Prospects of Effective Teamwork in India Some Cautionary Conjectures From A Cross-Cultural Perspective27767839 PDF

Prospects of Effective Teamwork in India: Some Cautionary Conjectures from a Cross-
Cultural Perspective
Author(s): R. K. Gupta
Source: Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , Oct., 2002, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Oct., 2002), pp.
211-229
Published by: Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27767839
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27767839?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
This content downloaded from

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
UIR, Vol. 38, No. 2, October 2002 COMMUNICATION
PROSPECTS OF EFFECTIVE TEAMWORK IN INDIA:

SOME CAUTIONARY CONJECTURES FROM A
CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
R.K. Gupta
INTRODUCTION
As the level of competition in the internal markets in India

hots up, and the organisations located in India (of Indian origin
and foreign multi-nationals operating in India) try to supply to
global markets, search for new and durable sources of competitive
advantage is naturally becoming more of a necessity than a luxury.
There are two organisational innovations which are drawing
maximum attention in this regard: the use of inforamtion
technology (Quinn, 1992) and team based organisational design
(Mohrman et al., 1998). The present paper focusses on the latter
with specific concerns about teamwork in India.
The paper first looks at teams from a cross-cultural perspective

to highlight the varying potential of teamwork in different cultural
settings. It examines the mixed evidence of the success of teams in
the organisations in United States. It, then, goes on to look at the
dominant characteristics of Indian culture and examines their
suitability for effective teamwork. Finally, based on this
examination it makes some recommendations for promoting
effective teamwork in organisations located in India.
HOME BASES OF TEAMWORK
If one looks at teamwork as a successful managerial

innovation of the post-World War-II period, two home bases for
it become prominent. These are Japan and Scandinavia._
Dr. R..K. Gupta is Professor, Human Behaviour and Organisational Development
Area, Management Devlopment Institute, Gurgaon.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
212 Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
The first to find prominence in English language management

literature is the teamwork derived from the work done on the
basis of socio-technical system theory developed at Tavistook
Institute of Human Relations in London. Intially, some naturally
occuring work groups were discovered in some coalmines in
England, which provided the basis for formulation of the idea of
semi-autonomous work groups (Trist et al., 1963). Soon after,
experiments began in many parts of the world (including USA
and India). However, the idea found the most suitable ground in
Scandinavian countries. "It is the home of the self-managed work
team, as exemplified for many years by Volvo", says Scarrborough
(1998). He goes on to say that:
"Scadinavians are the most homogenous people in Europe.

They are also the most democratic of people anywhere.
Participative decision making is very much the norm and
the Scandinavan workplace is the most democratic in the
world... Scandinavians are delegators, comfortable with
flat structures and are very apt to challenge the boss. They
enjoy socialites in the workplace, and successful
performance bears social importance and reflects directly
on individual identity and acceptance by peers.." (op cit.
pp. 227-28).
In other words Scandinavia has a fascinating culture which

seamlessly blends individualism with effective teamwork for high
quality and customer service.
A different natural home for effective teamwork came out to

be Japan. As Japan recovered from its World War-II debacle to
become a major threat to the economic dominance of USA, Western
scholars discovered one of its secrets to be the strong group
orientation of Japanese (Abegglen, 1956; Dore, 1973; Rholen, 1974).
Roland (1988) a psychoanalyst has labeled the Japanese conception
of self as "familial-group self. According to Scarborough (1998):
"The isolation and homegeneity of Japan has produced a

unique sense of cohesion and separateness from others
among the Japanese. The persistent demand of rice culture,
lack of resources and the threats of economic deprivation,

