the scales were satisfactory (all
above .70), and the MPQ-dimensions showed substantial associations with measures of
international orientation and multicultural activities. Incremental validity of the MPQ was
supported: the MPQ-dimensions were able to account for independent variance in
students’ international involvement when the effect of the Big Five factors was taken into
account, with Openness (a factor combining Cultural Empathy and Open-mindedness)
and Flexibility as significant predictors.
The data revealed supported construct validity of the instrument. The factor structure
validity and predictive value of the English version of the questionnaire has been
supported in studies among international students (Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee,
2002), international employees (e.g., Van der Zee et al; 2003); and expatriate spouses
(Ali, Van der Zee, & Sanders, 2003). These studies showed that higher scores on the
scales are related to psychological and social well being in the foreign environment (Ali
et al., 2003; Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002), providing preliminary evidence
supporting applications in selection and evaluation settings.
The most recent study conducted by Leone et al (2005), examined the validity of the
MPQ: the cross-cultural generalizability of the scales was investigated across Italian and
Dutch student samples. Factorial invariance and generalizability of dimensions were
tested by means of confirmatory multi-group factor analysis. Results show that the five
dimensions are stable across the two countries.
GDQ
To measure performance of the teams, a High-Performance Team questionnaire is used.
This is the modified five-point, 45-item questionnaire based on the Group Development
Questionnaire (GDQ) developed by Wheelan. The instrument was subjected to a number
of statistical tests: internal consistency alpha of .88; test-retest correlations for each scale
ranged from .69 to .89; all correlations were highly significant. The authors tested and
validated the High-Performance Team questionnaire in Mexico and Japan and it
maintained its high internal consistency values of .89 for Mexico and .86 for Japan
(Wheelan & Buzaglo, 1999). The questionnaire was used by Matveev (2002) in USA and
Russia; to study the relationship between faculty group development and school
productivity (Wheelan; 1999); to explore work team effectiveness based on case studies
in Central America (Wheelan; 1999).
115
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
The questionnaire includes items such as ‘Members of my team agree with the team
goals’ and ‘My team’s norms encourage high performance and quality’. The items are
scored from 1 (totally not applicable) to 5 (completely applicable).
RESULTS: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Data Analysis Procedure
A descriptive statistical analysis yielded generalizations about how groups of students
(managers) with different demographic and individual characteristics are defined in terms
of MPQ. The collected data was examined for statistical outliers to avoid the instances of
incorrect data entry and extreme non-representative cases (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996).
The researcher surveyed a total of 41 students. The unit of analysis in this study was a
student enrolled or recently graduated and who most importantly has experience working
in a multicultural team. The minimal sample size for this dissertation was to survey 40
students in UQO.
The researcher used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to perform the
descriptive statistical analyses, the t tests, the analyses of variance, and the correlation
analysis.
The integrated and modified instrument was tested: the Cronbach alpha (internal
consistency) yielded α = .8983; standardized item alpha α = .90. According to Nunnally
(1978), this value should be superior to the norm .7 for the explorative type of the
research – which meets the criteria for this research.
Hypothesis verification
The researcher used correlation analysis to investigate the relationship between
intercultural effectiveness and performance of multicultural teams. The correlation
analysis answered the first research question: does a relationship exist between a level of
intercultural effectiveness of individual team members and multicultural team
performance as measured by team members’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness
and team performance -- H1 - the higher the mean of intercultural effectiveness, the
higher team performance would be.The correlation analysis suggests a significant
correlation between the score for the intercultural effectiveness and team performance (r
= .38, p ‹ .05). This finding provides a positive answer to the first research question.
However, the correlation between these variables is not significantly high to suggest that
a higher level of intercultural effectiveness of individual team members would result in
higher performance of a multicultural team.
The correlation analysis was performed for the Cultural Empathy (CE), OpenMindedness (OM), Social Initiative (SI), Emotional Stability (ES), Flexibility (Flex), and
multicultural team performance. The results (Table 3) suggest a significant relationship
for the Social Initiative (r = .45, p ‹ .01) with team performance. A less significant
relationship was observed for the dimensions of Cultural Empathy (r = .33, p ‹ .05) and
116
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Emotional Stability (r = .32, p ‹ .05). No significant relationship was found for the OpenMindedness (r = .27, p ‹ .05) and Flexibility (r = .16, p ‹ .05).
