Teams in organization chapter 13 [english]

Teams in
Organization
1. Fena Levina (1724090209)
2. Luthfia Kholilatun (1724090180)
3. Rizka Annisa (1724090185)
4. Salsabila Damayanti
(1724090161)
5. Syifa Delia Aribah (1724090053)
6. Adelya Putri Damayanti
(1724090093)
7. Dinda Miradz (1724090199)
8. Aurellya Marizky (1724090182)
9. Jenifer Friska (1924090199)
10. Amertannio Tondy Abibi
(1924090245)
11.Armen Ibrahim (1924090216)
12.Achmad Zaky Fauzan (1924090248)

Kurt recently completed a graduate program inI‐O psychology and was hired by a consultingfirm as
an entry‐level organizational consultant. He has been assigned to a project team consisting of
fellow consultants from different international consulting firm, with the team’s objectives is to
develop a new software product for a longtime client. None of his teammates live in the United
States and, for many of his teammates, English is not their first language. By to it there is
possibility of the geographical, cultural, and language barriers will prevent the team from achieving
its objectives. He also has some reservations about the need for using a team for this project
insteadof simply havingindividuals provide separate inputsto a project leader.
I-O (Industrial-organizational) psychology is the branch of
psychology that applies psychological theories and principles to
organizations. Often referred to as I-O psychology, this field
focuses on increasing workplace productivity and related issues
such as the physical and mental well-being of employees.
I‐O psychology researchers and practitioners
have studied a variety of team‐related issues
(e.g., team composition, selection, training,
communication)
*These issues will continue to be of interest to I‐Opsychologists, managers, and employeesworking inteams
Amertannio Tondy Abibi (1924090245)

M o h r m a n , S . A . , C o h e n , S . G . , & M o h r m a n , A . M . , J r . ( 1 9 9 5 ) s u g g e s t e d s e v e r a l
r e a s o n s f o r t h e i n c r e a s i n g u s e o f t e a m s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s :
1. Time is saved if work usually performed sequentially by individuals can be performed concurrently
by people working in teams.
2. Innovation and creativity are promoted because of cross‐fertilization of ideas.
3. Teams can integrate information in ways that an individual cannot.
4. Teams enable organizations to quickly and effectively develop and deliver products and services
while retaining high quality.
5. Teams enable organizations to learn and retain learning more effectively.
The use of teams in organizations presents both opportunities and challenges to managers and I-O
psychologists. Example; the increase in team-based work provides I-O psychologists with opportunities
to explore whether personality measures are beneficial for selecting employees who will work well in
teams.

● In2013, I‐O psychologist EduardoSalasandcolleagues were awardeda grant towork with
the NationalAeronauticsandSpace Administration(NASA) tohelpselect and trainteams
for a missionto Mars.The increaseduse of teamspresentschallengeshavingto do with
team composition, trainingfor teams, the motivationof teams, andthe evaluationof team
performance.
Salas noted that the selection of team members for such a mission is critical
because “it’s not like someone can leave if they don’t get along” (Novotny, 2013, p.
38).
Differences among team members in cultural values can also create difficulties in
managing team interactions and processes (Smith, Bond, & Kagitcibasi, 2006).
The growing use of virtual teams increases the challenge of team coordination and
highlights the need for enhanced communication and trust‐building through electronic and
social media, including e‐mails, texts, and videoconferences (Noe, 2010; Tannenbaum,
Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012).

Historically, groups have been distinguished from teams. Groups include members who may work together or may just
share some resources, but teams always include members whose tasks are interdependent. Moreover, research on
groups hastraditionallybeen conducted bysocialpsychologistsstudyinggroupprocessesinlaboratorysettings.
● In recentyears, I-O psychologistshave distinguishedbetweengroupsandteamslessthantheypreviouslydid
(Sundstrom,McIntyre, Halfhill, &Richards, 2000).
● Guzzo(1995) notedthat groupsandteamshave toomuch in common to make any granddistinction.Thus,the
terms“group”and “team” are increasinglybeingusedinterchangeably.
Team
An interdependent collection of individuals who work together toward a common goal and who share
responsibilityforspecificoutcomes fortheirorganizations(Sundstrom,DeMeuse,&Futrell,1990)
Examplesofteamsinclude assemblyteams;
Management teams, emergency medical service and rescue teams, firefighter teams, surgery teams,
military teams, string quartets,androck groups
1. Group and Teams: Definitions

