‘Constructing the Team’ – A multi-cultural experience

Steele J L 1 and Murray MAP 2

(1) AMEC Capital Projects on secondment to Department of Civil and Building Engineering,
Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU – [email protected]
(2) AMEC Capital Projects, Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire, CV37 9NJ.

There is an increasing trend towards design teams comprising individuals from

several countries. These cross-cultural collaborations have the potential to produce
more innovative and higher quality solutions than may be offered by mono-
cultural work groups. However, a common understanding of cultural values must
be attained if a multi-cultural team is to function effectively, as a lack of sympathy
to cultural differences can result in the raising of barriers that can inhibit effective
teamwork and ultimately result in a confrontational environment. Orchestrated
training events have been shown to be very useful in overcoming this problem.

This paper describes such an event, which was driven by the creation of an Anglo-
American design team to design a £100M+ pharmaceutical laboratory. The
organisation, facilitation, and outcomes of the workshop are discussed in relation
to issues of cultural diversity and interdisciplinary working.

This paper will be of interest to clients and project teams planning a cross-cultural
collaborative design project and organisations looking to become part of a Joint
Venture with overseas partners.

Introduction
Business organisations have recently discovered that the subject of intercultural
communication must be considered seriously, not only because they are dealing with an
increasing number of foreign clients but also because more and more alliances are being
formed with organisations based in other countries (Limaye and Victor 1995). Collaboration
between internationally dispersed organisations is becoming commonplace in the
contemporary business environment and it is now generally recognised that the purely
national business – one which employs, buys from, and sells to, people of only one nationality
– is an endangered species that no one is likely to preserve (Barnard 1995). Cultural diversity
in the global economy is now a reality as most nations and many multi-national companies
have international facilities and do business on a global basis (Harris and Moran 1987). Thus,
Multi-national businesses are now recognising that the key to success in this global
marketplace rests in the development and prevalence of cross-cultural workgroups. Indeed,
any organisation instigating international business relations must recognise that people of
differing cultural backgrounds must work together and as a result both temporary and
permanent cross-cultural work groups will be formed (Granrose and Oskamp 1997).

Common understanding of cultural values must be attained if a multi-national team is to work

effectively as a lack of sympathy to cultural differences can result in the raising of barriers
that can inhibit effective teamwork and ultimately promote a confrontational environment
within the unit. It has been shown that the negative effects on performance resulting from an
adversarial atmosphere within a work group can be both extensive and far reaching (Austin,
Steele, MacMillan, Kirby, Spence 1999). As such, the ability of a team to succeed in a Multi-
cultural environment will depend upon its member’s skills and abilities as inter-cultural
communicators (Samovar and Porter 1995) as much as their ability to work effectively as
complimentary components of an interdisciplinary unit.

Kolb and Fry (1975) suggest that culture, and indeed nationality, can be related to important
aspects of socialisation such as family, school, work and ultimately, learning style. However,
the word culture in itself is a little too elusive to define absolutely (Limaye and Victor 1995).
The fact that Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) identify in excess of one hundred definitions of
the term - e.g. The collective programming of the mind; a system of shared values and beliefs,
the way in which a group of people solves problems - only serves to accentuate the debate
surrounding the concept of culture. For the purposes of this paper the definition provided by
Barnard (1995) will be utilised:

‘An individual way of perceiving and responding to the world made up of values, beliefs,
attitudes and pre-conceptions which themselves result from the effect on our individual minds
of the sum-total of our influences and experiences’.

The important factor to remember is that the prosperity of an ever-increasing number of

organisations is dependent upon the successful collaboration between nations with very
different cultural backgrounds. As such, more and more projects will require the services of
multi-cultural interdisciplinary teams.

