Unit V Case Study

DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT ACROSS CULTURES: A CASE STUDY

Vicki V. Vandaveer The Vandaveer Group, Inc., Houston, Texas

This case concerns 2 high potential leaders from vastly different cultures who came together as supervisor and supervisee as part of a large corporate merger of 2 American global companies. The case recounts the rocky start of their relationship and the process, facilitated initially by better understanding the cultures of their respective upbringings that ultimately led to their finding their way to having an effective working relationship. Societal cultural dimensions from well-known cross-cultural research served as a helpful framework and tools for helping this dyadic team communicate more effectively and better understand each other.

Keywords: leadership, cross-cultural, culture, dyadic team development, consulting

The consulting project described in this case study arose as part of a long-term consulting engagement with a large U.S. international company. The names of the participants in the case and some of the locations have been changed in order to ensure anonymity. The author-consultant had been working with a man I will call Steve, president of a global business unit (GBU), for several years—first as his executive development coach, then in an ongoing role as a trusted advisor on behavioral, performance, and leadership aspects of the business.

The consultant’s contract with the company was an “umbrella” contract for “organizational change management consulting services” associated with the merger of two large international companies. The overarching contract generally described the scope and nature of the work to be performed and was appended with “Statements of Work” (SOW) for the specific services provided to different business units (BUs). For this particular engagement, because the consultant was already working with the BU President and his leadership team (LT), no additional SOW was deemed necessary, because the description of services included leader coaching, team development, and subteam development as needed.

An important aspect of the context in which this case occurred was the merger. In addition to the normal responsibilities of running the business and meeting financial reporting deadlines, managers were working feverishly to effectively merge operations and two very different corporate cultures. I was working with the overall merger strategy team and leading the change management team, and was working with the merger teams of several BUs. Everything was urgent; everyone was working 16 –18 hour days; and the work required to lead—and to overcome organizational immunity to—significant change was all-consuming for all.

Steve was a designated “high potential” (HIPO) manager. He had been promoted twice in the 5 years that I had been working with him as he advanced from Regional Vice President (VP) to the

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vicki V. Vandaveer, 426 West Cowan Drive, Houston, TX 77007. E-mail: [email protected]

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2013 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 64, No. 4, 279 –294 1065-9293/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0031652

279

Executive VP’s Advisor to president of a GBU. He was not an immediately open person naturally, and it took some time before he opened enough with me that I could add value in his executive development. Over time, I became his trusted advisor and he made significant progress in looking deeply at himself and allowing me to help him enhance his already strong leadership effectiveness. His primary executive development need identified by the senior leaders of the company was to have an international assignment. Thus far, all of his assignments had been in the U.S. corporate headquarters and several field assignments as he had come up the ranks from engineer to manager to now a senior level leadership role. His next assignment would be international. At the time of this project, he was in his first year as the GBU’s president with the expectation of moving after two to four years.

After 6 months in his new role, Steve made some changes in his LT for purposes of (a) developmental reassignment, (b) bringing talented people from other countries and cultures onto his team to have representation of GBU countries on the Headquarters (HQ) LT, and (c) providing identified HIPOs within their respective countries with the kinds of developmental experiences only obtained by working in U.S. corporate HQ. He also wanted experience in leading a multicultural team prior to taking an international assignment. He used the company’s worldwide staffing process to review candidates and select people for key roles on his team— one of which was a Financial Planning Manager. For that role he selected a HIPO woman from a developing Muslim country, whom I will call Misha. She had been working for several years as the Financial Planning Manager FPM for the Asia/Pacific Region, based in Hong Kong.

I was pleased to learn that Misha had been selected, both for Steve’s team’s sake and hers. Over the past 8 years, I had observed and worked with her on a number of occasions in two of her Regional Planning Manager assignments: (a) Africa–Middle East region, based in East Africa, and (b) in her current assignment—Asia/Pacific region— based in Hong Kong. We worked together in the Africa–Middle East region on two different initiatives: (a) LT development of the multicultural team of which she was a member and (b) implementation of the new performance management system, which among other things, required cultural adaptation of the behavioral indicator ratings (i.e., “behavioral anchors”) in each of the different cultures—to support the company’s Core Values and Corporate Compliance Guidelines. Cultural adaptation meant wording the definitions and behavioral anchors on the rating scales so that the intended meaning would be conveyed. For example, one dimension rated was originally worded as “Demonstrates respect for others’ cultures.” In some cultures the term respect for was replaced with acceptance of, because, although there was not genuine “respect” for certain customs in other cultures (e.g., treatment of women), employees were expected to “accept” that that was the custom, and therefore not criticize nor engage in behaviors that demonstrated lack of “acceptance” while working in or visiting that country. In other cultures to “accept” others’ customs means to “adopt as our own”— clearly not intended; thus, “demonstrate (show) respect” conveyed the intended behavior.

