Agile 2008 Conference
Cowboys and Indians: Impacts of Cultural Diversity on Agile Teams
Janice Aston, Lionel Laroche,
Agile Project Leader Cultural Diversity Consultant
Agile Perspective Inc. MCB Solutions
janice@agileperspective.ca mcbsol@rogers.com
Abstract
Underestimating the impacts of cultural diversity
on your team can be disastrous, creating barriers
and even team breakdown. Most leaders aren’t
aware of the influences that cultural differences can
have on team dynamics. These impacts can be even
more pronounced on agile self organizing teams.
This paper explores these differences and discusses
how we addressed them.
1. Introduction
1.1 Cultural Diversity what is it?
One definition of culture is “the way we do things
when nobody tells us what to do.” People learn how
to behave within the workplace based on what they
learned through school and university, how people
operate within the organization they joined, and how
their team mates work.
The way people work is heavily influenced by
their upbringing. Being a good team player in
collective cultures (such as China and India)
automatically makes you a poor team player by
individualistic cultural standards (think of the US,
Australia and Canada). This project involved people
from very different backgrounds and walks of life
coming together to reach a common goal. Making
sure that everyone worked well together and kept
focused on the common goal was quite challenging
given the range of cultural backgrounds of team
members.
1.2 Project Background
After overcoming the challenges of introducing a
team to agile concepts and practices, the preferred
delivery model at the company changed. Self
contained agile teams were a thing of the past in
favour of distributed off shore teams embracing
978-0-7695-3321-6/08 $25.00 © 2008 IEEE 423
DOI 10.1109/Agile.2008.17
Gerard Meszaros,
Agile Coach
Solution Frameworks Inc.
agile2008@gerardm.com
traditional document-driven (waterfall) methods.
There was an expectation that we would fully support
the new corporate direction. After going through the
roller coaster ride of determining how best to
transition to this new model, it was agreed that any
drastic change to the team could put the project and
the business benefits at risk. The concept of
transitioning to the best shore provider was replaced
with a staff augmentation model in which non-core
resources would be rolled off and replaced with on-
site best shore resources. Co-location was the one
thing I insisted on, given tight timelines and business
expectations. I had limited input into the resources
that were assigned and none of the best shore
resources had any agile experience.
2. The Journey Begins
2.1 Pre-awareness – Clueless State
Initially I did not even consider the impact that
differing cultures might have on a team. In this
regard I would have to admit that I was clueless!
Prior to best shoring we already had a culturally
diverse team. Our team had cultural ties to Australia,
Czechoslovakia, Philippines, France, India, and of
course our “cowboys” from Calgary. We had a
diverse team but all team members had lived in North
America for many years so how could these cultures
be a factor? Wrong! Occasionally we had eruptions
between team members, separate “camps” started to
appear, and communication was hampered. All these
factors impacted overall team performance. I initially
attributed these eruptions to differing personalities
and strongly encouraged collaboration between team
members, often referring to our team norms as we
worked thru issues. I often thought of the team as
highly strung race horses that just needed a lot of
guidance. My job was to keep the rails of the fence
in close view so they all went in the right direction,
down the track.
2.2 The Awakening – forced thru Best
Shoring
Shortly after the best shoring initiative was
announced, a cultural diversity expert was engaged
by the company to help prepare the organization for
the changes that lay ahead. I had attended one of the
cultural sessions and that is where the “aha”
occurred. Even before the infusion of best shore
resources, I already had a culturally diverse team.
The realization that cultural orientation shapes the
way people communicate and collaborate, take
responsibility, give and accept feedback, respond to
authority figures, accept risk and even respond to
change, was an eye opener for me. A lot of these
factors impact the foundational principles of agile
teams.
It was during a retrospective with the current team
when I truly understood how deep the resistance was
towards the best shore model. Several team members
considered it a threat to their livelihood, and as such,
were only prepared to go so far to help the best shore
resources be successful. This was not going to be an
easy task, integrating best shore team members and
still deliver on customer commitments. That’s when I
decided to engage our diversity expert to work
directly with the team.
2.3 The Discovery Process
I needed to understand more about these cultural
biases and how I could manage them. Given the
resistance already on the team, how would I rebuild
the team and still meet our business objectives and
commitments? After all, it was expected that moving
to the best shore model would provide more agility
and additional benefits that weren’t present today.
Based on what I had learned from the cultural
session I attended, I compared typical Indian values
to agile values. I identified potential challenges and
areas of strength to leverage. I validated my
understanding with my cultural diversity expert. I
realized that this doesn’t imply that all Indians would
behave in this fashion, but it at least provided a
foundation for me to work from.