Multi-cultural team working

According to Granrose and Oskamp (1997), ‘Multi-national teams offer the potential for more
innovative and higher quality solutions to global business problems than do mono-cultural
teams’. This owes much to the fact that effective Multi-cultural teams develop synergistic
approaches to their work by integrating and building upon the different perspectives brought
by their individual members (Maznevski and Peterson 1997). These individual perspectives,
which arise from the processes and out-come of cross-cultural group working, can be both
highly creative and innovative as the team benefits from an increased diversity in knowledge
and understanding. However, it is important to recognise that a lack of awareness of, and
sensitivity to, differences in culture, working practices and aspirations (Barnard 1995) can
also have negative effects on almost every aspect of business life within a multi-national
business venture. For a group of individuals from a variety of nations to work effectively as a
team, each individual must have not only a specialist discipline, but also be an effective
intercultural communicator and negotiator, promote cultural synergy (Harris and Moran 1987)
and strive for shared understanding within the unit.

Facilitating effective cross-cultural inter-disciplinary working

With today’s IT capabilities it is not unreasonable to suggest that a team could be formed, and
a project completed, in a virtual environment without the individual members of that team
ever having to leave their respective offices, let alone meet. However, people have no
automatic feeling of goodwill toward one another without meeting face-to-face (Barnard
1995). As such, the part played by goodwill in successful communication should never be
underestimated - although it very often is. However, it is asking a great deal of individuals to
expect them to build equanimity with someone they have never met, let alone expect them to
externalise and align their cultural differences during the rigours and pressures of live
interdisciplinary working. Orchestrated training events can be very useful in overcoming
these problems.

Intercultural training events can help to predict difficulties that may arise during a multi-
cultural strategic alliance. Additionally, and possibly more importantly, they provide
opportunity for each individual involved to begin to recognise their own inabilities and
weaknesses in communication skills which will allow them to realise that what they may have
perceived originally as being obstinacy was actually only a failure to comprehend (Barnard
1995). Moreover, focused training events of this nature provide prime opportunity for team
building, as they enable team members to become familiar with one another in an informal
environment, thus generating the goodwill that may have remained unrealised had a wholly
virtual collaborative environment been established. This paper will describe such an event,
held in September 1999, which marked the first meeting of an Anglo-American JV between
the US based architectural practice, CUH2A, and the UK based design offices of the large
Multi-national Interdisciplinary organisation, AMEC. For the purposes of this strategic
collaboration, the amalgamated group was named: ‘International Design Associates’ (IDA).
The catalyst for this alliance was the client, who had worked with both companies on
previous projects and had envisaged many possible benefits from a strategic collaboration.
Although IDA was established solely for this project, it was recognised that success in this
venture could lead to repeat work and encourage a long-term relationship. After much
negotiation concerning location of the IDA offices, it was agreed that a neutral location would
be utilised, namely Centrepoint, London. This decision was taken in a bid to enhance the:

• Benefits gained from having an integrated design team based locally to the site.
• Integration of the designers into a more effective team.
• Feeling of unity within IDA (remove the concept of ‘them and us’)

Most importantly, it has been shown that distance has the effect of magnifying differences
between people (Barnard 1995). As such, it was felt that proximity would allow similarities
and differences to be revealed and shared, which would in turn lead to improved
collaboration.

The inter-cultural workshop

The two-day ‘Intercultural Workshop’ took place in the tranquil setting of Barnett Hill; a
quintessentially English country estate which, prior to becoming a management training and
conference centre, had been used as both a private residence and a ‘Red-Cross’ hospital. The
main aims of the workshop were to: i) explore the issues of team working from different
cultural perspectives; ii) provide the JV with a framework for understanding organisational
and cultural differences; and iii) establish and discuss mutual expectations and allay any
possible concerns. The workshop was led by Babel, an experienced language and culture
consultant and workshop facilitator, who has a background in both the pharmaceutical and
construction industries. The day was based around four key exercises: i) the card game; ii)
cultural debate; iii) force field analysis; and iv) the ‘prisoners dilemma’ type game. Of the
twenty-four participants who attended the event, twelve representing each organisation, only
six had had prior experience of cross-cultural working.

After some basic introductions, the facilitator gave a brief presentation in a bid to define culture. This
was followed by a short card game.

