A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2010) 26, 439—447

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n

A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity Gu ¨nter K. Stahl a,b,*, Kristiina Ma ¨kela ¨ c,1, Lena Zander d,2, Martha L. Maznevski e,3 a

Vienna University of Economics and Business, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77309 Fontainebleau Cedex, France c Hanken School of Economics, Perhonkatu 4b, PL 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland d Uppsala University, Box 513, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden e IMD — International Institute of Management Development, ch de Bellerive 23, CH-1001 Lausanne, Switzerland b

KEYWORDS Multicultural teams; Cultural diversity; Positive Organizational Scholarship; Creativity; Satisfaction; Communication; Team learning; Global integration

Summary Current research on multicultural teams tends to exhibit a bias towards studying the negative effects of team diversity more than the positive. This negative bias has limited our understanding of the conditions that promote the benefits of diversity and of the mechanisms that foster these benefits. In this article, we highlight a complementary perspective, namely the idea that cultural diversity and cultural differences can be an asset rather than a liability. This perspective has been present in the practitioner and anecdotal literature, but has thus far not received much rigorous research attention. Using a lens of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS), we draw upon recent research on cultural diversity in teams to explore the positive aspects of cross-cultural dynamics in teams and identify some of the processes underlying these effects in more rigorous ways, proposing a future research agenda. # 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Multicultural teams have been a central focus of research for many years in the international business context. With the rapid rise of multinational and even global interactions, the

* Corresponding author at: Vienna University of Economics and Business, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Tel.: +43 1 31336 4434/+33 0 16072 4177. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (G.K. Stahl), [email protected] (K. Ma ¨kela ¨), [email protected] (L. Zander), [email protected] (M.L. Maznevski). 1 Tel.: +358 40 559 3454. 2 Tel.: +46 18 471 1239. 3 Tel.: +41 21 618 03 68.

multicultural team — defined as a group of people from different cultures, with a joint deliverable for the organization or another stakeholder — has become both more common and more important. To enable high performance in international organizations, teams must first overcome the barriers inherent in the cultural differences — problems of communication, value incongruence, and other such obstacles. Then performance will follow. Practitioner and anecdotal accounts of multinational teams often paint a subtly different picture. They frequently begin with a frame of promoting the potential synergy effects stemming from cultural differences, while acknowledging the ‘‘dark side’’ of overcoming barriers. Managers are encouraged to use their different perspectives, leverage their various networks that are embedded in different contexts, and draw on the synergies arising from differences to enable innovation. This positive perspective seems useful for our endeavors towards increased team effectiveness — yet, it

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.009

440 is remarkably rare in rigorous theoretical and empirical research. Current theory and research in international and crosscultural management indeed tends to overemphasize problems and barriers instead of making room for aspects that potentially could enrich cultural encounters and interaction (Drogendijk & Zander, 2010).4 For example, the ‘‘cultural distance’’ hypothesis (e.g., Shenkar, 2001; Ward, 2003), in its most general form, proposes that the difficulties, costs, and risks associated with cross-cultural contact increase with growing cultural dissimilarity between two or more individuals, groups, or organizations. Barriers to performance have been explained in terms of concepts ‘‘cultural friction’’, ‘‘cultural incompatibility’’, ‘‘culture clash’’, ‘‘culture novelty’’ and ‘‘cultural risk’’, among others (e.g., Shenkar, Luo, & Yeheskel, 2008; Stahl & Voigt, 2008). These variables have been shown to be significantly and negatively related to foreign market entry (e.g., Harzing, 2004), cross-border transfer of knowledge (e.g., Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis, 2002), organizational learning across cultural barriers (e.g., Barkema, Bell, & Pennings, 1996), international mergers and alliances (e.g., David & Singh, 1994), and multinational teams (e.g., Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2004), to name a few. Associated research findings make it clear that cultural differences can pose barriers to performance, and leave managers in multinational teams and companies discouraged about their chances of achieving potential synergies. On the other hand, managers looking for research on how to realize the positive in multicultural teamwork — not just to overcome the negative — are faced with a real scarcity. Some scholars have highlighted potentially beneficial effects of cultural differences in various contexts: For example, there is some evidence that cultural differences can help firms engaged in cross-border alliances, mergers and acquisitions to develop unique and potentially valuable capabilities, and foster learning and innovation (Bjo ¨rkman, Stahl, & Vaara, 2007; Morosini, Shane, & Singh, 1998; Reus & Lamont, 2009; Vermeulen & Barkema, 2001), not just counterbalancing negative aspects of cultural differences but contributing positively to organizational outcomes. In the context of culturally diverse teams, mixed and often contradictory results have led researchers to conclude that diversity presents a ‘‘double-edged sword’’ or a ‘‘mixed blessing’’ (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998), in such a way that cultural differences among team members can be both an asset and a liability. Conceptual perspectives on the positive potential of such teams are emerging (e.g., Bachmann, 2006; Butler & Zander, 2008; Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006), but it is clear that we know

