In every organisation employee’s work in a team or groups. This is because it consists of different people who possess various skills and knowledge. thus, it becomes easy to achieve goals and objectives in given time period (Dervin and Gross, 2016). Also, individual works in creative way to complete task. But in a study conducted, the concept is changed. Now teams are focusing on dysfunction. The new model is designed in which right people are put in teams so that correct and effective decisions are taken. Isaacs said that a team is viewed as group who generate new ideas for developing products and services. it will help in growth of organisation.
Kantor model – Ancona and Isaacs’ state this model is followed to create framework of balance in team. There are four major elements that are:
Move- it helps in giving a direction of team. Through this, goals are set and work is done. The next step is followed. in this member agree with goals that are set. Then is oppose, here arguments and questions are raised about goals and last is bystand. It states team reflection. The member gives an insight about goals which has to be achieved.
These elements give direction to team and taking effective decision. the team member evaluates alternatives and analyse ideas then act on it. it has benefited in attaining goals in time frame.
Balancing acts – this affects by performing of any task or act by team member in different way. it will lead to ineffective working and creating imbalance (Henderson and et.al., 2018). It is differentiated by identifying intentions of actor and its impact on situation. Opposer always offend the ideas while bystand perspective is judged. Thus, healthy team is developed by eliminating this. The model is structural not personal as it works on two or even people. It allows members to perform their activities. The team efficiency is determined by dynamics. This is used to determine effectiveness of team. The intelligence is limited when sequences are ritualised. The individual act create imbalance at team level.
Healthy teams- The four player model create a healthy and positive relationship between team members. This is done by making all acts enabled and balanced, bystand and oppose acts are supported and reinforced and flexibility is maintained in sequence of acts (Kantor’s Four-Player Model: A Framework for Healthy Teams. 2014). This shows the benefits of team that includes adaption, inclusiveness, repair, etc. they work in rigid manner and each individual contributes towards goals and objectives. it helps in developing structure and creating a healthy team. In essay it is shown shifting of focus to structure and dysfunction provide positive change. Moreover, four player model is used to build effective and healthy teams.
Collective versus individualist national cultures
This essay shows change in business environment which has led to challenges due to expansion. There is change in attitude of individuals and business practices. The reason behind this is socialisation (Martin and Nakayama, 2015). It has changed way of interaction of people. The relationship among them is build on belief and values. It shows that individuals feel guilty when they misbehave, then quick action is taken to solve it. the difference between culture and attitude influence behaviour of individuals. Also, decision making process is affected as well. This is due to change in ethics.
Essay also discuss about change in business ethics of different countries. There is focus on individual and collectivism culture dimension by business. Many researchers agree that collectivism is preferred. This has been a universal cultural dimension. In this societies are classified on basis of migratory and sedentary. The difference between individual and collective culture is that in collective people are interdependence, harmony valued, etc. whereas in individual they are independence (Mulyana and Zubair, 2015). In this US people has ranked first in collective society. individuals from a collective culture behave in an unethical manner if their in-group members benefit from such unethical behaviour.
A research was conducted to identify the impact on employees and their cultural values.
This influence on their decision making and business growth. From research it is said that
collective culture is beneficial for employees and organisation. in this employee’s remain more
loyal in ethical dilemma. Also, they withhold information if organisation benefit from it.
business knows about employee culture, background, etc. of different countries. This benefit in
expecting more from employees. then, training is provided accordingly. Collectivism behaviour
of employees results in maintaining business reputation.
The employees of individual culture oppose unethical practices. This characteristic
reflects their right value. This form common attributes and they treat everyone equally. In
American people telling practice is not followed. It prevents in creating an ethical dilemma
situation. Employees of collective culture use harmony more to create relationship. Here, similar
ethics and culture are followed. The adoption of honesty makes no difference between individual
and collective culture. People of America and Taiwan sake honesty in values. In US there is still
individual culture developed by business (Elo, Benjowsky and Nummela, 2015). Thus, society is only presumptuous but may be erroneous. This shows people interest prevails over societal one. American business faces more ethical issues than any other country. There is similarity between decision making of collective and individualist culture. But differences are very wide. This has understood by business in their culture. Successful relationship is developed when attitudes and ethics of employees are similar. An individual does not maintain harmony in open society. They create conflicts among each other. this influence their behaviour. The culture of people is different from honest approach. Individualist people share their views and reduce conflict. It reflects value and relationship are built. people easily deal with conflicts. They do not speak disgrace about others. US employees use tendency at workplace.
In present time, the organisational culture has completely transformed. This has changed the working of employees in team. Due to adoption of international team culture, there are many challenges which are faced by organisations. Therefore, they have started building team by using theories provided by various authors.
Each individual belongs to different caste and culture. They possess various values and beliefs which helps them to work together. This has enabled companies to hire employees and change their culture to attain goals in specified time. Cross culture is a concept that has emerged in management as well as performance of employees. moreover, it has helped in enhancing team behaviour and communication between people. a framework is developed to promote and work on this concept. on the other hand there are several challenges which are faced by business in cross cultural dimension. This section will discuss about cross culture working in team and how it is formed.
