Teamwork Across Business and Cultures

TEAMING ACROSS DISTANCE AND CULTURE

Table of Contents

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

References

Teaming Across Distance and Culture

Question 1

Major effects of physically separating group members could have a high impact on a team; this is mainly because of the fact that two separated teams have lesser productivity and lesser collaboration. Team members need to constantly have connects in-order to keep the knowledge consistency among them, however physically separating them will lead to conflicts in opinion, loss of knowledge transfer, reduced competitiveness and lack of respect in some cases. For instance, the best scenario I could think of is the current job that I am doing has two different solution architects who used to work together from the same location. However, when they decided to walk their own paths and work from remote, they ended up having heated arguments and unresolved conflicts due to them not being available for the managers to speak directly.

I would like to start this paper by talking about major effects initially like conflicts; conflicts are something that usually arises due to lack of proper coordination or misunderstandings. The main root cause of this being distance, if this conflict is not resolved it leads to a much troublesome problem, which finally ends in chaos within the team. Conflicts will not only affect an individual but indirectly affects the team by reducing productivity due to a constant argument over unnecessary topics and questions or derailing arguments, etc. Sometimes due to conflicts, some team members take sides and work with two different people resulting in the entire team losing the balance and becoming rouge (Eccles et al., 2010).

Another impact would be considered is the knowledge transfer (KT), KT’s are as important as delivering a project, without proper and consistent KT a team would completely suffer and will result in unwanted loss of productivity. KTs need to be a constant push from the team especially in cases of physically distanced work culture where you have offshore and onsite teams. There has to be a common time where team members connect to update each other on the work it have completed and talked about their accountability, this could not only results in an effective way of working but will also enable team members to stay collaborated and self-organized.

There is a change, which is going on in associations, which puts structure nearer to the focal point of the endeavor, yet it does not about feelings. It is more about applying the correct standards of structure to the venture. The methodology is the extension part as the multifaceted nature of the innovation has been expanding in the business (Ambady et al., 1995). A portion of the time the issue is taken care of is itself multi-faceted: Think about how much harder it is to reevaluate a human administrations movement structure than to design a shoe. Besides, on occasion, the business condition is unstable to the point that an association must investigate distinctive roads viewing various courses in order to make do. The article investigates the effects of the physical separation of group members on group risk-taking. The discovery of the critical causal role played by discussion in a group risk-taking does not necessarily represent the final word on this important issue (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992). In all the experiments conducted to date, the discussion has proceeded in a context of face-to-face social interaction.

Question 2

Technology can be utilized to explain reliable behaviour. Technology can similarly be used to clarify occupations, work groupings, pecking order, aptitudes, qualities, and perspectives in affiliations. The relationship of work around a given technology can be used to control work costs, to control essential administration, to control the general status of different social events in an affiliation and to control headway and calling prospects (Armstrong & Cole, 1995). Managers may have the ability to control employees in these courses by drawing in the inventive determinist conflict: “We need to do this in light of the fact that the technology requests it”.

The overall effects of the technology may depend on the operation of several instruments:

1. New Products and Services: Mechanical development makes new things and organizations like PCs, workstations, business databases, these new headways change the case of purchaser demands for stock and endeavors. This current assistants’ relationship to place assets into these new headways that subsequently lead to new business openings and new abilities necessities (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002).
2. Lower Costs Increase Demand: Higher productivity exhibits making a comparable yield with the proportionate or fewer resources. In view of these lower cost’s customers found diminished or stable costs, which by then may lead extended demands regardless of the way that it is hard to consider how they will change.
3. Time Lags: It is for each situation difficult to get another technology into existing systems and affiliations. All over are specific issues every so often social and on occasion productive to endure.
4. Risks: many organizations adopt newer technologies slowly to avoid or reduce the risks.
5. The Expectation of Demand: Expensive interests in new advancements are a result of the longing for higher solicitations. Thus, an affiliation may need to use more people to manage the extension in business or new people who have what it takes that require using these new advancements.
6. Technical Limitations: New advancements do not fulfill each situation the instances of the sales representative. Along these lines, for a long time existing occupations, aptitudes and equipment may be required to work adjacent the new devices.

The Process of Change

To actualize maintainable hierarchical change, companies use a three-prong organized approach. The most indispensable and troublesome time of the methodology is unfreezing, which incorporates perceiving and unlearning mistakenly past direct that is a portion of the time ingrained in an affiliation’s lifestyle. The hugest pointer of accomplishment at this stage is delegate affirmation. In case, an affiliation regulates laborer restriction right away and feasible at this stage, it will ensure the accomplishment of the accompanying two phases. The second stage, changing, incorporates superseding past direct with new lead through immense redevelopment and getting ready. Refreezing, the last time of the system, invigorates and underpins the new lead through continued with detectable quality and estimation of advancement. One help methodology is crafted by a praise and reward structure. Approval and reward systems summon world class and impel agents to get a handle on change.

Employee Resistance to Change

A changing affiliation should not ignore the human segment. It is basic to change business practices inside an association. On the off chance that laborers are excluded or are not willing to recognize change, the technique is presumably going to crash and burn. Agents contradict change since they are restless about the likelihood that that to lose a business or need to go up against additional commitments that a laborer is unfit or unequipped to manage (Shi & Lin, 2011). Using encouraging and moving methodologies to realize change shows to a delegate that she is not being constrained to recognize change, notwithstanding, is a fundamental bit of the system. An agent feels like a basic benefactor in the work put condition when he is a bit of a productive change.