4 It is worth noting that we are not suggesting that the more traditional, problem-focused perspective on cultural diversity does not add value. On the contrary, it has been immensely helpful in highlighting some of the important dynamics in cross-cultural encounters. However, Cameron and Caza’s (2004) observation that ‘‘[t]o date,. . . the conscious examination of positive phenomena is vastly underrepresented in organizational science’’ (p. 733), seems to aptly characterize current theory and research in international and cross-cultural management, and thus a complementary positive focus is called forth.

G.K. Stahl et al. much less about the positive dynamics and outcomes associated with cultural diversity than we know about the problems and obstacles caused by cultural differences (Brickson, 2008; Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). In this article, we seek to address this research gap between the dominant negative problem-focused perspective and a more positive opportunities-focused one, by exploring the positive aspects of cross-cultural team dynamics and identifying some of the processes underlying these effects. In what follows, we first give a brief explanation for why there is a dominant negative perspective concerning cultural diversity in teams. We then introduce the lens of ‘‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’’, which we use to unpack the positive aspects of cross-cultural dynamics by specifying the key mechanisms, conditions, and processes through which diversity may enhance team outcomes. We focus on creativity, member satisfaction and communication effectiveness, which have been identified in recent research as positive team outcomes (Stahl et al., 2010), as well as elaborate on the learning ability of teams and their integrative role in multinational organizations. Finally, we develop an agenda for future research.

Negative dynamics in culturally diverse teams While there are mentions in the literature suggesting that cultural diversity can be an asset rather than a liability (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Stahl et al., 2010; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998), most theoretical perspectives and empirical research have focused on the processes and dynamics responsible for the problems associated with diversity. This ‘‘problem-focused view’’ (Stevens et al., 2008) of cultural diversity is prevalent in a broad range of international business research contexts, including the choice of foreign entry mode and the perceived ability to manage foreign operations (Harzing, 2004; Kogut & Singh, 1988), the longevity of global strategic alliances (Parkhe, 1991), post-acquisition integration outcomes (Krug & Nigh, 1998; Slangen, 2006), cultural adjustment of expatriate managers (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991), and team cohesiveness and social integration (Martins, Miliken, Wiesenfeld, & Salgado, 2003; Watson & Kumar, 1992), among others. By contrast, relatively little attention has been given to the conditions under which firms may benefit from cultural diversity and the mechanisms responsible for such benefits. In the context of team diversity, Ancona and Isaacs (2007) have noted that current work on groups and teams seems to suffer from a ‘‘disease orientation’’ (p. 227), in that there is a lack of research on effective team functioning and outcomes. There are several possible explanations for this negative bias. In general, the predominance of the negative over the positive in the social sciences can be explained by basic cognitive processes and theories of intensity, novelty, adaptation, and singularity. For instance, Kramer (1999) has shown that negative, trust-destroying events are generally more visible than positive, trust-building events; that trustdestroying events carry more weight in judgment than trustbuilding events of comparable magnitude; and that sources of bad, trust-destroying news tend to be perceived as more credible than sources of good news. In a similar vein,

