Cross-national groups

22

Hinds & Bailey: Conflict in distributed teams

• Problem is not simply cultural differences• Stable content of cultural differences is important too

33

Culture

• Integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a group (society, corporation, fraternity)  

44

Geert Hofstede

• Dutch social psychologist

• Industrial psychologist at IBM from 1967-73

• Surveys from 116,000 IBM employees from 40 countries

• Factor analysis to identify first 4 & then later 5 distinct dimensions of cultural values

55

Hofstede’s Framework

• Primarily descriptive taxonomy about how cultures differ• Individualistic vs Collectivist dimensions used

most

• Not a theory, with causal explanations for • Why the cultural differences came to be• Predictions about their consequences

77

Hofstede’s values

The nature of the differences matter

88

Individualism vs Collectivism

Degree to which individuals are integrated into groups.

The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to ‘in groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

99

Individualism vs Collectivism

Individualism• Ties between individuals are

loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. 

• Stress on personal achievements and individual rights

• Everyone expected to fulfill their own needs

• Everybody has the right to own opinion.

Collectivism• People are integrated into strong,

cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

• Stress on group pride & solidarity

1010

Continuum of values

1111

Measure of Individualism vs Collectivism

How much do you agree with the following statements:• Individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the group.• Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties.• Group welfare is more important than individual rewards.• Group success is more important than individual success.• Individuals should only pursue their goals after considering the

welfare of the group. • Group loyalty should be encouraged even if individual goals

suffer.

1212

Array yourself on the 7-point scale

• Individualism vs Collectivism• You have a 14 year old brother. He has been

taking piano lessons since he was seven. He now wants to quit, and start playing electric guitar in a band with some buddies, but your parents are opposed. They think the piano is a better instrument and that your brother will regret his decision when he gets older. Who do you support – brother or father?

1313

Array yourself on the 7-point scale

• Individualism vs Collectivism• How should I grade the Wikipedia assignment: Give

everyone in a team the same grade or weight their grade by the amount they contributed?

1414

Scores by country: Individualism

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php

http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/individualism/

Rank Country IDV 1 United States 912 Australia 903 United Kingdom 894 Netherlands 805 New Zealand 796 Italy 767 Belgium 758 Denmark 749 France 71

10 Sweden 7121 Israel 5422 Spain 5123 India 4824 Argentina 4625 Japan 4626 Iran 4127 Jamaica 3928 Brazil 3829 Egypt 3840 Mexico 3041 Ethiopia 2742 Kenya 2743 Portugal 2744 Tanzania 2745 Zambia 2746 Malaysia 2647 Hong Kong 2548 Chile 2349 China 2050 Ghana 2060 Indonesia 1461 Pakistan 1462 Colombia 1363 Venezuela 1264 Panama 1165 Ecuador 866 Guatemala 6

1515

Power Distance • Extent to which the less powerful members of

organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.

Measurement:• People in higher positions should make most decisions without

consulting people in lower positions.

• People in higher positions should not ask the opinions of

• people in lower positions too frequently.

• People in higher positions should avoid social interaction with

• people in lower positions.

• People in lower positions should not disagree with decisions by people in higher positions.

• People in higher positions should not delegate important tasks to people in lower positions.

1616

Power DistanceRank ountry PDI

1 Malaysia 1042 Guatemala 953 Panama 954 Philippines 945 Mexico 816 Venezuela 817 China 808 Egypt 809 Iraq 8010 Kuwait 8011 Lebanon 8012 Libya 8013 Saudi Arabia 8014 United Arab Emirates 8015 Ecuador 7816 Indonesia 7817 Ghana 7718 India 7719 Nigeria 7720 Sierra Leone 7721 Singapore 7422 Brazil 6923 France 6824 Hong Kong 6825 Poland 6826 Colombia 6727 El Salvador 6628 Turkey 6629 Belgium 6530 Ethiopia 6431 Kenya 6432 Peru 6433 Tanzania 6434 Thailand 6435 Zambia 6436 Chile 6337 Portugal 6338 Uruguay 6139 Greece 6040 South Korea 6041 Iran 5842 Taiwan 5843 Czech Republic 5744 Spain 5745 Pakistan 5546 Japan 5447 Italy 5048 Argentina 4949 South Africa 4950 Hungary 4651 Jamaica 4552 United States 4053 Netherlands 3854 Australia 36

1717

Hofstede’s other dimensions

1818

Extending the Hofstede modelHouse et al. (2002). Understanding cultures & implicit leadership theories across the globe.