After verifying the contribution of 5 dimensions variance to the explanation of the GDQ
variation in the first set of hypothesis, the linear regression analysis was performed using
the same variables. The graphic analysis of the residuals conforms that the measures
respect the postulates of normality, linearity, and homeoscedacity. With the use of p<5%,
the residuals do not auto correlate (Durbin-Watson (1,41)=1.787, p<5%). The stepwise
method of the linear regression analysis explains the significant relation (R² adjusted =
.182), (F (1,39)= 9.873, p ‹ .05) of GDQ by Social Initiative.
To answer the second set of hypothesis, the study compared data on age,
length/frequency of work in a multicultural team, and length of international work
experience. Three correlation analyses of variance determined any statistically significant
differences in mean intercultural effectiveness scores between the groups of respondents,
depending on age, frequency of work on multicultural teams, and length of international
work experience. These analyses answered the second research question: do the mean
intercultural communication competence scores vary for different groups of managers
based on their age, length/frequency of work on multicultural teams, and length of
international work experience?
No significant differences in the means were observed for position, level of education,
age, frequency of work in a multicultural team, and length of international work
experience in relation toward MPQ. The correlation analysis showed a significant
negative correlation (r = -.311, p ‹ .05) for the respondents that have had the Intercultural
Effectiveness training and their MPQ. This correlation suggests that the model presented
in the second set of hypothesis does not describe all the relations among variables.
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of the present study is to examine and describe the relationship between
intercultural effectiveness of student project team members and project team
performance, and re-examine the personality characteristics that constitute the
intercultural effectiveness. This study demonstrated that Social Initiative dimension of
the MPQ competence accounts for 18% of the variance in the performance level of
multicultural teams. The empirically confirmed relationship supports the hypothesis that
the intercultural effectiveness competence impacts multicultural team performance.
This study is not without its limitations. First of all, the quantity of the respondents is
sufficient to explore the presented hypothesis, but not enough to draw strong conclusions.
Thus, it would be preferable to support these conclusions with another set of studies.
The study can be criticized for its methodological design. We used two self-report
questionnaires to survey international and Canadian students and a potential problem
with these scales is the interrelatedness of results due to the common method bias (van de
117
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Vijver and Leung, 1997). The common method effects, such as correlated measurement
errors, could have increased the correlations among the observed measurements. We
selected the instruments because they had been previously validated in studies with
respondents from different cultures, but did not cross-check the levels of intercultural
competence and performance of multicultural teams by using other scales for the same
respondents or by employing other data collection methods such as qualitative interviews,
direct observations, or external indicators of team performance. Future researches are
needed to prove the causative effect of Intercultural Effectiveness as to its impact on team
performance.
The results from the self-report questionnaires may have been influenced by social
desirability effects. These effects exist when respondents give the culturally acceptable
response rather than describing what they actually think about the topic.
The study provides empirical support for the intercultural effectiveness–team
performance hypothesis. Students experienced in working in multicultural teams reported
a relationship between the level of social initiative and multicultural team performance, a
relationship that is, perhaps, more complex than has been suggested in the literature. The
researchers succeeded in signalling the importance of further theorizing about, and
empirical investigation of, the intercultural effectiveness–team performance construct in
the multicultural context.
With an ongoing increase in the cultural diversity in education and at work due to
globalisation, international students as well as employees in multinational corporations
must be effective in order to achieve high levels of team performance. Effective
interpersonal skills, team effectiveness, ability to deal with cultural uncertainty, and
cultural empathy toward others are learned behaviours that can be enhanced through
training. This article contributes to the discussion about the need to train employees to
become more effective in contending with the new cultural complexities of the
workplace.
Understanding how to enhance the performance of culturally diverse teams is a central
goal of contemporary organizational research. Researchers must advance beyond the
mere appeal of cultural diversity studies toward a more complete and detailed elucidation
of multicultural team processes. Effective multicultural teams reduce the costs of
international operations and the risks of project failures and at the same time improve
international understanding.
REFERENCES
Ali, K.I. Van der Zee and G. Sanders (2003) Determinants of intercultural adjustment
among expatriate spouses, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27
(2003), pp. 563–580.