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 213
natural disaster, and foreign invasion created a strong sense

of interdependence...
'The result of these forces was a culture in which the needs

of the group take precedence over those of the individual,
and one's identity is established by one's affiliation with
groups, beginning with Japanese citizenship itself, then
cascading downwards in priority, typically in a hierarchy
through employer, school class, hometown, and family...
Japanese prefer group activities to individual activities...
Try dislike being singled out, whether for criticism or
praise.... The Japanese have long understood the
productivity of groups and the creativity as well as social
and functional benefits of teamwork....".
Japan and Scandinavia are very different from each other on

cultural characteristics (Hofstede, 1984), still both these setting
have proved to be hospitable for teamwork. This suggests that
teamwork can thrive in different cultures so long as the various
characteristics of a culture converge on being supportive to groups
and teams. The following section looks as the potential and
experience of teamwork in USA.
TEAMS IN USA
USA has been the place of origination of most of the new

theories of management throughout the twentieth century.
Interestingly, however, its industry was also the most shaken by
the success of Japanese in a number of industries. Though semi
autonomous work groups were created in some organisations in
conjunction with job redesign (Davis & Taylor, 1972), interest in
group-working gained a much larger momentum when scholars
discovered the contributions made by quality circles in Japanese
organisations (Ouchi, 1981). Currently teams are being seen as
one of the best approaches to organisational redesign (Nadler &
Tushman, 1997) along and in conjunction with information
technology. Process reengineering, which is mainly based on
applications of IT, usually creates process teams. Similarly in
manufacturing, all structures integrate technological changes with
group or team structures. Improvements in customer service are

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
also brought about through a combination of IT and teams. Total

Quality Management initiatives, which were an outgrowth of the
discoveries of management practices in Japan, also invariably create
teams. Wellins, Byham and Dixon in their book Empowered Team
(1991) had predicted that the use of teams would increase
dramatically. Later in their book Inside Teams (1994), they claimed
a confirmation of their prediction by documenting "how 20 world
class organisations are winning through teamwork". A little earlier
Lawler, Mohrman and Ledford (1992) had published results of
their survey of 313 US organisations moving in the direction of
using more and more teams.
Along with this recommendatory and prescriptive literature,

there is also emerging a trickle saying that special efforts are needed
to make the teams succeed, and that it takes longer than generally
presumed. A working HR executive (Coradetti, 1994) describing
his own efforts to build a team in his department titles his article
as Teamwork takes time and a lot of energy'. Stoner and Hartsman
(1993) title their paper as 'Team Building: Answering the Tough
Questions' and emphasises the need for intensive training and
professional facilitation. The Economist (1995) reported that Tike
many fads, the one for teams is beginning to produce its trickle of
disappointments'. A.T. Kearney, a consultancy that continues to
favour teams, found in a survey that "nearly seven out of ten teams
fail to produce the desired results". Drucker (1995), the high priest
of practical managerial wisdom writes:
"Team building" has become a buzzword in American

business. The results are not overly impressive.
"The Ford Motor Company began more than ten years ago
to build teams to design its new models. It now reports
'serious problems', and the gap in development time
between Ford and its Japanese competition has hardly
narrowed. General Motor's Saturn Division was going to
replace the traditional asembly line with teamwork in its
factory of the future'. But the plant has been steadily
moving back toward the Detroit-style assembly line.
Proctor and Gamble launched a team-building compaign

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 215
with great fanfare several years ago. Now P&G is moving

back to individual accountability for developing and
marketing new products."
Two somewhat more reflective team building consultants

(Critichley & Casey, 1996), on experiencing strong resistance from
American managers, have felt that "deep and intense teamwork
may not be required in most situations in organisations". After
doing one of the most comprehensive surveys of teamwork - 4500
teams in fifty US organisations - Nahavandi and Aranda (1994)
come to the conclusion that:
"Despite the many success stories on the use of teams...,

success has been uneven. Recently, there has been much
frustration on the part of managers and employees. Overall,
teams have not done consistently for the US what they did
and are continuing to do for Japan".
They have also identified seven features of US culture that

appear to diminsh the payoffs derived from using teams in
reengineered organisations. These are as follows:
1) A long-held belief that performance improvements are

attained through individual ingenuity and creativity.
2) An emphasis on individual rights and non-conformity rather

than on conformity and group harmony.
3) A high level of tolerance for conflict and competition at the

expense of cooperation and unity.
4) An alost ingrained distrust of power, hierarchical structures,

and management.
5) An emphasis on attaining quick results, while ignoring both

the past and the future.
6) A preference for dynamic action, instead of slow, steady,

incremental progress.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
7) The presence of high levels of demographic diversity and