Every organisation works in team so that goals and objectives are achieved in effective way. the teams are responsible for performing various activities that includes developing new products, providing services, etc. (Feng, 2016) it is very important for members in team to coordinate with each other so that roles are performed. Cross culture refers to a concept where people of different culture are grouped together to work in team. Each person is assigned different roles. They vary as per skills and abilities. A four player model is introduced. It contains basic roles which is as follows :-
Belbin team theory -
It is the most commonly used model that is used to identify roles of persons in a team. In this each team member performs one or more than one role (Holliday, 2016). It helps in distinguishing between skills and abilities of member. A team is formed by using this theory. Basically, there are nine significant roles mentioned. These are described below :-
Implementer: this person is known for his or her effective team work. Also, they maintain discipline and comes out with ideas to implement it in practice. They follow certain theories and work on them. In our team, Balram was the implementer. He worked in disciplined way.
Coordinator: in team, coordinator takes effective decision and organise task. He or she controls team and is highly engaged in meetings. By controlling members, it is easy to maintain culture and team work. Bhargavi and Balram was coordinator of team.
Shaper: this member plays a significant role in creating a team work environment. he or she helps in shaping team so that goals are achieved on time. They perform their roles perfectly. Marion, Mohammed and Bhargavi was shaper of team.
Plant: these persons are known for their creativity. They work in creative way by thinking outside the box. Also, they solve critical problems in quick time by working individually. Marion and Mohammed are plant of team.
Resource investigator: this person always searches for further opportunities to work on them. They are passionate and curious to work in new area or filed (Lieberman and Gamst, 2015). They find out external sources which can be used in attaining goals. Bhargavi and Marion searched different ways to engage with external resources.
Monitor evaluator: these team members analyse and evaluate whole project. by this results and drawback are founded. They do this to solve problems that can occur while performing tasks. Balram, Mohammad monitored project and founded benefits.
Team worker: a team worker person is highly concerned about team. They act as helper and support others in attaining goals. Also, they coordinate with every member and effectively handles situation. Bhargavi, Balram and Mohammed were team worker.
Completer: this person is identified with his or her role in team. He or she is ready to take only that task which can be completed. Marion and Balram were known as completer.
Specialist: As name describes, these members are specialised in particular field. They share knowledge and skills with others and are open minded (Dai and Chen, 2014). They play a vital role in project completion. Mohammad, Bhargavi were specialist in team.
In our team worked in Belbin theory where each person performed one or two roles. It can be said that Balram (India) was the implementer. Bhargavi (India) and Balram was coordinator, Marion (France), Mohammed (India) and Bhargavi was shaper and Marion and Mohammed are plant of team. Bhargavi and Marion as resource investigator, Balram, Mohammad evaluated project.
This is a famous model that is used to formulate team. Here, various stages are followed and goals and objectives are developed before forming team. Developing team is a systematic process where several stages are involved in it. They are mentioned below :-
Hofstede’s cultural dimension
It is known for cultural model that is implemented internationally. This theory was given by Hofstede where he researched certain concepts of individual and society (Leung, Ang and Tan, 2014). A team consists of different types of people who possess values, ethics, attitude, etc. this leads to developing barriers among them. Due to this, team performance is affected. So, it becomes difficult to maintain team culture and achieving goals. It occurs due to differences in culture.
Therefore, it is very necessary to solve barriers so that team efficiency is maintained. this will help in effective communication between them. There are several dimensions of natural culture that is stated below :-
Figure 1: Comparison of cultural dimension
It can be concluded that every individual is having difference in attitude, ethics, etc. The nature of person is reflected from its background, culture, behaviour, etc. it is very important for organisation to maintain balance between team members to avoid issues. There is a huge gap between Indian and French people. this can be analysed from Hofstede model.
In order to maintain proper team bonding there are several recommendations that organisation can follow.
Books and journals
Dai, X. and Chen, G.M. eds., 2014. Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dervin, F. and Gross, Z. eds., 2016. Intercultural competence in education: Alternative approaches for different times. Springer.
Elo, M., Benjowsky, C. and Nummela, N., 2015. Intercultural competences and interaction schemes—Four forces regulating dyadic encounters in international business. Industrial Marketing Management, 48, pp.38-49.
Feng, J.B., 2016. Improving intercultural competence in the classroom: A reflective development model. Journal of teaching in international Business, 27(1), pp.4-22.
Henderson, G.R. and et.al., 2018. Intercultural competence and customer facial recognition. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(5), pp.570-580.
Holliday, A., 2016. Revisiting intercultural competence: Small culture formation on the go through threads of experience. International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education (IJBIDE), 1(2), pp.1-14.
Ladegaard, H.J. and Jenks, C.J., 2015. Language and intercultural communication in the workplace: critical approaches to theory and practice. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), pp.1-12.
Leung, K., Ang, S. and Tan, M.L., 2014. Intercultural competence. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), pp.489-519.
Lieberman, D.A. and Gamst, G., 2015. Intercultural communication competence revisited: Linking the intercultural and multicultural fields. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, pp.17-19.
Martin, J.N. and Nakayama, T.K., 2015. Reconsidering intercultural (communication) competence in the workplace: A dialectical approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), pp.13-28.
Matveev, A.V. and Del Villar, C.P., 2017. Assessing intercultural communication competence of the Filipino and American managers. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 3(3).
Mulyana, D. and Zubair, A., 2015. Intercultural communication competence developed by Chinese in communicating with Malays in Bangka Island, Indonesia. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(4), pp.299-309.
Kantor’s Four-Player Model: A Framework for Healthy Teams. 2014. [online] Available through: < https://www.studymode.com/essays/Kantor%E2%80%99s-Four-Player-Model-a-Framework-For-53302724.html>
just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time
offer valid for limited time only*
someone in is bought