A quality circle or quality control circle
is a group of workers who do the same
or similar work, who meet regularly to
identify, analyze and solve work
relatedproblems
A. QUALITY CIRCLES
It consists of minimum three and maximum
twelve members in number. Normally small
in size, the group is usually led by a
supervisor or manager.
Quality circles were at their most popular
during the 1980s, but continue to exist in
the form of Kaizen groups and similar
worker participation schemes.
Fena Levina (1724090209)
2. Types of Teams

This phenomenon has been
called the “honeymoon
effect” in quality circles.
Members of quality circles, however, are not given
formal authority. Instead, they seek to have their
ideas and solutions adopted and implemented by
management. Research evidence has been mixed
for quality circles.
The honeymoon effect has been attributed to
the fact that initial suggestions for
improvements are often fairly easy and clear,
and they have a favorable impact on the
bottom line if they are adopted.
This lower success rate over time leads to a
decrease in the positive attitudes that
accompanied initial gains resulting from quality
circle suggestions. This honeymoon effect may
account for the decreasing popularity of quality
circles in many U.S. organizations

B. PROJECT TEAMS
Team that is created to
solve a particular problem
or set of problems
Team members must work
together quickly and
creatively to come up with
solutions
Project teams often have
clear deadlines
Project teams that were given
slack time and decision‐making
autonomy were able to more
effectively gather relevant
information
Raise some organizational
challenges because, although
team members still belong to
their functional units, and their
managers decide on promotions,
they must fulfill other roles and
expectations on the team.
Were able to complete
more high‐quality
projects

C. PRODUCTION TEAMS
03Is A Team that consists of
frontline employees who
produce tangible output.
Specific kindof production
team that has controlover a
variety of functions.
maintenance crews, candy
production crews, automotive
parts manufacturingteams,
coalminingcrews, electronic
assembly teams, and
wood‐harvestingteams.
What is Production
Teams?
What is Autonomous
Work Group?
Types of
Production Teams
02
01
04 Planningshift operations, allocating
work, determiningwork priorities,
performinga variety of work tasks,
andrecommendingnew hiresas
work groupmembers.
What are The
Functions?

● A virtual team typically has widely dispersed members
working together toward a common goal and linked
through computers and other technology such as the
telephone, videoconferencing, and team support software
(Cohen & Alonso, 2013; Joinson, 2002).
D. VIRTUAL TEAMS
An additional advantage of a virtual team can be
the exchange of different perspectives among
team members. Members of virtual teams may be
in different geographic locations within a single
country, but given the global economy, the
emergence of e‐commerce, and the growth in
mergers and acquisitions, virtual teams are
increasingly likely to include members from various
parts of the world
Salsabila Damayanti (1724090161)

Some virtual teams may meet in person on a regular basis, but in many
virtual teams members rarely, if ever, meet in person. Nevertheless, Cascio
(2000b) noted several advantages for organizations that use virtual teams:
ONE
Expanding labor markets by
allowing firms to recruit and
retain the best employees
regardless of their physical
location
THREE
TWO FOUR
Having the opportunity
to assign employees to
multiple teams at the
same time.
Servingtimeand
travelexpenses
Providingincreased
accesstoexperts
01 02 03 04

In these organizations, virtual teams enjoyed top management
support and operated in a culture where virtual team training was
viewed as a high priority and as an investment in the organization.
Rosen, Furst, and Blackburn (2006)
surveyed over 400 training and
development professionals in
investigating the training that is
currently used for virtual teams. They
found that although the use of virtual
teams is expected to increase in many
organizations, few organizations have
developed meaningful training
programs forvirtual teams.

• Trust is also a critical
concern in virtual teams.
Because of the absence of
face‐to‐face interactions,
virtual teams must develop a
“gel” or sense of belonging
that provides the basis for
information exchange and
collaborative work (Avolio et
al., 2001; Robert, Dennis, &
Hung, 2009).
Cascio (2000b) noted that
increased trust and a shared
sense of belonging result when
virtual team members exhibit
virtual‐collaboration
behaviors,virtual‐socialization
skills, and virtual
communication skills.