heterogeneity in society and workplace.
It must be mentioned at this juncture that it is not the intention

of this paper to suggest that teams are irrelevant for organisations
in USA. Perhaps the design of organisations in USA has been
over-bureaucratic and this may be the time to move beyond
Tayloristic and Fordist models (Hickscher & Donnellon, 1994). It
may also be worth mentioning that Japanese organisations are
not free of bureaucratic mechanistic features either (Tsutsui, 1998).
In the continuous pursuit of better organisational forms teams are
an important element to consider. However, it must be recognised
that organisational structures are operationalised by managers and
workers who are all carriers of values, beliefs and behavioural
patterns learnt by them in their respective families which are rooted
in particular cultures. They bring these patterns to the workplace
and make sense of organisational situations through these varied
cultural templates. Hence they may react to team-like innovations
differently. This makes it necessary to evaluate any such innovation
through a cultural analysis, and then necesary precaution be taken,
and efforts made in case it seems worthwhile to adopt and adapt
it as a new element of organisational design.
THE CASE OF INDIA
The central focus of this paper is on the prospects of effective

teamwork in India from a cross-cultural perspective. Given the ethnic
plurality of people across this country of sub-continental proportions
- almost as much diversity as over the continent of Europe - it is
hazardous to treat it as having a common culture across its length
and breadth. However, it cannot be denied that over thousands of
years, due to natural geographical borders defined by the mountains
and the seas, it remained a fairly insular region. According to
Scarborough (1998) "Hinduism and the caste system permeate India
to a degree similar to that to which the Protestant work ethic and
democracy permeate the United States/Tt is a useful simplification
to begin to understand the uniqueness of Indian culture in an
international perspective (Ronen & Shanker, 1995; Gupta and Sahay,
1995). We shall come to the heterogeneity within India a little later.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 217
India has been a part of a number of large cross-cultural

surveys related to work values and management (e.g. Hofstede,
1980; Trompenaars, 1993). The most permanent common feature
across these studies is the importance of hierarchy in India. In
Hofstede's data India scores high on Power Distance Index,
meaning thereby that Indians are comfortable with large power
differentials. Trompenaars (1993) found that Indians depict their
organisations with tall hierarchies. Tayeb (1988) found that in
comparison to British, Indians are submissive, more obedient to
seniors, more dependent on others as well as fearful of people in
positions of power. Sociologists have related this hierarchical
orientation to the hierarchical structure of the caste system as
well as the emotional distance maintained by the father from his
children. This tendency to place everyone in a status hierarchy
is so strong that even amongst twins the one who was delivered
earlier would be considered the elder sibling commanding respect
from the younger one.
The second most prominent cultural characteristic of Indians

is their collectivistic orientation with a strong focus on the family
as the in-group (Gupta, 1991, 1999). Tayeb (1988) found them to
be 'caste conscious', 'clan-oriented' and 'less concerned for others
outside their community'. In an illuminating conceptualisation,
psychoanalyst Alan Roland (1988) not only demonstrates the
contrast between America individualism and Indian f amilism, but
also the subtle and important difference between the familial
orientations of Indians and Japanese. According to him while a
Japanese seamlessly extends his familial orientation to his
workgroup and the employing organisation, an Indian's in-group
remains confined to his extended family and the caste community.
This, as we shall see, has very challenging consequences for
effective teamwork in organisations located in India.
Though there are other pan-Indian features of culture such as

a preference for personalised relations (Sinha, 1980) and religious
orientation (Roland, 1988; Gupta, 1991), the above hold most
important implications for effective teamwork as conceptualised
by Kirkman and Shapiro (1997). In their model they have looked
at the impact of cultural values on employee resistance to self