1919

Nisbett: Cognitive differences btw Westerns & Eastern cultures

• What are the differences?• What is the evidence that these differences

exist• Historical observation to argue that the

differences are long standing• Etiology

Geography

Social arrangements

Cognitive accommodations

2020

Types of cognitive differences Dimension Western EasternFocus of attention

Focus on parts Focus on wholes

Focus on objects Focus on relationshipsEase of abstracting object from field Field dependenceBeliefs about/Illusion of Control Less influenced by perceptions of control

Explanation & prediction

Explanation focus on actor Explanations focus on context

Subject to fundamental attribution error Not subject to fundamental attribution error when placed in the coercive stituation

Holistic prediction & postdiction

Less subject to hindsight bias More subject to hindsight bias

Surprised when expectations violated Not surprisedCategorization Similarity based on category membership Similarity based on family resemblence

Categories basis for induction Categories less basis for inductionRule-based category membership Exemplars as basis for category membershp

Law of noncontraction

Avoid appearance of self-contractions Don't avoid appearance of self-contractions

One position is 'right' Seek the middle wayWeight of strong arguments enhanced when compared with weaker arguments

Weight of strong arguments weakened when compared with weaker arguments

Use of simple rules to justify choice Use of multiple source to justify choice

2121

Correspondence & the Fundamental Attribution Error

• In the West, subjects attribute behavior internally, to actors’ attitudes, dispositions or motivations• E.g., In Jones & Harris, Western subjects judge target’s attitude on a controversial issue based on position in an

essay, regardless of whether target chose the position or was randomly assigned

• Choi & Nisbett replication• Subjects merely told of lack of choice• Subjects experience lack of choice• Subjects experience lack of choice

& given arguments to use in essay

• Correspondence bias reduced amongAsian subjects when they directlyexperienced the lack of choice

Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(24), 949-960.

2222

Prediction & postdictionKind & religious seminary student hurrying across campus to deliver a sermon. On route, he encounters a man lying in a doorway asking for help.

• Prediction: What will he do?• Postdiction: What do you think he would have done?• Amount of surprise at what he actually did

ResultPrediction

of helpPostdiction

of helpSurprise Prediction

of helpPostdiction

of helpSurprise

Unknown 80% NA NA 80% NA NAHelp given 80% 80% No 80% 80% NoHelp not given 80% 80% Yes 80% 50% No

Americans Koreans

2323

Nisbett R E , Masuda T PNAS 2003;100:11163-11170

Which two go together?”

2424Nisbett R E , Masuda T PNAS 2003;100:11163-11170©2003 by National Academy of Sciences

“Which group does the target object belong to?” Target bears a family resemblance to group on the left but can be assigned to group on the right on the basis of a rule.

2525

Nisbett R E , Masuda T PNAS 2003;100:11163-11170

©2003 by National Academy of Sciences

Percent of participants basing similarity judgments on family resemblance vs. rule.

2626

Etiology & Maintenance• Homeostatic system, in which material & economic

conditions shape social arrangements which shape cognitive preferences

West EastGreek topology => less agricultural & more herding & fishing=>individualistic

Agriculturally based => substantial coordination with neighbors

Politically decentralized Politically centralized

Rule-based problem solving (12-step programs) Feng shui

Narrow career path Job rotationModulairty & division of laborChess GoMeetings for discussion & decision Meetings for ratificationConflict as persuasion tactic Conflict avoidance normsClassroom participation & challenging Lack of classroom participationArgument from principles & assumptions Less reliance on Western normative

rhetorical formsCodified laws & courtrooms Negotiations, not lawsContracts as agreements Contracts as negotiationsOne true religion Religious blendingBabies learn nouns Babies learn verbs

Origins

Homeostatis

2727

Evidence for Etiology: Context

• Compare present-day fisherman & farmers (social) vs herders (individualistic)

• Herders were less accurate in the relative tas• Farmers and fishermen were less accurate in the absolute task

than were herders.