Ancona, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. In C.
Hendrick (Ed.), Group and intergroup processes (pp. 207-230). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
118
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Arthur, W., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of
factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99-114.
Bassin, M. (1988). Teamwork at General Foods: New and improved. Personnel Journal,
65(5), 62-70.
Bormann, E. G. (1975). Discussion and group methods: Theory and practices (2nd ed.).
New York: Harper & Row.
Cummings, T. G. (1981). Designing effective work-groups. In P. C. Nystrom&W.
Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 2, pp. 250-271). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, M. & Wilson, M. (2000) The Relationship Of The Five-Factor Model Of
Personality To Job Performance For A Group Of Middle Eastern Expatriate
Managers. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 2, March 2000 250258, Western Washington University
Earley C. & Mosakowski E. (2004) Cultural Intelligence. Harvard Business Review,
October 2004, pages 139-146.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis.
Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186.
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and
ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333.
Galagan, P. (1986). Work teams that work. Training and Development Journal, 11, 3335.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context:Amodel of task group effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell,W. J., Morgan,
B.,& Salas, E. (1987). The evolution of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment
with implications for training (Tech. Rep. No. 87-016). Orlando, FL: Office of
Naval Research, Human Factors Division.
Goetsch, G. G., & McFarland, D. D. (1980). Models of the distribution of acts in small
discussion groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 173-183.
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R.& Hughson, T.L.G. (1990). Groups and productivity:
Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell & R. J.
Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295-327). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
119
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity inwork groups. Small Group Behavior,
20, 70-86.
Guzzo, R. A. (1990). Productivity research: Reviewing psychological and economic
perspectives. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in
organizations (pp. 63-81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No.
2). New Haven, CT: Yale School of Organization and Management, Research
Program on Group Effectiveness.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and
group effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 47-99). New York:
Academic Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design ofwork teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hammer M. R., Bennett M. J. and Wiseman R. (2003) Measuring intercultural
sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Volume 27, Issue 4, July 2003, pages 421-443.
Harper,N. L.,&Askling, L. R. (1980). Group communication and quality of task solution
in a media production organization. Communication Monographs, 47, 77-100.
Heinen, J. S., & Jacobson, E. J. (1976). A model of task group development in complex
organizations and a strategy of implementation. Academy of Management Review,
1, 98-111.
Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis of communication patterns within
effective and ineffective decision-making groups. Communication Monographs, 47,
312-321.
Hollander, E. P. (1960). Competence and conformity in the acceptance of influence.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 365-369.
Kano, S. (1971). Task characteristics and network. Japanese Journal of Educational
Social Psychology, 10, 55-66.
Katz, G. M. (1982). Previous conformity, status, and the rejection of the deviant. Small
Group Behavior, 13, 403-422.
120
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Kealey, D. J. (2001). Cross-Cultural Effectiveness (2nd ed). Hull, Canada: Centre for
Intercultural Learning, Canadian Foreign Service Institute.
Kealey D. J. & Protheroe D. R. (1995) Cross-Cultural Collaborations - Making NorthSouth Cooperation More Effective. Hull, Canada: Centre for Intercultural Learning,
Canadian Foreign Service Institute.
Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., Mossholder, K.W.,&Touliatos, J. (1985). Outcomes of
role stress: A multisample constructive replication. Academy of Management
Review, 28, 363-375.
Ketchum, L. (1984). How redesigned plants really work. National Productivity Review,
3, 246-254.
Kolodny, H. F., & Kiggundu, M. N. (1980). Towards the development of a sociotechnical
systems model in woodlands mechanical harvesting. Human Relations, 33, 623645.
Kolodny, H. F.,&Dresner, B. (1986). Linking arrangements and newwork designs.
Organizational Dynamics, 14(3), 33-51.
Latane, B.,Williams, K.,&Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light thework: The
causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Laughlin, P. R. (1988). Collective induction: Group performance, social combination
processes, and mutual majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 254-267.
Leone, L., Van der Zee, Karen I., van Oudenhoven, J. P., Perugini, M. & Ercolani P. A.
(2005) The cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicultural
Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 38,
Issue 6, April 2005, Pages 1449-1462
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science (D. Cartwright, Ed.). New York: Harper.