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
managing work teams. Summarizing Wellins et al. (1990), they

indicate that 'self-managing work teams' (SMWT) " as groups of
employees have the following responsibilities:
(1) they manage themselves (e.g. plan, organise, control, staff

and monitor),
(2) they assign jobs to members (e.g. decide who works on what,
where, and when),
(3) they plan and schedule work (e.g. control start-up and
ending times, the pace of work, and goal setting),
(4) they make production or service-related decisions (e.g. are

responsible for inventory, quality control decisions, and work
stoppages), and
(5) they take action to remedy problems (e.g. address quality

issues, customer service needs, and member discipline and
rewards)".
From the socio-psychological viewpoint they identify two

underlying dynamic components in such teamwork: (1) the process
of self-management, and (2) collaborative teamwork. They then
look at the various cultural values that might create resistance to
these two dynamic components in different cultures. Amongst
others, they make the following propositions based on their
conceptual analysis:
(1) "On average, individuals from high power distance cultures

will resist a high level of self-management more than individuals
from low power distance cultures". This proposition is relevant
for India since India is a high power distance culture as mentioned
earlier. Dependency proneness is a well-accepted characteristic of
Indians (Sinha, 1980). Tayeb (1988) also reported that Indians are
'more obedient to seniors', 'more dependent on others', 'submissive',
'accepting responsibilities', less self-controlled'( etc. Hence this
proposition is likely to hold for Indians working in teams.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 219
(2) "On average, individuals from dominant being-oriented

cultures will resist a high level of self-management more than
individuals from doing -oriented cultures". This proposition is also
relevant for India. Hinduism, the dominant religion of India, places
a great emphasis on being (Scarborough, 1988). Like in Mexico
and Malaysia (Adier, 1997), Indian workers are known to prefer
to spend fewer hours at work and more time with family and
friends. They take break from work if they have enough money to
go buy for sometime.
(3) "On average, individuals from deterministic cultures will

resist a high level of self-management more than people from free
will cultures". Indians are known for their fatalistic tendencies
(Mendonca et al., 1999) and they are known to accept things as
they are rather than change them. Hence, they are less likely to
take charge of a situation to improve it.
These three proportions put together very strongly suggest that

self-management would not come naturally to Indians. Hence the truly
self-managing teams, which are the rage of current management
practices in USA and northern-Europe, would not easily take roots
in India. Western multi-national companies which are creating
offices and factories in India would need to take this cultural
feature into account while transferring this work practice to India.
Resistance to self-management implies that when teams are

created in India they would have to have formal leaders and all
the formal aspects of work would have to be specified by
hierarchical superiors. The teams would expect clear policies and
guidelines on work related matters. Superiors would also feel more
comfortable if they know that the work is being performed as
desired'.
The second dynamic component for team suggested by Kirkman

and Shapiro (1997) emphasises collaboration. This is crucial for
effective teamwork because almost by definition teamwork becomes
important when task entails a high level of interdependence, and
trying to create rules for all contingencies would be sub-optimal if
not counter productive. Collaboration also reduces the response time

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
and increases the probability of synergy and creative problem solving

resulting in timely innovations, new product development, quality
improvements and customer service. True collaboration results when
consciousness of 1', 'me' and 'mine' recedes into background while
the group-purpose or task becomes the focus for the team members.
As would seem obvious, the most relevant cultural variable

for collaborative teamwork is collectivism'. According to Kirkman
and Shapiro (1997) "On average, individuals from individualist
cultures would resist teams more than individuals from
collectivistic cultures." There is a large amount of research findings
from experimental studies that support this proposition (see Adier,
1997 for a summary). Anthropological evidence even suggests
that people from collectivistic cultures fear being ostracized
personally or bringing shame to their group for behaviour not
contributing to the welfare of the group (Adler, 1997). A related
finding is that people from individualistic cultures are more prone
to "social loafing", that is exploiting a group situation for giving
priority to their goals away from the group (Earley, 1989; Domino,
1992). A research study has also shown that a collectivistic group
is likely to have a realistic sense of 'group efficacy' which then
result in a better prediction of actual group effectiveness, making
such groups more reliable (Gibson, 1999).
This proposition linking collectivism with teamwork augurs well

for India since it has strong collectivist tendencies. Perhaps such an
emphasis on group survival may be behind thousands of years of
continuity of the civilization here. Such a group solidarity is also
well known in times of crises in Indian families. A positive and
heartening example of teamwork has been the occasion of the
marriage of a daughter in an Indian family. Marrying a daughter is
seen as a collective responsibility of the extended family and the
respect of a family in the community depends on performing it well.
Hence all the relatives get together, try to put in as much effort as
possible, sort out difference, of opinion quickly and put up a joint
brave front. Workers take leave from their employing organisations
to join hands in any family crisis or celebrations. Sometimes they do
so even without informing their superiors, if they do not expect a
favourable consideration. It often disturbs the planned activities of