Employee Turnover

After a critical re-trying, affiliations normally experience some representative turnover. A laborer may feel that nature is extravagantly shaky and might scan for business somewhere else where she feels increasingly secure. High operator turnover can truly affect an association’s efficiency because of loss of talented specialists and the need to choose and train new individuals. Incidentally, the loss of advantages may result in loss of business pay as an agent may take key records with him (Yowell & Carlson, 2008). To diminish delegate hindrance and turnover, an alliance should start a thought change the director’s framework that illustrates the hugeness and results of the change and the partner’s laborers a brief time span later.

Question 3

Every organization has its own environment, technology, and hardware to support the employees in a collaboratively way during the workspaces, meeting rooms, open workstations, and mobile workplaces that enables and influences the people’s behavior and performance. In fact, a more flexible and people-centric environment supports the employees and become the organization more innovative and agile approach. Nowadays, most of the businesses reformed and redesign to the agile approach while reducing the cost that helps the business success. To achieve the best outcomes and deliver optimal value for stakeholders, organizations need to empower their workforce for greater productivity and ensure that every resource is put to the most efficient use possible. Workplace redesign addresses these imperatives by adapting the office environment to meet the full spectrum of requirements and preferred work styles with a variety of new settings that let people choose the right spaces for their changing needs throughout the day. By evolving to a more people-centric setting, organizations can attract, retain and engage a talented workforce, and better support their need for both individual focus and collaboration.

Moreover, brainstorming sessions in the office workstation help the organization to encourage the employees more creative through the collaboration process. According to Hagel et al., (2013) argues that, “The way the workplace is constructed like physically, virtually, and managerially, can have a critical impact on employee productivity, passion, and innovation” (para. 1). In addition, the performance improvement triumph of an employee enables the knowledge and talent development through the redesign of the workplaces. Businesses have been changing their internal operations and focusing on essentials such as teamwork, collaboration, sharing of resources, flexibility, modularity, expanded functionality, and productivity.  In addition, there is a growing understanding among major global businesses that one of the key components for competitive advantage is the human capital assets. Companies have come to realize the importance of comfort in the workplace environment in order to retain quality personnel, increase productivity, and maintain a competitive edge. The studies from different research emphasize that an effective work environment should provide positive sensory stimulation through the proper use of color, lighting, aroma, space, and furnishings (as cited in Saha, 2016, p. 27). These elements enhance to increase the productivity of an employee and effective to work environment.

Question 4

According to Breitenoder (2009) elucidates, there is an upsurge of cross-cultural teams in organizations that have expanded to other regions and that have different cultural practices as opposed to the typical culture in the primary locations of the organizations. The globalization of corporations and organizations has been the most significant contributor to the rising cross-cultural teams in recent times. Organizations have brought down the economic borders to create a substantial financial market where they have established stations all over the globe. Even though they are cultural barriers that present different challenges to these organizations, leaders in the interested organizations to mitigate the effects of cultural obstacles have used different tactics (Glickman et al., 2015). It is apparent that cross-cultural teams often present unique challenges when it comes to management and collaboration.

One of the significant challenges in the internal complexity of managing such kind of team’s structural aspects of management may be complicated when it comes to managing virtual teams, such as instances on critical decision-making (Harvey, 1997). It is difficult to get a consensus on certain decisions due to the cultural standpoints, values, beliefs, and norms of the teams. However, cross-cultural teams may bring some benefit to the team. Knowledge sharing between cross-cultural groups supports brainstorming on problem-solving and new ways of doing things (Breitenoder, 2009). Different cultural values and practices have some natural principles that are beneficial to the company. Further, knowledge sharing is a pillar of innovation. The dynamic business environment requires an organization to continuously innovate new ways of doing things to keep up with the stiff market competition.

For the cross-cultural teams to perform effectively, their duties there has to be a culture of trust. Trust is critical as in maintaining the workflow between these teams without suspicion. Secondly, the managers have to redesign the management models to accommodate the different cultures of the team members. Finally, the use of technology is imperative, as it is the most effective way of connecting the teams who are practically separated.

References

• Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518-529.
• Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
• Armstrong, D., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. Jackson, & Ruderman, M. (Ed.), Diversity in work teams (pp. 187-215). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
• Breitenoder, A. F. (2009). Knowledge sharing in cross-cultural virtual teams : A study based on the grounded theory method. Hamburg: Dominica Verlag.
• Eccles, M., Smith, J., Tanner, M., Van-Belle, J. P., & Van-Der-Watt, S. (2010). Collocation impact on team effectiveness. South African Computer Journal, 46, 3-13. DOI: 10.18489/sacj.v46i0.54.
• Glickman, L., Rowthorn, V., & Olsen, J. (2015). Measuring the cross-cultural adaptability of a graduate student team from global immersion experience. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 22(4), 148-154.
• Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., & Samoylova, T. (2013). Work environment redesign: Accelerating talent development and performance improvement. Retrieved on December 08, 2018, from https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/topics/talent/work-environment-redesign.html
• Harvey, M. (1997). Tearing down the walls: More companies are redesigning their office spaces to encourage teamwork and break down hierarchies. Journal of Business Strategy, 86(6), 24-29.
• Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in workgroups? A legacy of research. Distributed work, 1, 57-80.
• Saha, S. (2016). A Study on impact of workplace design on employee’s productivity in selected IT companies in Pune region. International Journal of Business and General Management, 5(1), 25-38.
• Shi, G., & Lin, Z. (2011). The study on the relationship of team boundary management, cohesion, and attitudes. International Conference on Management and Service Science, 34, 588-630. DOI:10.1109/icmss.2011.5997990
• Yowell, J. L. and Carlson, D. W. (2008). Introductory engineering design: A projects-based approach (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.