A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity Cameron (2008) has noted that negative news sells better than positive news, people pay more attention to negative feedback than positive feedback, and traumatic events have greater impact on individuals than positive events. A related explanation is that in the social sciences, a larger effect (as indicated by R2) can usually be detected by accounting for negative phenomena compared to positive phenomena (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). In other words, the bad has stronger effects than the good, so it is understandable that researchers focus on the strongest factors accounting for the most variance in their studies (Cameron, 2008; Dutton & Glynn, 2007). Is it surprising, then, that we tend to focus more on the problems associated with diversity than on its benefits? In the diversity literature, social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), also with extensions into faultline theory (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), is by far the most prominent theoretical perspective drawn upon to explain the dynamics of diverse teams and organizations. Social identity theory emphasizes the benefits of group identity and our natural affinity to prefer such identity, with the corollary that these benefits are threatened when we are not with the ‘‘group’’. While social identity theory is exceptionally helpful in explaining the problems that can arise in diverse contexts, it has arguably less potential for illuminating the path to positive dynamics in teams (Brickson, 2008). In a similar vein, similarity-attraction theory, suggesting that people are attracted to interacting with similar others (Byrne, 1971; see also McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Watts, 1999), has frequently been used to explain group processes (Garcia-Prieto, Bellard, & Schneider, 2003; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Indeed, the dominant theoretical paradigms in diversity research seem better suited to helping organizations mitigate against the problems associated with diversity rather than capture its benefits. We argue that this negative bias and the scant scholarly attention given to the positive role of cultural diversity may have limited our understanding of the dynamics of culturally diverse teams, and we will now introduce the Positive Organizational Scholarship perspective as a step in this direction.

A ‘‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’’ lens on multicultural team research Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) is concerned with the rigorous, systematic, and theoretically based examination of notably positive outcomes and the processes and dynamics that are associated with them (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003:4), and a wide array of topics and phenomena has been examined under the umbrella, including identity, social networks, leadership development, work design and organizational change (Cameron & Caza, 2004; Fredrickson & Dutton, 2008; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Spreitzer, 2006). Drawing from an array of organizational theories, POS adopts a process perspective that seeks to expose mechanisms through which organizational dynamics produce positive or unexpected outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational levels (Dutton & Glynn, 2007). By doing so, it investigates ‘‘positive deviance’’ (Spreitzer, 2006), focusing on enablers (e.g., structures, systems, and capabilities), motivations (e.g., curiosity, vocation, and sense of responsibil-

441 ity), explanatory mechanisms (e.g., positive emotions, positive meanings, and positive relationships between people) and outcomes or effects (e.g., creativity, meaningfulness, and engagement) associated with positive phenomena (Cameron & Caza, 2004; Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007; Fredrickson & Dutton, 2008). For example, a more traditional study in the context of downsizing might look at how organizations try to mitigate the harmful effects of downsizing, while a POS-oriented study may examine how the virtuousness of organizations is associated with financial performance in this context (Cameron, 2008; Cameron et al., 2003). POS-oriented studies typically focus on individual traits (such as conscientiousness) and trait-like states (such as optimism, self-efficacy and resilience) and their outcomes, or on organizational practices such as strong organizational cultures and human resource practices (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). The use of the POS perspective has been remarkably rare in team research, which is a notable shortcoming given the potential of positive group processes to explain team performance, as indicated by outcomes such as team effectiveness, creativity, synergy, and team member wellbeing (Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007). Some noteworthy exceptions include Losada and Heaphy (2004), who showed that high performing top management teams have a higher ratio of positivity to negativity in verbal and nonverbal exchanges than less effective top management teams. In another study that explicitly draws on the POS framework, Stevens et al. (2008) found that an approach they termed ‘‘all-inclusive multiculturalism’’ served as a catalyst for organizational change through the development of social capital and positive relationships at work. Finally, Brickson (2008) applied a POS lens in examining the conditions under which diverse settings benefit from diversity, and the mechanisms responsible for such benefits. She identified a synergistic effect whereby both a relational identity and direct outgroup contact improved outgroup attitudes, while the absence of both conditions resulted in markedly worsened attitudes. Other, more traditionally oriented studies, have also observed that diversity can be associated with a range of positive outcomes, including increased creativity, productivity, and adaptability (see the reviews of Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stahl et al., 2010; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). For example, a recent meta-analysis of 108 empirical studies on 10,632 multicultural teams (Stahl et al., 2010) found that while cultural diversity was associated with process losses through increased conflict and decreased social integration, it led to process gains through increased creativity and satisfaction and mixed outcomes with regards to communication effectiveness depending on the team setting. We note that the findings pertaining to the positive outcomes of member satisfaction and effective communication (in some settings) in Stahl et al. (2010) were unexpected and contrary to their hypotheses; these results seem to support the notion that previous research may indeed have been biased in a negative direction, and the consequent need for a POS perspective. In what follows, we now take the positive relationships between team diversity and creativity, satisfaction and communication effectiveness identified by Stahl et al. (2010), and explore potential underlying conditions and mechanisms that may produce these effects. In addition, we will discuss other positive outcomes of cultural team

442 diversity such as team learning and a team’s integrative role in multinational organizations.