Manz, C. C.,&Sims, H. P. (1987). Leadingworkers to lead themselves: The external
leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,
106-128.
Matveev, A. V. (2002) The perception of Intercultural Communication Competence by
American and Russian managers with experience on multicultural teams. Ph.D.
dissertation. The Faculty of the College of Communication of Ohio University,
2002
121
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Matveev, A.V. & Nelson, P.E. (2004). Cross Cultural Communication Competence and
Multicultural Team Performance. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management: CCM, 4,2. Page 253
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mills, T. M. (1967) The sociology of small groups. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Warner.
Pheng L. S. & Yuquan S. (2002). An exploratory study of Hofstede's cross-cultural
dimensions in construction. Management Decision; 2002; 40, 1/2; Business
Module, pp. 7-16.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988). Effects of group
feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337-358.
Salk, Jane E; Brannen, Mary Yoko (2000) National culture, networks, and individual
influence in a multinational management team. Academy of Management
Journal. Briarcliff Manor: Apr 2000.Vol. 43, N° 2; pg. 191, 12 pgs
Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987a). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan
Management Review, 3, 25-31.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987b). Groups as human resources. In K. M. Rowland &
G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.
5, pp. 323-356). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Sundstrom, E.,&Altman, I. (1989). Physical environments andwork group effectiveness.
In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11,
pp. 175-209). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Van der Zee K.I. & Van Oudenhoven J.P., (2000). The multicultural personality
questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument for multicultural effectiveness.
European Journal of Personality 14 (2000), pp. 291–309.
122
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Van der Zee, K. I.; Zaal, Jac N.; Piekstra, J. (2003). Validation of the Multicultural
Personality Questionnaire in the context of personnel selection. European Journal
of Personality, Mar 2003, 17(Suppl1); pp. S77-S100.
Van der Zee. K., Atsma N. & Brodbeck F (2004a). The influence of social identity and
personality on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross - Cultural
Psychology. Thousand Oaks: May 2004.Vol.35, N° 3; pg. 283
Van der Zee. K., Van Oudenhoven J. P. & Grijs, E.. (2004b) Personality, threat, and
cognitive and emotional reactions to stressful intercultural situations. Journal of
Personality. Durham: Oct 2004.Vol.72, N° 5; pg. 1069
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; November 2002; 26(6), pages 679-694.
Vinokur, A., Burnstein, E., Sechrest, L., &Wortman, P. M. (1985). Group decision
making by experts: Field study of panels evaluating medical technologies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 70-84.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom/Yetton model. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63, 151-162.
Vulpe, T., Kealey, D. J., Protheroe, D., & MacDonald, D. (2000). A profile of the
Interculturally effective person. Hull, Canada: Centre for Intercultural Learning,
Canadian Foreign Service Institute, 2001.
Weiss, H.W. (1984). Contributions of social psychology to productivity. InA. P. Brief
(Ed.), Productivity research in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 143-173).
New York: Praeger.
Wheelan, S.A., Williams, T. (2003) Mapping dynamic interaction patterns in work
groups. Small Group Research. Thousand Oaks: Aug 2003. Vol. 34, No. 4; p. 443
Wheelan, S.A., Buzaglo, G. (1999) Facilitating work team effectiveness: Case studies
from Central America. Small Group Research. Thousand Oaks: Feb 1999. Vol. 30,
No. 1; p. 108 (22 pages)
Wheelan, S.A., Buzaglo, G. Tsumura, E. (1998) Developing assessment tools for crosscultural group research. Small Group Research. Thousand Oaks: Jun 1998. Vol. 29,
No. 3; p. 359 (12 pages)
123
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
APPENDIX I: Interview Guide
Consent form
Name of researcher: Diana Simkhovych (and of supervisor, if necessary):
Institution, Faculty, Department: University of Quebec,
Telephone number: (819) 684-4084
E-mail address: dsimkhovych@cbie.ca
I, __________________________, agree to participate in the research conducted by
Diana Simkhovych of the Department of the Department of Administrative Sciences,
Project Management Faculty at the University of Quebec in Outaouais. The project is
under the supervision of Dr. Jacques-Bernard Gauthier. The purpose of the research is to
examine the relationship between intercultural effectiveness and the performance of the
project team in the field of international development project. The study will make an
attempt to explore whether relationship exists between the level of intercultural
effectiveness of Canadian project teams’ personnel and the overall performance of the
same teams.
