Cultural Diversity in Team Environments

Rachel Schweitzer

Cultural diversity is a growing variable in the workplace and team environments.

Therefore, with further understanding of the impact that cultural diversity has on teams regarding

group success, groups can improve and better achieve their objectives. Observations of group

dynamics in various settings show that culturally diverse teams benefit through effective

communication and information processing, as well as considering depth in problem solving.

These advantages overall outweigh the negative effects of diverse teams, such as similar

attraction theory, and prove an asset to organizations. Although there is no specific measuring

standard regarding team dynamics, researchers used repeated group observations to measure

group interactions against consistent team settings. With more information on group dynamics

and cultural diversity, variables such as effectiveness will improve, thus benefitting teams.
 Increased diversity in workplaces and team environments furthers the significance of

cultural diversity when considering group success. Conducted research regarding group

dynamics, relating to cultural diversity amongst group members, shows the importance of varied

backgrounds and knowledge to achieve overall group objectives. Therefore, inclusion of cultural

diversity within teams is an emerging factor of concern for organizations to best accomplish

goals. Cultural diversity impacts “process gains” through many variables (Maznevski, 2010),

including increased divergent processes and decreased convergent processes, substantial

competitive advantages and core competencies, innovative information processing, and greater

“attributional complexity” (Lakshman, 2013).

Through both divergent and convergent processes, teams generate process gains and

losses. However, observations of culturally diverse groups show varying results when compared

to homogeneous groups. Studies indicate that groups containing diversity show an increase in

divergency and a decrease in convergency regarding group dynamics (Maznevski, 2010). This

means that culturally diverse groups experience an increase in processes “that bring different

values and ideas into the team,” as well as a decrease in those “that align the team around

common objectives, commitment, or conclusions” (Maznevski, 2010). For example, increased

divergence in a team can lead to greater levels of creativity while decreased convergence can

lead to less opportunities for groupthink. Therefore, culturally diverse groups have greater

capabilities to generate innovative ideas, thus leading to success.

Though culturally diverse groups may demonstrate less convergence and cohesion at

times, the benefits of varying ideas and cultures outweigh the negative effects of similar

attraction theory and diminished efficiency. Similar attraction theory states that members of a

team are more likely to connect with teammates who are most similar to them, thus presenting
difficulty for diverse groups. However, culturally diverse groups allow for greater educational

diversity as well, further improving input for group tasks. With group members coming from

different backgrounds, there is a broader range of experiences that can aid in problem solving.

Additionally, though groups may be less efficient with more divergent opinions and experiences

to consider (Jehn, 1999), the depth of information may be further analyzed (Dahlin, 2005),

increasing group potential.

Information use varies between diverse and homogeneous groups, information range

increasing with high levels of diversity and both depth and integration of information increasing

with any level of diversity (Dahlin, 2005). Information range represents “the variety of

information included in a team’s rationale,” while depth is “the extent to which the arguments or

issues raised in the rationale have been explored completely,” and integration is “the quality of

the structuring of the rationale and the quality of the treatment of relationships among the

multiple issues” (Dahlin, 2005). In this, diverse groups are better able to consider variety,

complexity, and produce quality tasks. With group members coming from different backgrounds,

both culturally and educationally, it is more likely for all aspects of a problem to be considered

compared to a homogeneous group that is more likely to think in similar ways.

Observed culturally diverse groups also indicate increased measures of attributional

complexity, serving as an additional benefit to diverse teams (Lakshman, 2013). Defined as “the

propensity of individuals to infer complex internal and external attributions in interpersonal

situations, and the accuracy of the attributions made by these individuals, as well as their

leadership effectiveness,” attributional complexity demonstrates increased cognitive abilities

(Lakshman, 2013). This therefore improves overall understanding of tasks as well as group

social relations regarding the team, allowing groups to better complete objectives. With greater
emotional intelligence and an improved likelihood for success relating to “interdependent tasks,”

culturally diverse groups serve as an advantage to achieve team effectiveness (Tasheva, 2019).

Culturally diverse groups pose various competitive advantages, thus proving to be

beneficial and superior to homogeneous teams. Through Cox and Blake’s conceptualization and

observations of group dynamics, it is noted that “diverse employees can increase organizational

flexibility, creativity, and problem solving, improve resource acquisition, enhance marketing

advantages, and reduce costs” (Horwitz, 2007). Therefore, through these core competencies,

teams with increased diversity offer improved levels of performance. Task success due to these

advantages then allows for greater satisfaction in groups as well as increased motivation among

team members, further overcoming process losses (Maznevski, 2010).

In conclusion, culturally diverse groups demonstrate increased levels of divergence and

decreased levels of convergence, a greater ability to effectively use information and apply

attributional complexity, and they contain various competitive advantages. Teams with cultural

diversity and varied backgrounds and experiences are more likely to achieve success and to

explore all options regarding task completion. Although diverse teams may not be more efficient,

they show higher levels of effectiveness as they communicate and consider innovative

opportunities to accomplish objectives. Therefore, diverse teams represent process losses, but

overall great process gains due to integration of cultures in teamwork.

 References

Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team Diversity and Information Use.

Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573112

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-

Analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field

Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,

44(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054

Lakshman, C. (2013). Biculturalism and attributional complexity: Cross-cultural leadership

effectiveness. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 922–940.

https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.36

Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., Stahl, G. K., & 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(4), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85

Tasheva, S., & Hillman, A. J. (2019). Integrating Diversity at Different Levels: Multilevel Human

Capital, Social Capital, and Demographic Diversity and Their Implications for Team

Effectiveness. The Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 746–765.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0396