Exploring the positive aspects of culturally diverse teams In most research on diversity (e.g., see the Special Issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 (4), 2009), the effects of diversity are not differentiated by the source: all sources of diversity — including gender, age, function, as well as culture and ethnicity — are assumed to have the same impact. Although there are clearly some parallels among different diversity sources (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), it is possible that cultural diversity affects teams differently than other diversity sources (Lane, Maznevski, DiStefano, & Dietz, 2009; Lane, Maznevski, Mendenhall, & McNett, 2004). Cultural differences are often below the level of consciousness, so some of their effects may not be recognized. At the same time, culture is often a source of strong categorization and stereotyping, so the effects of cultural diversity may be stronger than other sources. This may also be true for the potentially positive effects of diversity, for example, on creativity and innovation. In this paper, therefore, we draw primarily on studies that examine the effects of cultural diversity to elaborate on the processes and mechanisms by which this specific type of diversity leads to positive team outcomes. Culture is typically defined as the values, beliefs and systems of meaning that are shared among a group of people and provide a guide for their interpretation of various aspects of life and the world around them (Earley, 2006; Hofstede, 1984, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Lane et al., 2009). Correspondingly, culturally diverse teams are those whose members come from a variety of different cultural backgrounds, reflecting both surface-level (e.g., country-of-origin, ethnicity and race) and deep-level (e.g., values and attitudes) dissimilarity. In addition to national cultures, different interacting spheres of culture have been identified, including those related to organizations, professions and religion among others (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003). There is general agreement in the literature that culture powerfully influences ways of thinking, behaving, and communicating (e.g., Adler & Graham, 1989; Bhagat et al., 2002; House et al., 2004; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005), and is therefore a significant source of diversity.

Cultural diversity and creativity We start our analysis by assessing the link between cultural diversity and creativity. This relationship has been the core of the ‘‘value-in-diversity hypothesis’’ (Cox & Blake, 1991), and was also identified in the Stahl et al. (2010) meta-analysis. While the argument that diverse teams are a fundamental source of creative initiatives (McLeod & Lobel, 1992) is largely in line with previous research, a POS lens can further contribute to the understanding of the underlying processes and conditions that produce this relationship. The processes and mechanisms through which diversity increases creativity are likely to be associated with the differences in experiences, mental models, modes of percep-

G.K. Stahl et al. tion, information processing, and approaches to problems that people coming from different cultures typically have (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stevens et al., 2008). As Gavetti and Levinthal (2000) suggest, previous experiences and mental models influence both what is on people’s radar screens as well as their cognitive assessment of the expected outcomes and pay-off of alternative actions (Gavetti, 2005; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). It should thus follow that the more diverse experience (consisting of both explicit and tacit knowledge) team members have accumulated and the wider variety of alternative of perspectives they use to evaluate problems, the broader the reference base of potential action-outcome linkages the team can draw upon to inform action (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Blau, 1977; Cox, 1994; Cox & Blake, 1991; Jackson, 1992; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). Furthermore, the internal cultural diversity of a team as well as its members’ boundary-spanning ties to different team-external groups enables access to better and more diverse information and opportunities (Burt, 1992; Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003), providing a fruitful context for novel combinations. As Hardagon and Sutton (1997) argue, innovation is typically a product of connections in which previously unrelated agents, goods, and knowledge become interdependent. In diverse teams, this variety of knowledge and perspectives should lead to better and more useful ideas. Furthermore, to explain the link between diversity and creativity a POS process perspective leads us to propose that we should consider not only the input into (or context for) creative processes but also the process itself. For example, in a culturally diverse team, members may continue to challenge ideas and provide input long after a monocultural team has reached a saturation level and experiences group-think. As group-think is less likely to develop over time, the viability and breadth of the suggestions put forth by team members continue to be improved, increasing the likelihood of novel ideas coming forth. However, although culturally diverse teams can potentially create positive team processes, these are not simply realized by making sure work is organized in such teams. Teams may be characterized by virtuous or vicious circles either reinforcing or inhibiting team-internal positive processes. How these circles come about is outside the scope of this paper but are an important focus for future longitudinal research on team effectiveness.

