Creating Hybrid Team Cultures: An Empirical Test of Transnational Team Functioning.

Original publication by P. Christopher Earley and Elaine Mosakowski in Academy of Management Journal
Synopsis by Amy Nelson, Claremont McKenna College ‘05

Researchers P. Christopher Earley and Elaine Mosakowski performed three major studies assessing the functionality of transnational teams at varying degrees of diversity. The conception of the study stems from previous research that has been done regarding team performance where factors such as gender, race, and religion provide diversity. In these cases, research has shown that both highly homogenous and highly heterogeneous teams tend to perform better than only moderately heterogeneous teams. In the instances of high heterogeneity, teams must develop a common ground and sense of order before they can be productive. This leads to an emergent culture within the group, called a hybrid.

Thus, researchers developed two major hypotheses before conducting their first test. The first hypothesis stated that, initially, teams that were homogenous in terms of the nationality of team members would outperform both highly and moderately heterogeneous teams. It also stated that members of the homogenous teams would report greater satisfaction with the team. Secondly, the researchers hypothesized that a curvilinear relationship would eventually develop between heterogeneity and team performance, and satisfaction. The result would be an upright U-shaped curve, as teams moved from homogenous to highly heterogeneous.

The first test took five pre-existing teams with varying degrees of heterogeneity in a large, multi-national clothing corporation, and monitored their development. The teams worked in creating new products, sales strategies, and focused on developing the Pacific Rim market. Team meetings were observed, interviews were conducted with team members throughout the study, and demographic information regarding individuals was obtained from the company. Findings were separated into the following divisions: team rules and practices used, communication and conflict, team efficacy and perceived effectiveness, team identity and unity, and changes over time. The two most heterogeneous teams displayed the greatest ability to successfully address a range of issues as well as form a cohesive group identity. Also, both managers and team members reported high degrees of satisfaction with these teams’ performances. Additionally, from the beginning of the study, the homogenous group was effective and displayed confidence in the group’s ability. The two moderately heterogeneous teams did not perform nearly as well, one group having so many conflicts that they never accomplished anything.

The data gathered from the first test supported the hypothesis of a U-shaped relationship between team functionality and heterogeneity. The study suggested that when the team creates rules for itself, communicates well, and manages conflict well, a hybrid culture emerges more easily. These observations lead the researchers to develop a third hypothesis that relates team heterogeneity to performance and member satisfaction. They hypothesized that the relationship between members, the sense of team unity, and intra-team communication mediate the relationship of performance and heterogeneity.

The second study took ninety-two managers recruited from a European business school, placed them into four person teams, and gave them a task to perform in a given time frame. Teams were either of a single nationality, split evenly between two nationalities, or from entirely unique national backgrounds. Dependent variables were team identity, efficacy, role expectations, and communication. Additional variables considered at time two were planning, subgroup formation, and satisfaction. Also, team members were selected from different areas of the globe to prevent regional bias. In general, homogenous teams outperformed other teams during the first test, but in the second test highly heterogeneous teams improved their performance significantly and often outperformed homogenous teams. However, while they did improve in the second test, moderately heterogeneous teams performed significantly worse than other teams. All three hypotheses appear to be supported by the second study.

The third study served to look at elements not addressed in the other studies by adding moderately heterogeneous teams that were not just split evenly into two nationalities and evaluating more long-term data. One hundred sixty one students in an MBA program at a European business school had previously been placed into study groups of six to eight students at varying levels of heterogeneity in an effort by the school to promote diversity. Participants worked together for eight weeks to write a paper. Data evaluated included grades given by professors and questionnaires filled out by participants at different points in the semester. This study tested hypotheses two and three and showed that highly heterogeneous teams performed higher, over time, than other teams in all areas evaluated from performance to team member satisfaction. All data seemed to be consistent with the other two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Primarily this study showed how team effectiveness could be mediated by a great array of factors. Demographics such as age and gender were also taken into consideration, but the effect of national diversity within teams was consistently shown in the three surveys. The most heterogeneous teams consistently performed the most effectively over the long term and reported the greatest amount of team member satisfaction. They also demonstrated the emergence of a hybrid team culture based on foundational groundwork in establishing rules of procedure and development of relationships within the team. While homogenous teams also performed well, mildly heterogeneous teams seemed to have difficulties due to divisions created between subgroups in that team and lack of communication between those subgroups.