The card game

The participants divided into six teams of four. No verbal communication was allowed
between participants. Upon each table rested a pack of cards and a list of rules to the game
(based loosely on whist). Once read the rules were removed and the participants were asked
to play for five minutes, after which the player who had won the most hands had to leave the
group and proceed in a clockwise direction to the neighbouring table where the game would
begin again. However, unbeknown to the participants, each table had been designated a
different set of rules. These differences only came to light when a hand was claimed
incorrectly. The confusion that this generated was compounded by the fact that no verbal
communication was allowed. Only after becoming aware that differences in value existed
could the participants make these explicit, thus ensuring that the group functioned with a
common understanding. After 30-minutes of play and five rotations the facilitator outlined
several lessons to be learnt from the exercise:
• A culture can be particular to one group and not another
• Culture influences the behaviour of a group
• Cultures can hold different systems of value
• Cultures are learnt and are not hereditary, they are simply passed from one generation to
the next

The participants were then asked to discuss the exercise and outline issues that they felt could
help improve collaboration during the joint venture. A number of key issues were raised:

• Be aware that different cultures exist even if they are not recognised explicitly
• Communication between members of a group is vital
• Common understanding must be reached at the outset of a venture
• A standard set of rules (a framework) may help reduce misunderstandings during the JV
• Expect conflict to arise but ensure that it leads to positive actions and improved
understanding
• If no existing understanding/framework exists then a new one should be agreed for the
purposes of this JV

It was concluded that a common understanding of cultural values must be achieved within the
group to ensure effective and incident free working. This is an issue that has been recognised
previously by Barnard (1995).

The cultural debate – the layers of culture

In order to develop group understanding of the potential cultural inconsistencies within IDA,
the participants were asked to list, and provide examples of, known and perceived cultural
differences between the United Kingdom and the USA. A section of the generated list is
illustrated in table 1.

Cultural differences Examples

Behaviours Accents and language
Rules Driving: opposite sides of the road
Currency Pounds, Dollars, pence, cents
Interpretations/expectations Thermal comfort levels, wages
Tradition Holidays, foods, clothing
History Thousands Vs hundreds, of years
Religion Few religions, many religions
Professional codes/practices RIBA, AIA
Perceptions/Stereo-types Loud, outspoken - prudish, conservative

Table 1 Illustration of section of cultural differences table

All participants agreed that these issues were fairly explicit and could be recognised by the
majority of people. However, the facilitator suggested that these represented merely the
surface layer, i.e. the explicit culture, of a much more complex system; a model of which is
shown in figure 1. This model, which was developed by Trompenaars (1995), differentiates
between three layers of meaning within culture:
Explicit
The reality of a culture represented by the observable and symbolic issues. It is on this level
that stereotypes and prejudices are formed.

Norms and values

Norms are the mutual sense a group has of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. These can be
both informal and formal. Conversely, values determine how the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’
within that group are defined. In summary, ‘norms provide a feeling of how a culture should
behave, whereas values provide a feeling of how a culture aspires to behave’ (Trompenaars
1995).

Artefacts and products

Norms and values

Basic
assumptions
- implicit

- explicit

Figure 1 A model of culture (Trompenaars 1995)

Assumptions about existence

The deepest layer reflects the fact that culture is the result of a need to survive in a given
environment. Humans strive to develop ways of surviving more efficiently. Within time these
ways of being are undertaken subconsciously and are assumed, i.e. they become routine
responses to the environment in which that group has settled. Thus, cultural differences at this
level are extremely difficult to recognise as it is only by encountering a different set of
cultural assumptions that a group can understand that its own culture is not universal.

The major difficulties arising from cross-cultural working rest in the fact that culture is the
product of this innermost layer i.e. ‘a set of assumptions and deep-level values concerning
relationships among humans and between humans and their environment, shared by an
identifiable group of people’ (Kluckhohn Strodtbeck 1961, Maznevski and Destafano 1995,
Smith and Peterson 1995). It is a lack of adherence to, or acceptance of, the barriers raised by
making incorrect assumptions during cross-cultural working that can lead to dissatisfaction
within the work group and result in dysfunctional teams. However, the dynamism of this type
of exercise within the process of Multi-cultural collaboration has been shown to force an
immediate awareness of different viewpoints that would otherwise remain unrecognised
without externalisation (Maznevski and Peterson 1997) and result in improved integration and
understanding. In becoming aware of these differing viewpoints, the participants were able to
understand the difficulties that could arise during the JV, thus ensuring that these differences
could be recognised and taken into account during day-to-day interactions.