Cultural diversity and satisfaction Satisfaction refers to the feeling of having a need adequately fulfilled, with the team literature generally tending to focus on member gratification with group processes and outcomes (Hackman, 1987). Member satisfaction is not necessarily directly linked to performance, but has been shown to predict organizational commitment, turnover, absenteeism, organizational citizenship, and other variables associated with longer term operational effectiveness (Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984; Vroom, 1964). Previous theory-building on the relationship between diversity and satisfaction has looked at different sources of diversity, including demographic, gender, and functional diversity (McPherson et al., 2001). Such categories are sources of identity and similarity, with interactions between people who are similar being more satisfying (e.g., Byrne, 1971), making the operation of the group smoother. Therefore, it is not surprising that

A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity the relationship between diversity and satisfaction has generally been found to be negative (e.g. Basadur & Head, 2001). However, the Stahl et al. (2010) meta-analysis found an unexpected (and robust) positive relationship between cultural diversity and satisfaction, which is worth pursuing more in-depth. Stahl et al. (2010) is the first meta-analysis that separates the effects of ‘‘cultural’’ diversity from other types of diversity which, we argue, may imply that working in a multicultural team creates conditions and satisfies needs that are not met in teams characterized by other types of diversity. Working in a multicultural team may fullfill individual needs for variety, development, or even adventure in ways that working in otherwise demographically diverse teams does not. Evidence for such satisfaction can be found in studies of global careerists, who repeatedly state that learning, new experiences and personal growth are among the most important reasons they sought international assignments (Suutari & Ma ¨kela ¨, 2007). Further, students and managers often express interest in working with people from other cultures, and this exposure to other ideas and the learning potential inherent in a multicultural environment may be highly satisfying. In our own interviews with managers, they generally express great curiosity in working with people from other cultures, and reflect on such experiences as inherently interesting. By applying a POS process perspective, we also hypothesize that member satisfaction can be derived from the facing and successful handling of the inevitably demanding challenges that are inherent in multicultural teams. On the one hand, the multitude of perspectives, ways of working and handling conflict that are typically present in diverse teams can be perceived as highly challenging, and indeed multicultural teams tend to experience lower social integration, which often makes it difficult for them to turn creative ideageneration into performance-enhancing innovation. On the other, success in surmounting these barriers can lead to high levels of member satisfaction, and further to a virtuous circle of mutual motivation improving team processes. Working and solving problems together increase trust between the team members, which makes them more willing to share knowledge and collaborate (Levin & Cross, 2004; Uzzi, 1997; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). This argument is consistent with previous POS research, in that it emphasizes the importance of process dynamics, synergy and learning (Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007). By assuming that cultural diversity is associated with dissatisfaction — based on the more general research on diversity — the field of international management has missed an important POS contribution in terms of process gains derived from the satisfaction that team members get from exposure to learning and overcoming challenges (as opposed to direct gains or losses in relation to initial conditions).

Cultural diversity and communication effectiveness Previous research has suggested that cultural differences can disturb the communication process (e.g., Brett & Okumura, 1998; Gelfand & McCusker, 2002; Von Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004). Another unexpected finding of the Stahl et al. (2010) meta-analysis was that cultural diversity had