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 221
these organisations. But back home, in the family, the teamwork is

strengthened. Hence, as per the proposition, Indians exhibit
collaborative teamwork, but only in special circumstances. These
circumstances do not usually arise in work settings due to the
heterogeneity that is pervasive in organisations in India.
The main contextual feature that alters the behaviour of a

collectivist in different situations is the identity of the others present.
Collectivists always have their identity very closely connected with
their in-groups, the group(s) which take priority over individual
interests. The other groups can be called out-groups. According to
Triandis (1989) who has devoted himself to studying this aspect of
human behaviours
"When interacting with in-group members, collectivists

tend to be very co-operative and helpful, whereas when
interacting with strangers they tend to be competitive and
not helpful. The in-group stranger contrast is much less
important for individualists, who behave more or less
equally well towards in-group and strangers. The result is
that when groups are formed for the first time, members
from individualist societies behave more cooperatively than
members of collectivist societies. Furthermore, collectivists
are more competitive when they are a minority, whereas
individualists are less competitive than usual when they
are in a minority position. This it is not true that collectivists
are cooperative across the board. It depends on the
situation" (emphasis added).
In India while the cooperative face of collectivism is fairly

evident in family situations (especially so long as there is a unifying
elder person still alive), and it also carries over to special community
based settings, it is rare to be found in modern industrial
organisations (some of the exceptions are the community
based organisations at the level of soldiers in the Indian army, and
some older textile mills where recruitment at the lowest levels was
done on the community basis). A modern organisation usually
requires particular skills, which are unlikely to be available at the
requisite level in a single community. Hence, every modern

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
organisation in India is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual,

and multi-cultural organisation. Indians have a very strong sense
of the in-groups which are rather clearly defined based on castes,
languages, etc. and hence they have a very strong sense of who
does not belong to the in-group. They not only consider such a
person a stranger but treat him as belonging to another group ab
initio (the Hindi world for an in-group member is apna but for a
person who is not a member of the in-group is straight away par ay a
which mean "one who has his allegiance to others"). Hence,
invariably any group or team assembled in a modern organisation
in India is a heterogeneous, multi-cultural group. While the
informal in-groups are formed mainly on the basis of region, caste
and language, etc. (Singh, 1987).
Muti-culturality in a group in itself is a challenge whether

the members come from individualist cultures or collectivist
cultures. Salzer (1991), a working international executive, wrote
that "don't let anyone kid you that it is easy 'to manage a diverse
or pluralistic workforce. Because it is not. Most of us tend to be
much more comfortable around people who think and act the
way we do." Nancy Adler (1991) writes that a "study reported
that while all sixty of the international executives interviewed
could list a disadvantage associated with cultural diversity in
groups (many offered multiple negatives), less than one-third
could even think of one advantage". With stronger in-group
identities in India the problem associated with multi-cultural
team are likely to be more severe.
The severity of this problem can get further aggravated in

India because of the strong hierarchical orientation discussed
earlier. Because of the cultural plurality the leader of the group
or team is bound to belong to a specific caste, community or
nationality. Consequently for many members of the team he belongs
to an out-group. Hence he can not be trusted to protect their
interests; he cannot even be expected to do so because he belongs to
another group. Hence the team ends up with members who do not
trust each other as well as a leader who is not trusted by many in
the team.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 223
A similar challenge to effective teamwork can be seen in Mexico,