My participation will consist essentially of filling out 30-minutes long interview session.
The sessions have been scheduled for _____________________(Date and time of
sessions). I will also be asked to answer the questions in order to provide my personal
input into the research the objectives of which are briefly outlined above.
I understand that the contents will be used only for research objectives, and that my
confidentiality will be respected.
I understand that since this activity deals with very personal information, it may cause me
emotional inconveniences which may, at times, be difficult. I have received assurance
from the researchers that every effort will be made to minimize these occurrences.
I am free to withdraw from the project at any time, before or during an interview, refuse
to participate and refuse to answer questions.
I have received assurance from the researchers that the information I will share will
remain strictly confidential.
Tape recordings of interviews and other data collected will be kept in a secure manner.
Any information about my rights as a research participant may be addressed to JacquesBernard Gauthier, Ph.D., professor-researcher, Département des sciences administratives,
124
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Université du Québec en Outaouais, telephone: (819) 595-3900 ext. 1732
There are two copies of the consent form, one of which I may keep.
If I have any questions about the conduct of the research project, I may contact the
researcher or his or her supervisor (Provide phone numbers and addresses where the
research subject can contact these persons).
Researcher’s signature:
_________________
(Signature)
__________________
(Date)
Research Subject’s signature:
_________________
(Signature)
__________________
(Date)
125
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Introduction to research topic:
1. Please tell me about your work environment. Do you view your organization as
multicultural workplace?
2. How relevant is the topic of intercultural effectiveness to your work?
Intercultural Effectiveness:
3. Do you view intercultural effectiveness as a key success factor in today’s job
market, and in particular, at your organization?
4. How would you view an interculturally effective person? Please name several
qualities, characteristics, and skills and if possible provide an example.
5. There are several underlying dimensions of the personal traits that constitute
one’s intercultural effectiveness: open-mindedness; flexibility; empathy; social
initiative; emotional stability. Would you say that one of them has more value in
defining intercultural effectiveness?
6. We’ve talked about personal traits that identify intercultural effectiveness, but
would do you think about acquired skills that can contribute to intercultural
effectiveness, such as knowledge of foreign languages, knowledge of other
cultures? Would these be more important than personal traits?
Team Performance:
7. What are the critical dimensions of high Team Performance? Why?
8. Do you view you team as high performing? Why?
Relationship between Intercultural Effectiveness and Team Performance:
9. Do you think that level of IE influences Team Performance?
10. What dimensions of IE are critical for achieving high Team Performance? Do you
have any examples to provide?
11. If you had three wishes to make your multicultural team work more effective,
what they would be?
126
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
APPENDIX II: Self-administrated Questionnaire
(*printed on Department or Program letterhead *)
Consent form
Name of researcher: Diana Simkhovych, UQO
Telephone number: (819) 684-4084
E-mail address: dsimkhovych@cbie.ca
I agree to participate in the research conducted by Diana Simkhovych of the Department
of the Department of Administrative Sciences, Project Management Faculty at the
University of Quebec in Outaouais. The project is under the supervision of Dr. JacquesBernard Gauthier. The purpose of the research is to examine the relationship between
intercultural effectiveness and the performance of the project team in the field of
international development project. The study will make an attempt to explore whether
relationship exists between the level of intercultural effectiveness of Canadian project
teams’ personnel and the overall performance of the same teams.
My participation will consist essentially of attending 132 issues questionnaire that should
take no longer than 20 minutes of consecutive time session. The sessions have been
scheduled for _____________________(Date and time of sessions). I will also be asked
to answer the questions in order to provide my personal input into the research the
objectives of which are briefly outlined above.
I understand that the contents will be used only for research objectives, and that my
confidentiality will be respected.
I have received assurance from the researchers that the information I will share will
remain strictly confidential.
The data collected will be kept in a secure manner, and destroyed once processed.
Any information about my rights as a research participant may be addressed to JacquesBernard Gauthier, Ph.D., professor-researcher, Département des sciences administratives,
Université du Québec en Outaouais, telephone: (819) 595-3900 ext. 1732.