443 no direct effect on communication effectiveness. In fact, the picture seems much more nuanced: The examination of study characteristics revealed that communication in culturally diverse teams was less effective than in monocultural teams when the study measured surface-level aspects of culture (such as ethnicity, race or country-of-origin), but more effective than in monocultural teams when the study measured deep-level aspects (such as values or attitudes associated with culture). Viewed from a POS perspective, what seems to be a methodological difference — measurement type — may be associated with an important theoretical difference in terms of initial condition — the salience of type of diversity. Research on multicultural teams has looked at both surface-level characteristics of cultural diversity, such as racioethnicity (e.g., Baugh & Graen, 1997) or country-of-origin (e.g., Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), and at deep-level attributes such as the socially oriented values held by group members (e.g., Jehn & Mannix, 2001). The surface-level cultural cues are readily observable aspects of diversity and when members of a multinational group first meet, they usually begin by identifying which country each member is from. Theory suggests that these surface-level aspects of culture are associated with similarity-attraction and social categorization effects of diversity. Indeed, when a team focuses on these surface-level aspects of culture it may raise the salience of phenomena such as social categorization, homophily, faultlines, and attraction within and aversion across categories. On the other hand, deep-level aspects of culture, such as differences in knowledge, attitudes and values, are associated with information-processing effects of diversity (Stahl et al., 2010). These aspects of culture are less accessible to a group, but are often the source of new information and knowledge. If team members focus on deep-level aspects of culture, they may also be more inclined to examine the benefits of the different perspectives for creativity and innovation. This may be associated with deeper interaction, directing more effort to the explaining of ideas more carefully, and better listening and feedback — that is, richer and more effective communication (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986). These results therefore raise the intriguing possibility that if multicultural teams make deep-level elements of cultural diversity salient, their communication may, in fact, become more effective than that of monocultural teams, and the potential process losses can be overcome and turned into process gains. This chain of possibilities is speculative, but it is in line with the POS process perspective and seems to provide a feasible explanation for the nuanced results of the meta-analysis. A complementary process-based explanation could be related to the dynamics that lead to satisfaction, and the process of creating positive interactions over time. If the team context provides opportunities for team members to interact socially as well as to engage intensively in the work at hand, and if they find this satisfying and motivating, then over time the surface-level cultural characteristics may cease to act as a barrier. Piekkari and Zander (2005:8) propose that ‘‘communication is achieved through people and can thrive through them, for example, by using highinvolvement measures. . .’’. Multinational teams provide a context in which employees need to communicate with each

444 other across linguistic as well as cultural boundaries (Butler & Zander, 2008). Forming interpersonal bonds across surfacelevel cultural aspects over time develops interpersonal trust and can give way for a better understanding of deep-level cultural elements, further improving communication effectiveness. Thus, focusing on deep-level aspects of cultural diversity may actually provide an enabler of communication, rather than a barrier, that has remained undetected in the extant problem-based literature.

Other potentially positive outcomes of cultural diversity in teams There are several other team variables and processes that may be enhanced by cultural diversity but have not been investigated in many studies. For example, there is some evidence to suggest that cultural diversity may have a positive effect on diverse teams’ ability to learn (e.g., Fiol, 1994; Herriot & Pemberton, 1995). Another potentially positive effect, as described above, has to do with reduced tendency towards group-think, group ethical decision making and other such processes. More specifically, social capital theory suggests that too much cohesiveness in the group may become a source of rigidity that hinders the accomplishment of complex organizational tasks and adaptation to change (Gargiulo & Benassi, 2000; Portes, 1998). What is more, the above discussed virtuous circles of creativity, satisfaction, and communication are likely to work cumulatively creating a positively reinforcing feedback loop furthering learning for the team members, and contributing to the development of improved group processes, and increased team capability. Additionally, teams have been proposed to be at the ‘‘heart of globalization’’ (Snow, Snell, Canney Davison, & Hambirk, 1996) with multicultural teams acting as ‘‘glue’’ across countries, cultures and languages (Maloney & ZellmerBruhn, 2006; Zander & Butler, 2010). To examine whether, and how, such non-tangible, yet important positive organizational outcomes are achieved through the use of diverse teams in global organization necessitates a process perspective. For example, team members who have experienced an overall positive team process are likely to retain contact with their fellow team members even after the team has been dissolved. This contact provides horizontal connections between organizational units, which help accomplish tasks in the organization (Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006). A positive process perspective could examine and map how multicultural teams act as globalization vehicles effectively ‘‘gluing’’ differing cultural contexts throughout the organization together, instead of basing such person-to-person exchanges primarily on interpersonal similarity (Ma ¨kela ¨, Kalla, & Piekkari, 2007) or language commonalities (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999). Finally, we find it remarkable that earlier POS research, by focusing on individuals and organizations, has largely neglected the study of teams. Individuals’ positive trait-like states, such as optimism, hope, efficacy, and resilience, can create synergistic effects in teams, and it is possible that if one person in a team embodies these states the entire team can benefit. High-performing teams can create positive contagious effects throughout an organization, while boosting the states of individual members.