Virtual‐collaboration behaviors. Behaviors that characterize virtual team
interactions, including exchanging ideas without criticism, agreeing on
responsibilities, and meeting deadlines.
Virtual‐socialization skills. Skills used in virtual team interactions, including
soliciting team members,feedback on the work process used to accomplish team
goals, expressing appreciation for ideas and completed tasks, and apologizing for
mistakes
Virtual‐communication skills. Skills used in virtual team interactions, including
rephrasing unclear sentences or expressions so that all team members understand
what is being said, acknowledging the receipt of messages, and responding within
one business day.

More generally, an understanding of the problems that are relevant to all teams is
helpful in managing virtual teams (Cascio, 2000b).
For example, team leaders should provide clear roles and responsibilities, clarify
how decisions will be made, and explain the extent to which team members will
share responsibility for implementing the team’s decisions. Virtual team
leadership is also critical in ensuring that team members maintain regular
communication and interaction despite the geographic separation (Hambley,
O’Neill, & Kline, 2007; Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007).

2.
INPUT-PROCESS-
OUTPUT MODEL
OF TEAMS

● The input–process–output model of team effectiveness provides a way to
understand how teams perform and how to maximize their performance.
Almost every team effectiveness model developed over the past 25 years
uses some form of the input–process– output model (Cohen & Bailey,
1997; Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Inputs include the organizational context, the
team task, and team composition. Team processes include norms,
communication, coordination, cohesiveness, and decision making
(LePiInputne, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). Team outputs
include productivity, innovativeness, and team member well‐being.
Achmad Zaky Fauzan (1924090248)
1. Team Input

● The organizational context—which includes the rewards system, the training
system, the physical environment, managerial support, and technology—is
important to team performance. These contextual influences enhance team
interactions and increase team effectiveness by providing resources needed
for the performance and continued functioning of the work team. Gladstein
(1984) found, for example, that external organizational variables such as
market growth were positively related to team sales revenues. Research by
Goodman (1986) in coal mines found that technology and other contextual
variables directly affect team processes and performance, and they should be
included in models of team effectiveness.
A. ORGANIZATION CONTEXT

● Team performance depends on the task that the team is required to perform. A
widely cited way to categorize or classify tasks is the job characteristics approach
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Job characteristics theory was developed as a way to
understand how jobs motivate individuals, but it can be applied to teams as well.
Viewed from the team perspective, job characteristics theory suggests that team
members are motivated by tasks that require a variety of skills, provide considerable
autonomy, are meaningful and important, and provide performance feedback
(Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992; Hackman, 1987). Research has indicated that the job
characteristics approach successfully predicts performance in a variety of teams,
including management teams, clerical and administrative support teams, and teams
of professionals (Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
B. TEAM TASK

● Team composition refers to the attributesof team
members, including skills, abilities, experiences,
and personality characteristics (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996). Stevens and Campion (1994) sought to
determine the knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA)
requirements for teamwork. Their focus was on
team KSAs rather than technical KSAs and on
selecting individuals who would work well in a
team rather than individuals who would
complement anexistingteam.
C. TEAM COMPOSITION
Stevens and Campion suggested that the high
correlation may have resulted in part because
the Teamwork Test is in a paper‐and‐pencil
format that required some problem solving,
reading ability, and verbal skills, all of which
overlap with the abilities required in tradi-
tional cognitive ability tests. Nevertheless,
across the two samples, they found that the
Teamwork Test significantly predicted
teamwork performance and overall
performance even after controlling for the
influence of cognitive ability.
Luthfia Kholilatun (1724090180)

● Milliken and Martins (1996) noted that although it often provokes
intense emotional reactions because of its association with
affirmative action and hiring quotas, the term “diversity” simply
refers to differences or variety. Such differences among team
members come in a variety of forms. Researchers studying diversity
in teams often distinguish between demographic diversity and
psychological diversity. Demographic diversity refers to differences
in observable attributes or demographic characteristics such as age,
gender, and ethnicity. Psychological diversity refers to differences
in underlying attributes such as skills, abilities, personality
characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and values. Psychological diversity
may also include functional, occupational, and educational
backgrounds.
D. TEAM DIVERSITY

● Researchers have also investigated the effects of
psychological diversity on individual and team outcomes.
Psychological diversity among team members increases the
pool of knowledge and skills available for completing team
tasks. Thus, for idea‐generation and decision‐making tasks,
heterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous teams,
which is likely due to the team members bringing a greater
variety of perspectives to bear on the tasks (Magjuka &
Baldwin,1991). In essence, diversity helps the team develop
more innovative and creative solutions.
Overall, the research in this area indicates that diversity is a double‐edged sword that
provides great challenges and great opportunities for teams and organizations (Jackson
& Joshi, 2004). The challenges stem partly from the fact that diversity comes in many
forms. The opportunities provided by diverse teams stem from their ability to develop
more innovative and creative solutions than homogeneous teams.