One supportive value I found, was that of
teamwork. Indians are very collective in nature,
which contrasts with the individualistic nature in
North American. This collective nature is very much
supported in an agile environment, as they should be
424
open to the team room concept, willing to help each
other out, accepting of generalized areas of
responsibilities, and preferring face-to-face
communication. I felt this was a great foundation I
could build upon.
Some challenges I anticipated focused around the
customer relationship, team structure and behaviors
(despite teamwork being considered normal
behavior), and the iterative planning horizon. If you
look at the typical Customer / Service Provider /
Manager role in North America the customer is
considered number 1. In India they take on a service
provider role telling the customer how best to
achieve their objectives. This orientation would
influence the tone and manner in which they interact
with the customer. I was uncertain how my business
lead would respond given the fact that she was used
to setting the direction for the development team.
From a team perspective, the self organizing
nature of an agile team is in direct contrast to the
Indian norm of having work assigned and decisions
made by the most senior members (i.e. project
manager and business lead). There is a distinct lack
of hierarchy within agile teams, with more of an
inverted structure, having the PM serve rather than
direct the team. This flat structure, where team
members collectively determine next steps, would be
a challenge. I was concerned that I might even be
seen as incompetent because I openly admit I don’t
have all the answers and typically defer to more
expert team resources.
Due to hierarchical influences, in team
discussions, Indians will typically defer to more
senior team members. On a truly collaborative team
all members are provided the opportunity to
challenge and discuss ideas. I anticipated this would
be an issue that might prevent some Indians from
contributing. Another area of concern was the level
of participation required during retrospectives. We
expect all team members to openly evaluate the
team’s performance and provide suggestions on how
to improve team processes. Based on the cultural
awareness training session, I had a concern that the
Indian team members might have difficulty in
evaluating their own and the team’s performance.
Agile teams are continually improving processes
(incremental change) in contrast to Indians who
prefer sweeping change. Would they be able to keep
up with the rate of continual change as we refine
team processes and embrace evolving business
requirements?
 Another potential issue was the challenge
introduced by multiple planning horizons on agile
teams. Agile teams are defined by their ability to
make decisions based on information available at that
time. The acceptance of “just in time” decision-
making, tends to lead to a higher risk tolerance on
agile teams. Indians typically prefer to continue
planning until they have all the information required
and then act. Based on this predisposition the current
team might be perceived as a bunch of “cowboys”
just doing stuff without proper consideration.
Based on this analysis I developed an extensive
on-boarding plan addressing the need to merge a
culturally divergent team. My cultural expert played
a significant role in the on-boarding plan. He was
brought in to prepare the current team and assist with
the integration of the best shore resources. The best
shore vendor provided no formal program to assist
these resources to integrate into their new
assignment. The Indian resources were scheduled to
arrive during a slow period while we were doing
acceptance testing to give us time to assimilate them.
After spending a significant amount of time in
preparation, I eagerly awaited their arrival. I waited
and I waited. The resources were delayed many
weeks due to immigration issues. When the last
resource finally arrived it was one week prior to go-
live for the initial release! Yikes! The timing could
not have been worse; I was so looking forward to
introducing them to our project and Canada properly
and I barely had time to say hello. We re-factored
the plan one more time working around these
constraints.
3. Execution of the Plan
The plan contained multiple sessions starting with
a cultural questionnaire administered by our cultural
expert (refer to appendix). The purpose of the
questionnaire was to help each team member
understand how they would respond in certain
situations and how that would compare to typical
Indian, Canadian, and our own team responses. The
topics measured were typical challenges encountered
when integrating cultures including; feedback and
communication, hierarchy, individualism, and risk
tolerance. I found this very enlightening and this
would explain some of the challenges we had
introducing agile concepts and practices to the
original Canadian team. Several team members rated
quite high on the individualistic scale. Some numbers
425
might help to provide a sense of the magnitude of the
challenge: Let’s compare the mean individualistic
score for typical Indians (38) with our company (46),
and Canadians in general (49). In contrast, our
existing team score (51) was even more
individualistic than typical Canadians. Not a great
start for an agile team.
The plan was comprised of numerous cultural
awareness and team building workshops. Cultural
differences were explored with both groups
separately. With the existing Canadian team we
explored typical Indian values, highlighting some of
the potential challenges. We also discussed the
current team’s expectations, concerns, and fears. We
had a frank conversation as to what extent they
wanted to be a team, and what it would take to
become a team. This really went a long way to
addressing their initial anxieties. It helped us focus
on the fact that the team was very committed to the
project and was willing to face the challenges
presented with integrating best shore team members.