G.K. Stahl et al.

Conclusion and implications for future research We have in this paper focused on applying a POS lens to multicultural teams to explore positive aspects of crosscultural dynamics in teams, and identify some of the processes underlying these effects. While practitioner and anecdotal articles often extol the potential benefits of cultural diversity, a bias exists in multicultural team research towards studying the negative more than the positive. This negative bias has likely limited our understanding of the conditions that promote the benefits of diversity and of the mechanisms that foster these benefits, and has therefore limited the usefulness of the research to informed practice. A positive lens can contribute by bringing additional important insights about the conditions likely to foster diversity’s benefits in culturally diverse teams and the mechanisms responsible for such benefits. We explored here in more depth key aspects of multicultural team performance that are positive: creativity, satisfaction, and communication, as well as touching on some other team variables such as multicultural teams’ learning ability and their integrative role in global firms. From a POS perspective, a future research agenda on multicultural teams should focus on developing further indepth understanding of the processes, mechanisms and conditions through which cultural diversity promotes positive team outcomes, such as those discussed above. In order to fine-tune our understanding of processes and boundary conditions, it will be important to study enablers and contextual moderators, actors’ motivations, and intervening mechanisms more systematically. A process perspective seems particularly suited for this, as many of the positive outcomes identified above may arise from team-internal processes. In other words, it may be that although cultural diversity serves as an initial condition, its ultimate effects on team outcomes may be dependent on whether consequent internal processes develop into virtuous or vicious circles. As aptly expressed by Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO of Nissan and Renault, ‘‘cultural differences can be viewed as either a handicap or a powerful seed for something new’’ (cited in Emerson, 2001). This article is a first step towards redressing this bias so that positive phenomena receive their fair share of rigorous and systematic investigation, and more research is urgently called forth.

Acknowledgements We gratefully thank the special issue editors Ingmar Bjo ¨rkman, Eero Vaara and Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen for insightful comments throughout the process. We would also like to thank the special issue editors and the participants of the workshop on the beautiful Tunnholmen in the Finnish archipelago in August 2010, for inspirational and constructive feedback.

References Adler, N., & Graham, J. L. (1989). Cross-cultural interaction: The international comparison fallacy? Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 515—537.

A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321—341. Ancona, D. G., & Isaacs, K. (2007). Structural balance in teams. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work (pp. 225—243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management, 13, 20—39. Bachmann, A. S. (2006). Melting pot or tossed salad? Implications for designing effective multicultural workgroups. Management International Review, 46(6), 721—747. Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 151—166. Basadur, M. H., & Head, M. (2001). Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive style within a process framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 227—248. Baugh, S. G., & Graen, G. B. (1997). Effect of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in crossfunctional teams. Group & Organization Management, 22, 366—383. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323—370. Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27, 204—221. Bjo ¨rkman, I., Stahl, G. K., & Vaara, E. (2007). Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social integration. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 658—672. Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16, 291—317. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Brett, J. K., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 371—510. Brickson, S. L. (2008). Re-assessing the standard: The expansive positive potential of a relational identity in diverse organizations. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 40—54. Butler, C. L., & Zander, L. (2008). The business of teaching and learning through multicultural teams. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 19(2), 192—218. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Boston: Harvard University Press. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7—24. Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766—790. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3—13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organisations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Benett-Koehler Publishers. Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45—56. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In