2828

Evidence for Etiology: Grouping

• Farmers and fishermen more often grouped objects on the basis of similarities and relationships

• Herders more often group based on categories.

2929

Evidence for Etiology: Grouping

• Farmers and fishermen more often grouped objects on the basis of holistic similarity

• Herders more often group based single rule (straight stem)

3030

Cramton & Hinds (2009): The dialectical struggle to resolve cross-national differences

Global cultural differences are the surround for differences (& reactions) all the way down

3131

Reactions to differences

• Cultural & organizational mismatches cause problems

• These mismatches aren’t stable• Individuals & managers on one side react to

mitigate or work around the differences• These changes may consolidate in changed

organizational policy• The other side may react to the initial reactions

3232

Research sites

•Global software engineering firm•Two years of observation

3333

The difference a low-power distance orientation makes

• Power orientation: US (40)=Germany (35) is lower than India (77) • US & Germany care less about hierarchical differences than Indians

• US & Germany are meritocracies

• Software developers in US & Germany are in less demand than in India

In India, lots of concern about one’s own hierarchical position vis a vis others

In US, relatively equality between engineer & supervisor• “Before the program manager can be worth anything to the

team, he or she must be thoroughly disabused of the notion that he or she has any direct control. Fortunately, in the healthy team, no one needs to take any special steps to see that this happens: the program manager's teammates will quickly disabuse him or her of any delusions of control that he or she may be harboring"

3434

Tensions in exercise of authority & reward

Start w. western individual contributor model.

High Indian turnover

Communication goes thru unofficial Indian liaison; Monitoring Liaison-role

institutionalized

Western managers don’t get enough control; Indian workers don’t get enough face-time with western bosses

Matrix management rejected as cumbersome

3535

Quotes• Problems with western management

• I made a very bad experience. I gave the development of one topic, big topic, to Bangalore and … guys all told me, "Yes, no problem. I will do this. I’m able to do this. And he started on this issue…And somewheres, oh, about 70 percent of the time, I went back to the guy and asked him, "And now your thing should be finished for testing to show it to me. He said, "Yes, I’m ready. I finished." Then I made some very first testings and I think nothing was done. So I think it was my fault, I should have monitored him, this guy, much more often in much more detail what I didn’t done before… I don’t come up to this guy maybe on a daily base to ask him, "How far are you already or do you have problems?“

• Westerners do more monitoring• If I give a task to India, I have to make a clear

monitoring. So this means day by day, I have to ask them, "How are you? What’s the process? Have you finished? Have you problems? And so on. This must be done.

• Appoint Indian coordinators• I’m not able to monitor each task from another

location … And in some cultures maybe you have to do this. So I think… it was the right decision to have one manager onsite who is the human resource manager, and then in addition he is also working on the…is also responsible for the project

• Dissatisfaction with Indian coordinators as impeding communication

• Indian coordinator: “We don’t want the developers directly talking to people over there (in the U.S.) because then it’s a multi-way channel and we don’t know what’s happening. So we want to keep the channel of communications very clear.”

• Encourage decentralization & empowerment• It was…a counterpart in India with same (ideas

about) freedom…The team members…will take the responsibilities if you will let them…It was a new manager and it was very important for us to fix, to find a manager who is working in this way.

• Indian managers don’t want to give up control• Indian coordinator to Indian developer: “Don’t

spend a lot of time trying to understand something on your own.” .

3636

Tensions in project control

Start w. western project management.

Indians weren’t working unless monitored, Didn’t provide warnings if project was derailed

Western managermonitor more frequently

Indian coordinator

Western managers don’t get enough control; Indian workers don’t get enough face-time with western bosses

Matrix management rejected as cumbersome