A second cultural awareness workshop was
planned with just the best shore resources. Our
cultural expert highlighted typical Canadian values
and expectations, Canadian 101 eh! We took the
discussion one step further and focused on agile
behaviours unique to our project. We purposely kept
any “management” out of the workshop, so as not to
create a hierarchy that would hamper
communication. Next was a joint session where we
came together as a team for the first time. Our
cultural diversity expert facilitated a discussion on
how we might overcome these challenges. We then
drafted a new working agreement with the entire
team. We focused on areas like decision-making by
being very specific on how it was accomplished and
when a decision could be revisited. This was also
important as the existing team had a tendency to
revisit team decisions. The practice of documenting
key decisions in a light weight template was initiated
as a result.
After the session was over we brought in pizza for
lunch and watched a Russell Peters video on cultural
diversity. Russell Peters is a well known Canadian
comedian of Indian descent who loves to poke fun at
many cultural stereotypes. I wasn’t sure if the Indian
team members would be offended by the video so I
first ran it past our cultural diversity expert. He
thought we should go for it, so we did. It turned out
to be a huge success. The new joint team was able to
have a great laugh as Russell Peters poked fun at all
cultures, including the typical Canadian male. I found
this part extremely humorous as I could identify with
these behaviours in my own family members.
I also had my Agile Coach / Solution Architect
conduct a series of targeted sessions that introduced
the new best shore resources to agile practices and
other project specific information, so that the Indian
resources didn’t have to learn all about the project
and agile practices through osmosis. We used
simulations such as Gerard’s “Agile Requirements”,
and “Project Battleship” games to introduce
practices such as Story-Based Development and
Test-Driven Development.
4. How are we faring?
The team is working fairly well together, however
not without its challenges. Some cultural biases still
creep in that I have to be alert for:
x Hierarchical impacts – ensuring that all team
members participate equally. I find that equal
participation tends to occur when we break into
smaller groups. Large full team sessions are still
dominated by Canadian team members.
x Feedback - providing very specific feedback.
When I wasn’t seeing the results I was expecting
I had to be very specific and rather upfront in my
feedback. The feedback sandwich only contained
meat, no bread. This appeared to work well with
some team members. However, there was a
situation when my business lead was very
unhappy about a given situation and provided this
feedback. It was not well received by the Indian
resource. Further intervention was required
demonstrating that not all resources respond to
feedback in the same fashion, regardless of
cultural orientation.
x Watch for signs of miscommunication evident by
resources not responding in the way anticipated.
All the visible signs of understanding would be
there, shaking of heads and verbal agreements,
but I could tell they didn’t comprehend. I
typically pulled the resource aside and tried
another approach. I found myself “pairing” with
the resource so they understood exactly what was
expected. This is one of the ways that I was able
to demonstrate the level of communication and
collaboration expected.
426
At one time we did have some resistance from the
Canadian team members, but I attribute this to the
fact that they were frustrated as the Indian team
members were unable to perform at the same level.
The Indian team members had joined a high
performing team working at the speed of light – at
least it felt like that. On-boarding required an
extended amount of time to adjust to agile practices
(amplified due to cultural differences), and to
understand the complex business and technical
domain. Regardless of some of the skill gaps, I made
it very clear that disrespectful comments were not
tolerated. After this intervention the team started
working better together. I even see signs of the
Indian team members reaching out occasionally to
other team members and core team members
assisting as required.
On the whole, team events, ad hoc or planned, are
still not well attended by all. I planned a curling
event to celebrate our Release 1 go-live. Many of the
Indian team members did not attend. This still
puzzles me. I was really looking forward to
introducing them to one of Canada’s favourite
pastimes. The one resource that they did attend,
really enjoyed it. Perhaps the rationale was that they
were not actively contributing to the go-live and
didn’t feel they should attend. However by not
responding to the invitation I found this upsetting and
somewhat disrespectful. I can only presume the
reason, as it was never communicated to me. Another
similar situation occurred when a part time Indian
team member stopped attending stand-ups. Only after
digging deeper by my manager was it understood that
they didn’t feel they were contributing much to the
team and therefore didn’t feel they should attend. Of
course, none of this was communicated, thereby
creating poor perceptions on the team. Our main way
of coordinating activities, especially with part time
team members, is through our daily stand-up.