Misha was adept at recognizing English terminology that had very different meanings across different cultures. I had had several other opportunities as well to work with her on different initiatives, including cross-cultural LT development with the teams of which she was a member in United Arab Emirates and later in Kenya. She was obviously very bright, perceptive, and respected by and had influence with her colleagues. In LT meetings she was the focal point when the conversation concerned the Region’s finances. Her demeanor was quiet, and she was always very respectful in talking with everyone—no matter their level in the organization. At the same time it was clear to any observer that members of the LT sought out and respected her judgment in business analysis and planning.

With a bachelor’s degree in finance from a well-respected university in the United Kingdom, Misha had lived and worked very successfully in five different countries in the past 15 years. Although she had had one assignment in the U.S. for a small Joint Venture (JV) company prior to the mega-merger of the JV’s parent companies, she had never had an assignment in a large U.S. Corporate Headquarters. A true “citizen of the world,” Misha had become quite Westernized in her dress and demeanor and had departed considerably from the behavioral norms of most women in her home culture. After she had received her degree, she went to work for her present employer

280 VANDAVEER

company and happily took assignments in different countries. She told me that she would never go back to her home country to work, as there were no jobs for women there at the same level of responsibility and pay as her current and recent jobs with this multinational company. She looked forward to having a U.S. corporate HQ assignment.

A Rough Start

Six months into her new assignment as Financial Planning Manager, reporting to Steve, I received an urgent call from Steve that he needed my help with Misha. He said that she was “floundering” in her new role and he did not know what to do about it. We met to discuss the problems, and I learned that Steve had changed her job title (and responsibilities) to Manager of Strategy and Planning. As Financial Planning Manager, Misha’s responsibilities were to collect the budgeting and financial information from each region every month, analyze the data, develop reports with graphic profiles for use in BU planning, and work with BU regional and country managers to understand the results and trends. This was a very analytical set of responsibilities that required effective commu- nication and (supportive) relational skills. As Manager of Strategy and Planning, she was expected to work with the other members of Steve’s LT, facilitating their developing BU strategy. This (to Steve, “minor”) change was actually a major one, as some substantially different skillsets were required for actively facilitating strategy development among some very strong and competitive Western regional leaders, each of whom had different agendas, drivers (i.e., balanced scorecard performance metrics), and needs.

Perspectives of the Leader

In our initial meeting, Steve acknowledged that Misha was “a very hard worker, a team oriented leader, caring and supportive of her team, and had quiet confidence.” However, as a facilitator of strategy development, she was failing miserably. The entire LT was affected, no one happy with the process of strategy development, everyone “dug in” to their positions. No one was willing to “give up” anything, and several had come to Steve to complain.

Steve asked me to conduct confidential interviews with Misha and each member of his LT to assess the issues and make a recommendation to him about how to resolve the problem. I saw that (a) he was envisioning a kind of 180 degree feedback (i.e., from peers and supervisor) on Misha’s effectiveness (a very U.S./Western methodology, characteristic of individualistic cultures), (b) he perhaps hadn’t fully understood the significance of her job redesign on her performance effective- ness, and (c) some “misfires” in communication were occurring between the two of them—likely at least in part attributable to cultural misunderstandings. I suggested that I first talk with Misha to get her perspective on how things were going with her job, with Steve, and with Steve’s team—and then propose an approach. I explained that one-on-one interviewing to get individuals’ perspectives on Misha’s effectiveness and the effectiveness of the relationships between the LT and Misha, and between Steve and Misha, is a very Western practice that could feel quite threatening to someone from a collectivist culture; and that it could make the situation much worse if cultural norms were violated. We agreed that the process needed to do no harm. I wanted first to understand Misha’s perspectives (I did not assume collectivist orientation, given her history, but needed to be sure) and those of her small team, to learn her thoughts about how to approach the problem, and discuss with her the suggested plan. Then I would propose a method to Steve. Steve readily agreed to these initial steps.