445 Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 6 (pp.191—233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirement, media richness and structural determinants. Management Science, 32(5), 554—571. David, K., & Singh, H. (1994). Sources of acquisition cultural risk. In G. Krogh, A. Sinatra, & H. Singh (Eds.), The management of corporate acquisitions (pp. 251—292). Houndmills: Macmillan. DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 45—63. Drogendijk, R., & Zander, L. (2010). Walking the cultural distance: In search of direction beyond friction. In Devinney, T. M., Pedersen, T., & Tihanyi, L. Eds. Advances in international management. Vol. 23 (pp.189—212). . Dutton, J. E., & Glynn, M. A. (2007). Positive organizational scholarship. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Dutton, J. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2007). Positive organizational scholarship. In S. Lopez & A. Beauchamps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of positive psychology. London: Blackwell Publishing. Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 922—931. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. A. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26—49. Emerson, V. (2001). An interview with Carlos Ghosn, President of Nissan motors, and industry leader of the year. Journal of World Business, 36, 3—10. Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 403—420. Fredrickson, B. L., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Unpacking positive organizing: Organizations as sites of individual and group flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 1—3. Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E., & Schneider, S. C. (2003). Experiencing diversity, conflict, and emotions in teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 413—440. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183—196. Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities development. Organization Science, 16, 599—617. Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 113—137. Gelfand, M. J., & McCusker, C. (2002). Metaphor and the cultural construction of negotiation: A paradigm for theory and research. In M. Gannon & K. I. Newman (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 292—314). New York: Blackwell. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp. 315—342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82—111. Harzing, A.-W. (2004). The role of culture in entry-mode studies: From neglect to myopia? Advances in International Management, 15, 75—127. Hardagon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716—749. Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1995). New deals: The revolution in managerial careers. Chichester, New York: Wiley. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

446 House, R. J., Hanges, P. W., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse workforce. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity. Newbury Park: Sage. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238—251. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader—team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 29, 334—368. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411—432. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569—598. Krug, J. A., & Nigh, D. (1998). Top management departures in crossborder acquisitions. Journal of International Management, 4, 267—287. Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., Mendenhall, M. E., & McNett, J. (2004). Handbook of global management: A Guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., & Dietz, J. (2009). International management behavior: Leading with a global mindset (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325—340. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357—378. Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477—1490. Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 740—765. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241—258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321—349. Maloney, M. M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2006). Building bridges, windows and cultures: Mediating mechanisms between team heterogeneity and performance in global teams. Management International Review, 46(6), 697—720. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31—55. Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999). In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8, 421—440. Martins, L. L., Miliken, F., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Salgado, S. R. (2003). Racioethnic diversity and group members’ experiences. Group and Organization Management, 28, 75—106. McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A. (1992). The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415—444.

G.K. Stahl et al. Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 137—158. Ma ¨kela ¨, K., Kalla, H. K., & Piekkari, R. (2007). Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations. International Business Review, 16(1), 1—22. Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 579—601. Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9, 712—721. Piekkari, R., & Zander, L. (2005). Preface: Language and communication in international management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 3(51), 3—9. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1—24. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240—268. Reus, T. H., & Lamont, B. T. (2009). The double-edged sword of cultural distance in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1298—1316. Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J. L. (2003). Managing across cultures (2nd ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 519—536. Shenkar, O., Luo, Y., & Yeheskel, O. (2008). From ‘distance’ to ‘friction’ substituting metaphors and re-directing intercultural research. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 905—923. Slangen, A. H. L. (2006). National cultural distance and initial foreign acquisition performance: The moderating effect of integration. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 161—170. Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Canney Davison, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50—67. Spreitzer, G. M. (2006). Leading to grow and growing to lead: Leadership development lessons from positive organizational studies. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 305—315. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690—709. Stahl, G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences matter in mergers and acquisitions? A tentative model and meta-analytic examination. Organization Science, 19, 160—176. Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity. All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 116—133. Suutari, V., & Ma ¨kela ¨, K. (2007). The career capital of managers with global careers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7), 628— 648. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In D. D. Tjosvold (Ed.), Working together to get things done: Managing for organizational productivity. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147—1161. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35—67.

A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457—476. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515—541. Von Glinow, M.-A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. L. (2004). Can we talk and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management, 29, 578—592. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Ward, C. (2003). Psychological theories of culture contact and their implications for training and intervention. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 185—216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watson, W. E., & Kumar, K. (1992). Factors associated with differences in decision-making regarding risk-taking: A comparison of culturally homogeneous and culturally heterogeneous groups. The International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 53—65.

447 Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590—602. Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77—140. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141—159. Zander, L., & Butler, C. L. (2010). Leadership modes: Success strategies for multicultural teams. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3), 258—267.