‘Force Field’ analysis

Humans will always have different viewpoints with regard to the most efficient and effective
ways of working. In team working it is important to externalise and share these different
perspectives, which generally manifest themselves in the form of individual concerns, in
order for them to be recognised and, ultimately, alleviated. In the context of this workshop
‘Force field’ analysis was utilised to achieve this.

Each individual was provided with a sheet of paper on which they were asked to write their
main concern for the IDA joint venture. Once written, the responses, which were entirely
anonymous, were screwed up and thrown into a large bin (This gesture was as much symbolic
of the throwing out of any concerns as it was a part of the proceedings). The participants then
divided into six teams, with each team taking four pieces of paper from the bin at random.

Main concern is… AMEC procedures will inhibit CUH2A creativity

Ideas Agree on new set of procedures
Utilise best of each companies procedures for JV
Generate set of procedures with client in mind
Allow IDA to operate different procedures internally
Ensure those outside of JV recognise that different procedures can be
operated
Eliminate any hidden agendas which may exist

Table 2 Example of a concern and ideas to address it

If a concern had originated from one of that team it was returned and another was chosen.
Once all concerns had been allocated, each team was asked to discuss its four issues and
brainstorm ideas for allaying them (See table 2 for example).

After completing this for all concerns the teams were asked to develop two themes from their
four issues and generate a list of the perceived positive and negative aspects of each. These
positives and negatives were then mapped onto force field diagrams (an example of which is
shown in figure 2).

The issues raised illustrate the connection between the implicit cultures (described in figure 2)
of the two collaborating organisations and the different stages of organisation growth and
development at which they function. CUH2A, being relatively young in terms of
organisational growth, perceived themselves as being highly entrepreneurial and enterprising.
The organisational culture, which is a direct result of the firm’s size and early stage of
growth, is one that does not require or, as a direct result of this, recognise administrative
procedure. Conversely, AMEC, a company which is entering its second cycle of
entrepreneurial growth after a period of consolidation, is a large organisation comprising
many productive and physical resources that have developed as a result of corporate growth.
The administrative structure of the firm, which has developed over time in response to
immediate needs to manage and organise an increasing resource base, binds the resources
together in rational framework, without which the firm could not function efficiently.

The fact that the firms are enterprising enough to have formed a strategic alliance in a bid to
achieve the shared ambition of making a profit illustrates that they are capable of growing.
However, any future growth of CUH2A will demand the development of organisational and
administrative structure, irrespective of whether it is developed haphazardly in response to
immediate needs or is shaped consciously, in order to improve efficiency (Penrose 1995) and
manageability. In this respect, the relatively young firm will have to show many of the same
characteristics of the mature firm in order to grow successfully. However, until recognised
through the use of ‘force field analysis’, this cultural diversity, which was merely the result of
the differences in the growth cycles of the firms, manifested itself in the form of a major
concern for the alliance.
 Figure 2 Force field diagram of balance between bureaucracy Vs creativity

The exercise in general allowed all participants to recognise and share the primary concerns
of all those involved in the JV and take initial steps toward addressing those issues. The
development of the force field diagrams allowed the teams to allay these concerns by
externalising the issues applicable to each concern, thus using recognition of the cons, as well
as the pros, in a positive way. Additionally, this served to promote and further enhance the
common understanding within the group.