• Specifically, the relationship
between the teamwork
processes and team
performance was stronger
when team interdependence
and team size were larger. In
the next few sections, we
describe some of these critical
team processes.
➢ LePine and colleagues recently
conducted a comprehensive
meta-analysis of team processes
(cohesion, communication,
coordination, conflict
management) and found that they
have positive relationships with
team performance and team
member satisfaction.
2. Team Process
Dinda Fath Nisa A. Miradz 1724090199

Norms may regulate a variety of behaviors and
customs, including unethical behavior, dress code,
and the punctuality with which meetings and the
workday begin and end. However, the most common
norm relates to the productivity of team members.
In contrast to organizational policies that specify formal rules and
regulations, norms are the informal and sometimes unspoken rules
that teams adopt to regulate member behavior.
A. NORMS
Norms are likely to develop in several different
ways: through explicit statements by team members,
as carryover behaviors from past situations, or from
the first behavior pattern that emerges in the team.
A great deal of research has shown that norms have
an important impact on conformity, team decision
making, and team performance (Forsyth, 2009). In
addition, research suggests that norms can have an
impact on organi-zational citizenship behaviors in
teams.

Well-coordinated team members can obtain information from other team members
when needed and move easily from one task to another. Effective groups are able
to minimize coordination losses, which occur when team members expend their
energies in different directions or fail to synchronize their work on time-critical
tasks.
Involves the transmission of information from one team member to another in a
common language. Good communication across team members is important in nearly
all teams, but it is particularly necessary with teams whose tasks are highly
interdependent and dynamic.
B. COMMUNICATIONAND COORDINATION
Communication?
Coordination?

Social loafing occurs when reduced feeling so findividual accountability result in reduced motivation
and performance in groups (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Workers are also motivated to engage in
social loafing when they believe that their behavior is not being monitored, which occurs more frequently in
large work groups (Jones, 1984).
✓Social loafing is not inevitable when people work together. Shepperd’s (1993) review of
productivity loss in groups indicated that one way to remedy low productivity is to make individual
contributions indispensable in achieving desired group outcomes.
Shepperd suggested at least four ways to do this:
(1) Increase the difficulty of the task
(2) increase the uniqueness of individual contributions,
(3) lead individuals to infer that attaining the collective good depends on their personal contributions
(4) directly instruct individuals
Based on extensive research on social loafing, these approaches are likely to improve group members
motivation and to increase overall group performance.

A meta-analysis by Mullen and Cooper (1994) found that
cohesion is associated with successful team
performance. Their study indicated that the
relationship between cohesion and team performance
occurs most consistently in project teams, which are
truly interdependent. A more recent and
comprehensive meta-analysis found that cohesion is
positively related to both task performance and
organizational citizenshipbehavior
Cohesion, is the degree to which team members desire
to remain in the team and are committed to the team
goal. Highly cohesive teams are characterized by
stability, pride in the team, feelings of unity and satis-
faction that hold the team together, strong norms, and
pressure for conformity. Thus, highly cohesive teams
have more power over their members than teams with
low cohesion (Goodman etal., 1987)
C.
COHESION
Adelya Putri Damayanti (1724090093)

Groupthink isa specific example of group polarization, which is the tendency for groups
to make decisions that are more extreme than those made by individuals. Researchers
originally found that groups tended to make more risky decisionsthan individuals. Thus,
group polarization can involve either more cautious or more risky shifts in judgement
following group discussion when compared to the average of individual judgements
made prior to discussion (Bettenhausen.1991).
Team decision making occurs through defining the problem, gathering information,
discussing and evaluating alternatives, and deciding collaboratively on the appropriate
course of action. Groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are
deeply involved in a cohesive group and when their desire for agreement overrides
their motivation toappraisealternative coursesof actionrealistically (Janis, 1982).
D. DECISION MAKING
Groupthink is also more likely when groups use defective decision-making strategies, such
as considering only extreme alternatives, failing to develop contingency plans, and losing
sight of overall objectives. To prevent groupthink, it is helpful for group members to solicit
many different views and to consider a wide diversity of perspectives and alternative
courses of action.