If I have any questions about the conduct of the research project, I may contact the
researcher or his or her supervisor (Provide phone numbers and addresses where the
research subject can contact these persons).
Please tick your response:
‰
‰
Agree
Disagree
127
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
Questionnaire1
Please answer the following questions, but do not put your name on this questionnaire so
that your answers remain anonymous.
1.
‰
‰
‰
‰
2.
‰
‰
3.
Your position (mark the relevant):
Senior Management position
Project Manager
Project Coordinator/Administrator/Administrative Assistant
Consultant
Sex:
M
F
Year of birth ______________
4.
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
Education (mark the highest you have):
Secondary
High School
Bachelor’s
Bachelor’s (Honors)
Postgraduate Diploma
Master’s
Doctoral
Other (Please specify)_____________
5.
Experience of work in multicultural teams: ____years
6.
International work experience: ____years
7.
‰
‰
Have you ever participated in Intercultural Effectiveness training:
Yes
No
Instructions:
Before you turn to the next page, please take a few moments to think about your
experience working in multicultural teams. When ready, please read each following
statement carefully. Then rate each of them in terms of the extent to which the following
statements apply to you.
1
The questions 1-91 are based on the MPQ developed by J.P. van Oudenhoven K.I. van der Zee; and 91132 on the GDQ developed by S.A. Wheelan
128
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
(Please circle the answer that is most applicable to you)
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
1
2
3
largely
applicable
4
completely
applicable
5
1.
Likes low-comfort holidays
2.
Takes initiative
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Is nervous
1
2
3
4
5
4.
Makes contacts easily
1
2
3
4
5
5.
Is not easily hurt
1
2
3
4
5
6.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
9.
Is troubled by conflicts with
others
Finds it difficult to make
contacts
Understands other people’s
feelings
Keeps to the background
1
2
3
4
5
10.
Is interested in other cultures
1
2
3
4
5
11.
Avoids adventure
1
2
3
4
5
12.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
15.
Changes easily from one
activity to another
Is fascinated by other people’s
opinions
Tries to understand other
people’s behavior
Is afraid to fail
1
2
3
4
5
16.
Avoids surprises
1
2
3
4
5
17.
1
2
3
4
5
18.
Takes other people’s habits
into consideration
Is inclined to speak out
1
2
3
4
5
19.
Likes to work on his/her own
1
2
3
4
5
20.
Looking for new ways to attain
his/her goal
Dislikes traveling
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Wants to know exactly what
will happen
1
2
3
4
5
7.
8.
13.
14.
21.
22.
129
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
23.
24.
25.
Remains calm in misfortune
Waits for others to initiate
contacts
Takes the lead
26.
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
1
2
3
1
2
3
largely
applicable
4
4
completely
applicable
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
Is a slow starter
1
2
3
4
5
27.
Is curious
1
2
3
4
5
28.
1
2
3
4
5
29.
Takes it for granted that things
will turn out right
Is always busy
1
2
3
4
5
30.
Is easy-going in groups
1
2
3
4
5
31.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
33.
Finds it hard to empathize with
others
Functions best in a familiar
setting
Radiates calm
1
2
3
4
5
34.
Easily approaches other people
1
2
3
4
5
35.
Finds other religions
interesting
Considers problems solvable
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Works mostly according to a
strict scheme
Is timid
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
40.
Knows how to act in social
settings
Likes to speak in public
1
2
3
4
5
41.
Tends to wait and see
1
2
3
4
5
42.
1
2
3
4
5
43.
Feels uncomfortable in a
different culture
Works according to plan
1
2
3
4
5
44.
Is under pressure
1
2
3
4
5
45.
Sympathizes with others
1
2
3
4
5
46.
Has problems assessing
relationships
1
2
3
4
5
32.
36.
37.
38.
39.
130
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
1
2
3
largely
applicable
4
completely
applicable
5
47.
Likes action
48.
1
2
3
4
5
49.
Is often the driving force
behind things
Leaves things as they are
1
2
3
4
5
50.
Likes routine
1
2
3
4
5
51.
1
2
3
4
5
52.
Is attentive to facial
expressions
Can put setbacks in perspective
1
2
3
4
5
53.