‘Prisoners Dilemma’ type game

The start of day two saw the introduction of the final, and what the participants considered to
be the most rewarding, exercise of the workshop. It involved the playing of a ‘prisoners
dilemma’ type game. The delegates were divided into two teams, with each team being given
six blue cards, six red cards, and a joker. Six rounds were played in which each team played a
single card. The points awarded to each team were dependent on the combination of cards
played at each round. The decision of which card to play was made by handing the
appropriate card to a referee at the end of each ten-minute round. The teams were permitted to
meet and negotiate which card to play at the outset of each round. However, negotiation was
outlawed until after the first round had been played. The aim of the game was not to beat the
opposing sides score, but for both teams to score as many points as possible.

During the opening round each team decided to trust the other and play a red card first; a
combination that meant that both teams scored +1. This allowed the teams to convene and
generate a common strategy during the first negotiation period. During a brief negotiation
period the participants agreed to utilise a shared win-win strategy, after which they returned to
their respective teams to await the start of the second round. However, just prior to the
deadline for the playing of the second card one of the teams decided to renege on the
agreement. The reason for this was simple. One individual, who had isolated himself from the
teams discussions, had developed a strategy that would allow the teams to reach the
maximum possible achievable scores. In the short time that was left before the card was to be
played the team decided that the revised strategy should be applied, which involved playing a
different card to that which had been agreed, before informing the other team in the second
negotiation session.

Unfortunately, upon being advised of the outcome of the first round, the aggrieved team,
believing that their counterparts had acted aggressively, decided that they would gain
retribution. This resulted in a refusal to negotiate with the aggressors, which in turn meant
that the original strategy could not be employed. Ultimately, the miss understanding of one
team’s intentions and the ensuing lack of trust resulted in both teams ending the game with
negative scores. However, the team who had not changed strategy contented themselves by
managing to score less negatively than their counterparts. It was only after the game had
ended that explanations could be provided.

The aim of this objective, which was met very effectively, was to simulate the effect of
misinterpreted actions, while showing how these can be propagated if communication is lost.
In a mono-cultural team there should be little, if any, difficulty in understanding the meaning
of a statement. However, in a cross-cultural context, where different perceptions and values
are applied in stating and interpreting messages, serious problems can arise as ‘an inaccurate
interpretation of the real meaning of an action or utterance can cause damaging miss-
understandings’ (Mead 1990). This owes much to the fact that culture itself is intangible. Yet
it is the underlying basis of tangible actions, behaviours and activities which, if no common
understanding of cultural difference is held between members of the team, can be
misconstrued by others as being argumentative, aggressive or even insulting.

It is imperative that members of a working unit communicate with one another if they are to
work together effectively. A team can only reach a common understanding if they
communicate and understand one another’s perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and
values. This sharing enables individuals to become aware of the abilities and needs of the unit
in terms of both culture and personality. By communicating, members of the team can (Mead
1990):

• Exchange experiences
• Recognise common instincts
• Agree on immediate aims
• Negotiate strategies aimed at achieving these aims
• Implement and monitor these strategies

The outcome of this exercise reiterated some of the issues that had been raised by the first
exercise; most notably that it is important to have a common understanding within a new
environment. Additionally, several other key issues became apparent:

• The meaning of actions can easily be misconstrued.

• The misinterpretation of an action can result in the raising of barriers that will inhibit
effective teamwork.
• It is very difficult to rebuild trust between individuals.
• A lack of trust can lead to a lose-lose situation during collaborative working.
• It is important to focus on achieving shared goals, rather than individual objectives.

Conclusions:
Although the outcomes of cross-cultural group working can be both creative and beneficial,
poor organisation of work groups can lead to the benefits being left unrealised or the
outcomes being ‘destructively conflicted’ (Barnard 1995). In fact, lack of preparation of
multi-national teams can introduce challenges to effective group interaction that can on
occasion outweigh their potential advantages.

As became apparent during the course of the final exercise, the actions of one group can be
entirely misunderstood by the another. This suggests that if priorities of importance and
relevance are not made explicit and shared among team members from the outset, there is a
danger that messages will be both ambiguous when sent and misinterpreted once received
(Mead 1990). As such, poor organisation of cross-cultural team working will increase the
likelihood of misinterpretation and as a result, vitiate the effectiveness of the team.