which also shows the cultural characteristics of high power
distance and high collectivism. A recent study by Nicholls, Lane
and Brechin (1999) documents these challenges. Two hundred
senior executives, working in 28 teams in a workshop identified
the problems with the implementation of self-managed teams in
Mexican organisations. Seventeen teams identified cultural issues
and ten teams identified authority, leadership and power issues.
Out of 15 executive teams who looked at the "major problems
experienced when establishing teams", eight saw 'team,
leadership', eight saw 'cultural issues' and five saw the issue of
'management authority (being) threatened'. No systematic studies
are available in India on teams but the situation is likely to be
more difficult in India due to greater diversity. Hence the oft
mentioned folk opinion that "Indians are poor team players", or
that "One Indian is equal to two Japanese, but two Indians are
not equal even to one Japanese"!
An indirect confirmation of these difficulties comes from a

study of expatriates working in India according to whom
"cooperation among (Indian) colleagues is rather difficult, and
characterised by in-fighting, every jealousy, career orientation, and
the blocking of information" (Braasch, 1998).
This cross-cultural analysis of the prospects of teamwork in India

leads us to the conclusion that effective teamwork would rather be an
exception than a rule in India.
IS THERE A WAY OUT?
So far as India was a largely protected market, with profits

generated through cornering of capacity in a license raj and
supplying indifferent quality to customer. Sub-optimal performance
in organisations need not have been a major managerial concern.
But with the opening up of the economy organisations - whether of
Indian origin or multi-national from abroad - are facing higher levels
of competition and their long-term survival would depend on world
class competitiveness in their respective product-market arenas. This
calls for lowering of costs, improving quality and becoming more
responsive to customers. Teams have potential to contribute to these

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
increasingly necessary conditions for success. It seems worthwhile

to make efforts to create and develop effective teams, which utilize
the collectivist tendencies for cohesiveness and diversity for its
creative, potential. It, however should not be forgotten that " the
benefits associated with group diversity take longer to manifest and
are harder to observe" (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1998). This section
takes such a cautious but optimistic view and recommends some
ideas for action for building effective teams in India's cultural context.
The first obvious implication of our cross-cultural analysis

detailed above is that development of effective teams in India
would require greater efforts than those required in Sweden or
Japan. In all likelihood it would take longer and would test the
patience of their well wishers again and again. All this implies
greater investment of organisational resources to this task.
Secondly, it has been found world over that organisational

innovations which are likely to arouse the resistance of people,
are easier to introduce in green field projects than introducing
these in existing factories or offices, Green field projects also offer
the opportunity to select more team oriented people using
psychological tests and simulations.
Thirdly, even in green field sites introduction of Swedish or

western self-managing work-teams is less likely to be successful
than the Japanese type teams which have a strong but benevolent
and mutually satisfying hierarchical orientation (Kato and Kato,
1992). This would require special efforts in inculcating the
nurturant-task leadership orientation (Sinha, 1980); which
Mendonca and Kanungo (1990) also consider relevant for Indian
culture. Help may also be taken of the concept of PM leadership
developed by Misumi in the Japanese context. In addition, a
management philosophy towards "truly familial organisation"
(Gupta, 1999) would help realisation of the full potential of team
members.
Fourthly, even in green-field sites special efforts will have to be

made to devote enough training time followed by facilitation
support to the teams to overcome their ever-occurring impasses

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 225
and regressive tendencies. A study by Watson, Kumar and

Michaelson (1993) shows that over a period of four months
culturally diverse groups began to match the overall effectiveness
of homogeneous groups. In this experimental study the group
working was accompanied by giving process feedback to the
groups. Stoner and Hartman (1993) also recommend professional
facilitation. The training and facilitation requirement is very
important in the Indian context because given the collectivistic
tendency in a heterogeneous setting either the team may, on its
own, not go beyond being a " pseudo community" (Peck, 1991) or
may get into such a competitive or stormy phase that it may be
fragmented almost irretrievably. Smith and Berg (1997) see special
challenges in helping cross-cultural groups become cohesive and
productive, and recommend special sensitivity to cross-cultural
differences in the process of helping such groups overcome their
process impasses. The author's experience in facilitating T-groups
in India suggest that Peck's model mentioned above is better suited
to such facilitation than the popular one indicating forming,
storming, norming and performing as the stages of group
development. Peck's model starts with 'pseudo-community' which
moves on a phase of 'chaos'. This chaotic phase is either coped
with creating organisation structures which may not utilize the
full potential of the group or leads to a state of 'emptiness' in which
members stop experiencing a need to defend their individual egos.
This leads then to be true 'community' which exhibit commitment,
celebrates differences and strives for consensus. Team building
process based on this model may also touch the religious-spiritual
quest of the Indians.
Fifthly, collectivistic people tend also to be morally oriented