• Team outputs can be divided into
several important areas, including
team performance, team innovation,
and team member well‐being
(Brodbeck, 1996).
• Miron, Erez, and Naveh (2004)
found that the highest levels of
innovation result from having team
members who are creative as well
as an organizational culture that
supports innovation.
Aurellya Marizky (1724090182)

A primary reason for
implementing teams is to
increase innovation in the
organization (Axtell, Holman,
& Wall, 2006).
In addition, teams and organizations whose goals or objectives relate
to innovation are likely to produce more novel and creative ideas and
products than teams without clear inovation goals.
Specifically, for some
cognitive and
decision‐making tasks the
best individual often
outperforms an interacting
group (Gigone & Hastie,
1997).
Several studies have
demonstrated that team
member diversity leads to more
creative team decision making
(e.g., Jackson, 1996).

• As we might have expected, research to date
indicates that positive interactions in teams
contribute to higher team member
satisfaction and well‐being.
• Another team output that I‐O psychologists have
studied is team member well‐being and satisfaction.
First, some evidence indicates that the implementation
of autonomous work groups has a positive effect on
group members’ job satisfaction.

• Scott and Einstein
(2001) suggested that
performance appraisal
systems that assess team‐
level outcomes should
provide the team with the
information it needs to
identify team problems and
further develop team
capabilities
• Waldman (1997)
found that most employees
working in teams tend to
favor team‐based
performance appraisal, the
one exception being that
individuals with a high need
for achievement still prefer
individual performance
appraisals.
1. Team Apprasial and Feedback
Syifa Delia Aribah (1724090053)

Allstate Insurance and Hewlett‐Packard are
among several other organizations that have
developed strategic team‐based performance
appraisal systems that increase the likelihood of
teams contributing positively to organizational
effectiveness.
Conducting team performance evaluations and providing feedback to teams,
rather than to individuals, presents new challenges to managers in
organizations:
1. Team‐level eval- uation and feedback are new to most
organizations.
2. Teams differ in their roles and responsibilities, and developing
appraisal systems that assess performance over a wide
variety of teams may be difficult.

Gladstein (1984) found that team ratings of
process variables such as communication
and supportiveness were positively
associated with group ratings of
satisfaction and performance (judgmental
measures) but were unrelated to actual
sales revenue (objective measures). Thus,
it is best to use multiple indicators to
develop the most complete understanding
of which team inputs and processes relate
to team outcomes.
❖ In evaluating team
performance, it is important to
exercise care in specifying team
objectives, which should be linked to
an organization’s mission and
strategy.
For example, a cross‐functional product
development team might be assessed on the
number of products brought to market in a
particular time period. More generally,
assessment of team performance may come
from direct measures of team output, measures
of the quality of team products, and 360‐degree
assessment of the team’s performance from
the team manager and both internal and
external customers (Reilly & McGourty, 1998).

ProMES has been used with
many different kinds of teams,
including assembly‐line work
teams, manufacturing teams,
maintenance teams, bank
employees, painters, and
customer service technicians.
ProMES is a motivational
approach that helps maximize
motivation by focusing team
members on how to allocate
time and effort devoted to
various tasks.
A. PROMES

Several studies have tested Belbin’s
hypotheses regarding team‐role balance and
team performance. Senior (1997) examined 11
teams from a mixture of private and public
organizations. She found a positive
correlation between team‐role balance and
team performance, indicating support for the
link Belbin made between team‐role balance
andteam performance.
Belbin’s (1981, 1993) team‐role theory is used by
organizations and management consultants in
Europe and Australia to assess and develop teams.
Belbin proposed that effective teams contain a
combination of individuals capable of working in
various team roles. Belbin’s team‐role theory
suggests that teams that are balanced in terms of the
roles represented among their members will have the
highest performance
2. Team Roles
Rizka Annisa (1724090185)

In studying team roles, Fisher, Hunter, and Macrosson (2001) examined 338
individuals working in 55 teams. Their results were not supportive of Belbin’s
specific team roles, but the data did fit easily into a Big Five personality
framework. Mathieu and colleagues (2015) identified six different team roles
using a new measure that assessed Team Role Experience and Orientation
(TREO) dimensions. They found that team member’s previous experiences can
be used to predict which of the six roles they might occupy on the team. They
demonstrated that TREO dimensions are distinct from, but related to, Big Five
personality measures.

