Team Conflict, Collaboration, and Trust

Team Conflict, Collaboration, and Trust

Cultural differences often result in varying degrees of conflict and require careful consideration (Mohammed & White, 2008). Hofstede's (1980) analysis of culture from several dimensions provides a useful way to think about how and why coworkers might behave differently. Team members from a culture with a low Masculinity value may be more willing to spend time on team building exercises, and may appreciate the opportunity to get familiar in a social, less formal situation as opposed to a team from a high Masculinity culture. Members from these countries may be impatient with the team building functions, and prefer to dive right into the work required. These cultural differences can lead to conflict. Another one of Hofstede's categories has to do with the way national cultures relate to uncertainty and ambiguity, and therefore, how well they may adapt to change.

Generally, countries that show the most discomfort with ambiguity and uncertainty include Arab, Muslim, and traditional African countries, where high value is placed on conformity and safety, risk avoidance, and reliance on formal rules and rituals. Trust tends to be vested only in close family and friends. It may be difficult for outsider negotiators to establish relationships of confidence and trust with members of these national cultures. Hofstede (1980) identified the United States, Scandinavia, and Singapore as having a higher tolerance for uncertainty. Members of these national cultures tend to value risk-taking, problem-solving, flat organizational structures, and tolerance for ambiguity. It may be easier for outsiders to establish trusting relationships with negotiating partners in these cultural contexts.

The national culture of a member also differs in terms of the dimensions of individualism/collectivism. Members from collectivist cultures believe that success of collaboration lies in the ability to share information with others, while those from individualistic cultures believe that success lies in the withholding of information (Hofstede, 1993). Thus, in a distributed team, members drawn from more collectivist cultures will tend to transfer more knowledge to remote team members. Collectivistic cultures also place a greater emphasize on groups and think more in terms of "we" than individualist cultures. The relationship between employer and employee or business partners is based on trust and harmony and a deep understanding of moral values. The wealth of the company and the groups inside are more important than the individual one's.

In addition to the usual challenges of managing a diverse group of individuals, an increasing number of organizations are relying on technology-enabled geographically distributed teams. These teams, however, are often are difficult to manage and fall short of performance expectations. This is due to conflict caused by communication delays, time zone differences, and lack of face-to-face contact due to space-time dispersion (Hinds & Kiesler, 2002). These factors may hinder development of understanding and relationships among members.

Virtual teams use communication channels such as email, video, telephone, and instant messaging. These channels let the teams focus on sending or receiving, but not both at once. The lack of immediacy of feedback in asynchronous communication can cause problems in development of mutual knowledge in distributed teams (Crampton, 2001). The focus of the message may also vary with the cultural background of the recipient. For example, it is generally considered inappropriate in Germany to include personal information in a professional email. By contrast, email messages to Mexican employees who only focus on work-related topics might be received as cold and aloof and interpreted as lacking interest in the recipient as a person. France's cultural preferences are used to a more hierarchical relationship and are more likely to include the boss on a "cc." Other team members from more participative cultures might view copying the superior as an effort to tattle to the boss or cover one's own tracks (Mercer Bing & LaRoche, 2002). Video conferencing also presents a problem with regard to eye contact. Since the camera and the display screen are separate objects, each time an individual looks at the screen, they shift their eyes from the camera. Someone from a particular cultural, such as the U.S., may misinterpret another person looking away as a sign of disagreement or disrespect. This lack of eye contact reduces trust, collaboration effectiveness, and satisfaction with the interaction. In addition to technology, challenges such as different time zones and lack of team unity in geographically dispersed groups can cause conflict and issues with trust and collaboration.

Members working in completely different time zones may find it difficult or impossible to organize meetings in common office