Is sensitive to criticism
1
2
3
4
5
54.
Tries out various approaches
1
2
3
4
5
55.
Has ups and downs
1
2
3
4
5
56.
Has fixed habits
1
2
3
4
5
57.
Forgets setbacks easily
1
2
3
4
5
58.
Is intrigued by differences
1
2
3
4
5
59.
Starts a new life easily
1
2
3
4
5
60.
Asks personal questions
1
2
3
4
5
61.
Enjoys other people’s stories
1
2
3
4
5
62.
Gets involved in other cultures
1
2
3
4
5
63.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
67.
68.
Remembers what other people
have told
Is able to voice other people’s
thoughts
Is self-confident
Has a feeling for what is
appropriate in another culture
Gets upset easily
Is a good listener
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
69.
Worries
1
2
3
4
5
70.
Notices when someone is in
trouble
Has good insight into human
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
64.
65.
66.
71.
131
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
72.
nature
Is apt to feel lonely
largely
applicable
completely
applicable
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
74.
Seeks contact with people from
different backgrounds
Has a broad range of interests
1
2
3
4
5
75.
Is insecure
1
2
3
4
5
76.
Has a solution for every
problem
Puts his or her own culture in
perspective
Is open to new ideas
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
82.
Is fascinated by new
technological developments
Senses when others get
irritated
Likes to imagine solutions for
problems
Sets others at ease
1
2
3
4
5
83.
Works according to strict rules
1
2
3
4
5
84.
Is a trendsetter
1
2
3
4
5
85.
Needs change
1
2
3
4
5
86.
1
2
3
4
5
87.
Pays attention to the emotions
of others
Reads a lot
1
2
3
4
5
88.
Seeks challenges
1
2
3
4
5
89.
1
2
3
4
5
90.
Enjoys getting to know others
deeply
Enjoys unfamiliar experiences
1
2
3
4
5
91.
Looks for regularity in life
1
2
3
4
5
92.
Members of my team are clear
about team goals
Members of my team agree
with the team goals
In my team, tasks are
appropriate to team versus
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
73.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
93.
94.
132
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
individual solutions
Members of my team are clear
about their roles
Members of my team accept
their roles and status
Role assignments match
abilities of team members
The team leader’s style change
than necessary to meet
emerging group needs
During the work stage,
delegation or “unleadership” is
the prevailing leadership style
Our team communication
structure matches the demands
of the task
My team has an open
communication structure that
allows all members to
participate
All team members get regular
feedback about team’s
productivity
Team members give each other
constructive feedback
My team utilizes feedback to
make improvements
My team spends time defining
problems it must solve or
decision it must make
My team spends time planning
how it will solve problems and
make decisions
My team spends enough time
discussing problems and
decisions it faces
My team determines methods
for decision making that are
participatory
My team implements and
evaluates its solutions and
decisions
Voluntary conformity is high
among team members
My team accepts members
who behave differently as long
as their behavior is perceived
as helpful to task
largely
applicable
completely
applicable
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
133
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
accomplishment
112. My team norms encourage
high performance and quality
113. My team expects to be
successful
114. My team encourages
innovation
115. My team pays attention to the
details of its work
116. My team accepts coalition and
subgroup formation
117. Subgroups are integrated into
the group-as-a-whole
118. Subgroups work on important
tasks
119. Tasks contain variety and
challenge
120. Subgroups work on a total
product or project
121. My team contains the smallest
number of members necessary
to accomplish its goals
122. My team has access to the
technical and people resources
necessary to accomplish its
task
123. My team has access to
technical or interpersonal
experts as needed
124. My team has access to
technical or human relations
training as needed
125. My team has a defined work
territory
126. My team has sufficient time
together to develop as a mature
working unit and to
accomplish its goals
127. Subgroups are recognized and
rewarded by the group
128. My team is highly cohesive
129. Interpersonal attraction among
members is high
130. Members are cooperative
131. Periods of conflict are frequent
but brief
largely
applicable
completely
applicable
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
134
Simkhovych/ Does multintercultural effectiveness effects team performance?
132. My team has effective
totally not hardly
moderately
applicable applicable applicable
1
2
3
largely
applicable
4
completely
applicable
5
conflict management
strategies
135