They demonstrated the validity of this test
in predicting team member performance in
student and work settings. We look forward
to further investigations of the validity of
Belbin’s team‐role theory, the Team Role
Experience and Orientation (TREO)
dimensions, and the Team Role Test.
Mumford, Van Iddekinge, Morgeson, and
Campion (2008) surveyed the team‐role
literature and developed a
comprehensive model of relevant roles in
a team context. Based on this model, they
developed a situational judgment test
that assessed team‐role knowledge
called theTeam Role Test.

Most models of group
development include five
stages (Forsyth, 2014; Tuckman
& Jensen, 1977), which are
known as forming (orientation),
storming (conflict), norming
(structure), performing (work),
and adjourning (dissolution).
Team development refers to changes
in teams as they develop over time.
Research and theory on team
development offers general ideas
about the progression of teams but no
definitive answers on the
development of all teams. First, nearly
all team development literature
assumes that teams are not ready to
perform effectively when they are
formed (Guzzo & Shea, 1992).
3. Team Development

Some research suggests that developmental stages occur in the same
order for all groups. However, much of this work has been done in the
laboratory and may not necessarily generalize to work teams. Some
studies of teams in organizational settings indicate that some teams do
not proceed through each of the five developmental stages.
All teams have to deal with developmental issues, but the order and necessity of
each stage depends on the type of team and the organizational context (McGrath
& O’Connor, 1996). Additional work on how teams develop over time and across
levels of analysis (individual, dyadic, team) is being conducted by Steve
Kozlowski and colleagues (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2008).

● Team training, which involves coordinating the
performance of individuals working together to
achieve common goals, is often critical to the team's
effectiveness (Noe, 2010). Like individual training,
team training should be sorted according to the
complexity of the task. In addition, team training
should be given to the team as an entire unit, and it
should include systematic procedures for providing
feedback to trainees as they learn team skills.
Together, these strategies increase the likelihood
that teams willwork effectively toachieve their goals.
4. Team Training
Armen Ibrahim (1924090216)

Four approaches are often used in team training:
Guided Team
Self-correction
Training
Cross- Training
Team
Coordination
Training
Team Leader
Training

● Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) work on culture and values has direct implications for
teams composed of members from different cultures. Recall that he discussed
five primary dimensions on which countries differ: individualism–collectivism,
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity–femininity, and long‐term
versus short‐term orientation. Differences among team members in these
culturalvalues caninfluenceteaminteractions andperformance
5. Cultural Issues in Teams
For example, organizations in individualistic cultures such as the United States and The United
Kingdom may have difficulty using or moving to team-based work arrangements because
employees from these countries are most comfortable thinking in terms of individual
achievement and individual accountability. In addition, according to Hofstede's results (1984),
the United States was the most individualistic country out of 53 assessed. Given this and
thefact that most of the research on the team has been conducted in the United States, team
processes tend to differ in less individualistic countries than the United States.

● Cross‐cultural teams are likely to have members whose time horizons differ, making team
communication and decision making more challenging. Differences in time horizon may lead team
members to perceive scheduling, goal setting, and deadlines very differently (Waller, Conte,
Gibson, & Carpenter, 2001). These differences are likely to become sources of miscommunication
and conflict for team members trying to develop time lines and meet deadlines. In the global
workplace, teams will increasingly be composed of individuals from cultures with different
perspectives on time, which are likely to influence team interactions and performance. Members
of multinational teams are likely to differ in terms of both culture and their preferred language,
which can lead to communication and coordination problems. Accordingly, cross‐cultural training
and team training are needed to maximize the effectiveness of multinational teams. Overall,
cultural issuesinteamswill continue topresentboth challenges andopportunities.

Teams in organization chapter 13 [english]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Teams in organization chapter 13 [english]

Similar to Teams in organization chapter 13 [english] (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Teams in organization chapter 13 [english]