(Hofstede, 1984). They have specially high moral expectations
from their leaders and organisations. Hence a visible pursuit of
superordinate goals would reduce fissiparous tendencies amongst
Indian in diverse settings. A laudable organisational mission and
high ethnical standards would help in the maintenance of effective
teams.
Sixthly, while it may be possible to create truly team based

organisation on a green field site, in existing offices and factories

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
run on bureaucratic lines, it would be desirable to go incrementally

in creating teams. Whatever teams are created, which must be for
more crucial business needs such as new product development or
customer service, they must be fully supported by training and
facilitation. Credible help should also be available to sort out the
sensitive issues, which are likely to crop up between the teams
and the bureaucratically oriented senior managers. Only after the
initial and visible success of teams, the overall redesign of the
organisation may be undertaken (Mohrman et al., 1995)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A cross-cultural and comparative analysis of Indian culture

and context shows significant impediments to effective teamwork.
Strong hierarchical orientation and narrow in-group identities
make it very difficult to create highly effective teams in a context
of cultural diversity. To mobilize and harness the full potential of
teams in India would require special and concerted efforts. The
fruits of such efforts are likely to justify the costs involved given
the tremendous potential Indians carry in them as shown by the
productivity and success of Indian Diaspora across the globe.
REFERENCE
Abegglan, J. (1956), The Japanese Factory, Free Press, New York.
Adler, J. J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour (Third Edition),

South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Domino, "G. (1992), "Cooperation and Competition in Chinese and American

Children," Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 23,456-467.
Davos, L. E. and Taylor, J. C. (eds.) (1972), Design of Jobs, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Drucker, P. (1995), Managing in a Time of Great Change, Butterworth Heinemann,

Oxford.
Dore, R. (1973), British Factory Japanese Factory, George Allen, London.
Erez, M. and Earley, P. C. (1997), The Transplanted Executive: Why You Need to
Understand How Workers in Other Countries See the World Differently,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Earely, D. C. (1989), "Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparision of the United

States and the People's Republic of China", Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34,565-581.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 227
Gupta, R. K. and Sahay, A. (1995), "Indian Organisations and Management in

Compartive Studies", South Asian Journal of Management, Jan-March.
Gupta, R. K. (1991), "Employees and Organization in India", Economic and Political

Weekly, 26 (21), M68-76.
Gupta, R. K. (1999), "The Truly Familial Organization", In Henry S. R. Rao et. al.
(eds.) Management and Cultural Values, Sage, New Delhi, 102-120.
Gibson, C. B. (1999), "Do They Believe They Can? Group Efficacy and Group
Effectiveness Across Tasks and Cultures", Academy of Management Journal,
42(2), 138-152.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture's Consequences, Sage, Newburg.
Hickson, D. J., Mc Millan, C. }., Azumi, K. and Horvath, D. (1979), "Grounds for
Comparative Organization Theory: Quicksands or Hardcore?" In C. J.
Lammers and D. J. Hickson (eds.), Organisations Alike and Unlike.
Routledge, London, p. 25-44
Heckscher, C. and Donnellon, A (eds.) (1994), Post-bureaucratic Organization, Sage,

Thousand Oaks.
Kato, H. and Kato, J. S. (1992), Understanding and Working with the Japanese Business
World, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kirkman, B. L., and Shapria, D. L. (1997), "The Impact of Cultural Values on

Employee Resistance to Teams: Towards a Model of Globalized Self
managing Work Team Effectiveness", Academy of Management Review, 22
(3), 730-757.
Lawler, E., III, Moharman, S., Ledford, G. Jr. (1992), Employee Involvement and Total
Quality Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
McFarlin, D. B., and Sweeney, P. D. (1998), International Management:

Trends,Challenges and Opportunities, South-Western College Publishing
Company, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mandoca, M. and Kanungo, R. N. (1990), "Performance Management in Developing

Countries". In A. M. Jalger and R. N. Kanungo (eds.), Management in
Developing Countries, Routledge, London.
Mendonca, U., Kanungo, R.N., and Aycan, Z. (1999), "Culture: the Forgotten
Factor in Human Resource Management", Vision, 3 (2), 1-7.
Mohrman, S. A. et al. (1988), Tomorrow's Organization, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Mohrman, S. A. , Cohen, S. G., and Mohrman Jr. , A. M. (1995), Designing Team

Based Organisations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Nicholls, C.E, Lane, H.W., and Brechu, M.B. (1999), "Taking Self-managed Teams
to Mexico", Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 15-27.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1997), Competing by Design, OUP, New York.
Peck, M.S. (1991), The Different Drum: the Creation of Trite Community, Arrow,
London.
Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Quinn, J. B. (1992). Intelligent Enterprise, Free Press, New York.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), "Clustering Countries on an Attitudinal

Dimensions: A Review and Syntheses", Academy of Management Review,
10 (3), 345-354.
Rohlen, T. (1974), For Harmony and Strength, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Roberts, K. H. (1970), "On Looking at an Elephant: An Evaluation of Cross-cultural

Research Related to Organisations", Psychological Bulletin, 74(5), 327-50.
Roland, A. (1988), In search of Self in India and Japan, Princeton University Press, NJ.
Redding, S. G. (1994), " Comparative Management Theory: Jungle, Zoo or Fossil

Bed?", Organisation Studies, 15 (3), 323-59.
Research, S. (1998), Expatriates in India, Dissertation submitted to Institute for

Leadership and Human Resource Management, University of St. Gallen
(HSG), Switzerland.
Sinha, J.B.P. (1980), Nuturant-Task Leader, Concept, New Delhi.
Stoner, C.R. and Hartman, R. I. (1993), "Team Building: Answering the Tough
Questions," Business Horizons, Sept-Oct 1993, 77-78.
Smith, K and Berg, D. (1997), "Cross-cultural Groups at Work", European

Management Journal, 15(1), 8-15.
Secrborough (1998), Origins of Cultural Differences and their Impact on Management,

Quorum Books, Westport.
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., and Poortinga, Y.H. (1999), Human Behaviour
in Global Perspective, Allyn and Bacon, Boston etc.
Singh, S. K. (1987), "The Basis and Issues of Ingroup Influences in a Work

Organisation," Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(4), 423-432.
Tayeb, M. (1988), Organisations and National Culture, Sage, London.
Trist, E. et al. (1963), Organisational Choice, Tavistock, London.
Triandis, H. C. (1989), "Cross-cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism',

in J. Berman (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 41-133),
Nebraska University Process, Lincoln.
Triandis, H. C. (1995), Individual and Collectivism, Boulder, CO: Westview.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC
Communications 229
Trompenaars, F. (1993), "Riding the Waves of Culture", The Economist, London.
The Economist (1995), The Trouble with Teams, Jan 14,1995.
Tsutsui, W.M. (1998), Manufacturing Ideology: Scientific Management in Twentieth

Century Japan, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K., Michaelson, J.. K. (1993), "Cultural Diversity's Impact
on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogenous and
Diverse Task Groups," Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590-602.
Wellings, R.S., Wilson, R., Katz, A.J., Lau^ilin, P., Day, CR. Jr., and Price, D. (1992)
, Self-directed Teams: A Study of Qurrent Practice, DDI, Pittsburgh.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. G., & Dixon, G. R. (1994), Inside Teams: How 20 World
Class Organizations are Winning Through Teamwork., Jossey Bass, San
Francisco.

13.232.140.242 on Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:10:33 UTC

Prospects of Effective Teamwork in India Some Cautionary Conjectures From A Cross-Cultural Perspective27767839 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prospects of Effective Teamwork in India Some Cautionary Conjectures From A Cross-Cultural Perspective27767839 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prospects of Effective Teamwork in India: Some Cautionary Conjectures from a Cross-

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27767839

This content downloaded from