5. Lessons Learned
x Be aware that cultural biases exist and the
challenges they may introduce. Take the time
to understand these biases and actively
manage the challenges that occur.
x Cultural influences can come from many
different aspects not just country-of-origin. Be
sure to take into account the culture of the
company and even the team involved.
x Despite generalizations, each team member is
unique and being culturally aware doesn’t
 eliminate the need to understand strengths and
weaknesses of each team member.
x Be very specific in your team working
agreements. Refrain from using abstract
words such as respect, as respect will have
different meanings based on your cultural
orientation. Use concrete action verbs that
describe the expected behaviours.
x Communication & collaboration – there was a
tendency to go dark and not ask for help.
Check in with every one on a regular basis
and offer help and encourage asking for it.
x Best shore contracts tend to dictate behaviour.
You get what you measure! It takes extra
effort to instil the desired behaviours --such as
innovation-- on an agile team.
6. Conclusions
It takes time to integrate culturally diverse team
members. I am starting to see some positive changes
in behaviours, but it has taken a lot of time and
attention. As of yet we have not been able to achieve
my goal of building a higher performing team than
prior to the best shoring agreement. This might be
directly attributed to the huge learning curve in
understanding and embracing the agile culture and
the time available to accomplish this. Best shore
resources joined us for the second and final release,
nearing the project sunset. By that time the team
already had a well established rhythm and a culture
of its own.
7. References
[1] Meszaros, Gerard, Aston, Janice, Agile ERP:
”You don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone!”
Agile 2007
[2] Laroche L.F., Managing Cultural Diversity in
Technical Professions.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002.
[3] Peters, Russell, Comedy Now
427
8. Appendix:
Cultural differences within the team were
measured using the Organization and Culture
QuestionnaireTM, a tool developed by MCB Solutions
specifically to quantify them. Participants are asked
to answer a series of questions where they have to
make a choice between alternatives. For example,
one question reads:
Question #23: A good manager should have precise
answers to most of the questions that subordinates
may raise about their work.
Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Respondents are asked to choose a position on the
scale that corresponds to their personal views and
values. People who strongly agree with this statement
will choose the topmost left position of the scale,
people who agree to some extent will choose a
position on the left hand side closer to the centre,
while people who tend to somewhat disagree will
choose a position to the right of the centre of the
scale and people who completely disagree with this
statement will choose the position all the way to the
right of the scale.
This questionnaire was completed by all members
of the Canadian team before the integration of Indian
resources; it was also completed by Indian team
members. The following chart illustrates the results
provided to the team. In this chart, the dark grey line
corresponds to the normalized distribution of answers
from Canadian professionals, the dotted line
corresponds to the normalized distribution of answers
from the Canadian project team members, and the
light grey line corresponds to the normalized
distribution of answers of Indian professionals; the
number of Indian team members was too small to
plot a separate normalized distribution for them.
Question #23: A good manager should have precise
answers to most of the questions that subordinates
may raise about their work.
Strongly agree Strongly disagree
 As this chart indicates, the average Indian Results of the Organization and Culture QuestionnaireTM
professional expects his or her manager to have more
precise answers to his or her questions than the Canada Company Existing India
average Canadian professional. When a Canadian Team
manager delegates a task to an Indian employee, the
Indian employee often asks more questions than the Hierarchy 36 37 34 46
Canadian manager considers appropriate. The Indian
employee wants to make sure that he or she knows Individualism 49 46 51 38
what his or her manager wants. The vague answers
provided by the average Canadian manager is Risk 44 43 50 34
perceived as a lack of clear direction by the average tolerance
Indian employee, whereas the numerous questions
asked by the Indian employee are perceived as a lack The data collected helped to identify potential challenges
of initiative and qualification by his or her Canadian and areas requiring additional focus. You will note that
manager. This often leads to frustration on both for each of the dimensions the existing Canadian team
sides, even when both people are doing a great job was more diametrically opposed to typical Indian
according to their own performance standards – they responses than either the typical Canadian or company-
are using different standards to measure performance. specific responses.
Responses to questions like these are pooled to
calculate scores on dimensions called Hierarchy,
Risk Tolerance and Individualism. In all three areas,
there are significant differences between Indian and
Canadian professionals, as the following chart
illustrates:

Collective Individualistic

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

As this chart indicates, Indians have a more collective

view of the world and tend to put the interests of the
group to which they belong (family and/or organization)
ahead of their own personal interests, or at the very least
to take them into serious consideration. By contrast,
Canadians in general and this team in particular, tend to
focus on their own personal interest and put that ahead
of the interests of the group to which they belong.

428