It has been estimated that the failure of approximately 75% of cross-border JVs, mergers and
acquisitions can be attributed to cultural incompatibility (Barnard 1995). However, it is easy
for those involved in these alliances to attribute all difficulties to culture when many may
have nothing to do with it, being more the result of poor interdisciplinary working. This paper
has described the organisation and facilitation of a training event in the form of a workshop at
which counterparts met and shared what they themselves described as being an enjoyable and
highly rewarding experience. This event not only promoted team spirit within the group, but
also improved the participants understanding of the cultural differences that existed between
them. However, owing to the infancy of the JV it is difficult to draw any meaningful
conclusions with regard to the cultural differences that may exist between organisations,
disciplines and even individuals in everyday practice. Although these are without doubt
relevant issues, they are worthy of far greater discussion than can be afforded in this paper.
As such, a second event has now been scheduled at which these same participants will take
part in a ‘Designing together’ workshop (see Austin et al 1999, Steele, Macmillan, Austin,
Kirby, Spence 1999). This will allow the members of the JV to both reacquaint themselves
with one another and move toward developing improved interdisciplinary team working skills
while remaining sympathetic to the inherent cultural differences embedded within the
alliance. This event should provide the authors opportunity to not only assess the effects of
cross-cultural working in practice, but also to identify the effects of everyday diversity, such
as discipline, skill level, and education, and assess the respective impact of each on
collaborative design activity.

References:
Austin S, Steele J, MacMillan S, Kirby P, Spence R (1999). 'Using training workshops to map
interdisciplinary team working'. In ‘Proceedings of the Chartered Institute of Building
Services Engineers (CIBSE) National Conference 1999’. Harrogate, UK.

Barnard G (1995). ‘Cross-cultural communication – A practical guide’. Cassell, London, UK.

Granrose CS, Oskamp S (1997). ‘Cross-cultural workgroups: An Overview’. In ‘The

Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology’. Sage Publications.

Hayes J, Allinson CW (1995). ‘Cultural differences in the learning styles of managers’. In

Jackson T (ed.). ‘Cross cultural management’. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Oxford, UK.

Harris PR, Moran RT (1987). ‘Managing cultural differences’. Second Edition. Houston:
Gulf, 1987.

Kluckhohn FR, Strodtbeck FL (1961). ‘Variations in Value-orientations’. Evanston IL: Row,

Peterson.

Kolb DA, Fry R (1975). ‘Towards and applied theory of experimental learning’. In Cooper C
(ed.). ‘Theories of group processes’. Wiley & Sons, NY.
Kroeber AL, Kluckhohn C (1952). ‘A critical review of concepts and definitions’.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Limaye MR, Victor DA (1995). ‘Cross-cultural business communication research: State of

the art and hypotheses for the 1990’s’. In Jackson T (ed.). ‘Cross cultural management’.
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Oxford, UK.

Maznevski ML, Destefano JJ (1995). ‘Measuring culture in international management’. The

cultural perspectives questionnaire (Working paper 95-39). London, Canada: University of
Western Ontario, Western business school.

Maznevski M, Peterson MF (1997). ‘Societal values, Social interpretations, and Multi-

national teams’. In ‘The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology’. Sage
Publications.

Mead R (1990). ‘Cross-cultural management communication’. John Wiley and Sons,

Chichester, UK.

Penrose E (1995). ‘The theory of the growth of the firm – third edition’. Oxford University
Press, UK.

Samovar LA, Porter RE (1995). ‘Communication between cultures’. Wadsworth Publishing

Co. USA.

Smith DB, Peterson MF (1995). ‘Beyond value comparisons: Sources used to give meaning to
work events in 25 countries’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the academy of
management’. Vancouver, BC.

Steele J, Macmillan S, Austin S, Kirby P, Spence R (1999). ‘Interdisciplinary interaction

during concept design’. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Association of
Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM’99). Liverpool, UK.

Trompenaars F (1993). ‘Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in

business’. The Economist Books, London, UK.