Misha appeared glad to see me. She admitted being “completely at a loss” to know how to please Steve; and she expressed fear of failing—for the first time in her life. She talked very openly about the problems she was experiencing with Steve and with his LT. She also expressed difficulty in adjusting to U.S. culture. As friendly as people appeared to be, at the end of the day everyone went home and no one ever invited her to their homes—something she had become accustomed to in every other country in which she had lived as an expatriate.

281DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

I explored with Misha the (admittedly Western) approach of achieving an effective understand- ing of the issues by first assessing the problem by obtaining the perspectives of each of the key stakeholders, beginning with her and Steve, then including members of her team and Steve’s LT. This process could help identify the conflict dynamics and likely causes of the problems. This approach, I explained, would better enable us to design and target an appropriate and effective intervention. I shared with her the kinds of open-ended questions I would ask of each LT and SPT member, explaining how individual confidentiality would be protected and how the information would be reported and used. I noted that both Misha and Steve would see the results, and that there would likely then be one team development intervention between Misha and Steve, facilitated by me. Reviewing the results separately with each of them, I explained, would allow me to help prepare each of them for having effective communication with each other in the initial team development meeting. I asked Misha how she felt about this approach and was prepared to come at the problem a different way if she was at all uncomfortable. We knew each other well enough that she was comfortable with and trusted me. Misha said she was not only comfortable with the approach but was eager to know what others were thinking and perceiving. She reminded me that she had been educated in the United Kingdom and had been dealing with Westerners for the past 20-plus years and that she was very motivated to be successful in this U.S. international company. We both laughed; of course she had been “dealing with Westerners” for some time—and quite successfully. Her bosses in the other countries had been Westerners (Australian and white South African); however, they had treated her more like family.

Results of the Needs Assessment Interviews

Excerpts from Steve’s and Misha’s responses to the needs assessment interviews—in the language used by them—are shown in Table 1. The underlining indicates key terms that clearly indicated assumptions, expectations, and/or personal or cultural values.

The language used is revealing. Steve used verbs in describing what he expected Misha to do, such as drive, push, challenge, take control, exert her influence—all characteristic of Hofstede’s (2001, 2011) and others’ cultural dimensions of individualism (as opposed to collectivism), lower power distance, lower uncertainty avoidance, and low paternalism. Misha’s words included family, all on same team, Steve is the boss, work so hard to do exactly what he says to do in the way he says to do it—remindful of the cultural dimension of collectivism (as opposed to individualism), paternalism, higher power distance, and higher uncertainty avoidance (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Hofstede, 2002, 2011; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998, 2004; Triandis, 2002).

In applying Hofstede’s terms, it is important to note that the research approach used was, as described by Hofstede, “sociological, not psychological. It does not compare different personalities, but different societal contexts within which children grow up and develop their personalities. It is not about individuals, but about the constraints within which, in different countries, a psychology to relatedness should be developed” (House et al., 2004; Minkov & Hofstede, 2012). Neither scientifically nor practically is it appropriate to merely translate these cultural dimensions into assumptions that they apply to every individual within or from a given culture, for there is vast variability among individuals—just as in our own culture—particularly, as in this case, when an individual has been educated and has lived and worked for years in cultures very different from her home country. However, it is also true that individuals who have grown up in a given culture, with rare exception, do have deeply embedded values arising from their experiences and learnings from their parents and others in that culture that remain a part of them for as long as they live. Those deeply ingrained cultural values, assumptions, and beliefs tend to manifest when one is experiencing significant stress, such as may be caused by living and working in a different culture, feeling isolated, feeling unsupported personally by the manager, and for the first time sensing or fearing failure.

282 VANDAVEER

Interpretation

Familiar with Hofstede’s (2001), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (1998), and Triandis’s (2002) work, and with the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), I immediately and automatically associated Steve’s and Misha’s respective words in describing the difficulties each had with each other with the cultural dimensions of individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and paternalism. As a consultant working to help this dyadic team achieve better relationship and perfor- mance effectiveness, the research pioneered by the work of these researchers served as a helpful framework for use in helping Steve and Misha to better understand each other, resolve their differences, and find an effective solution to the problems.

Hofstede’s work has been both heralded as seminal and criticized methodologically,primarily for overreliance on a large global sample from one large multinational company. I tend to favor the consensus of GLOBE study researchers: “The importance of Hofstede’s (1980) study for cross-cultural research cannot be underestimated, as it was the first large-scale empirical project to put these abstract constructs on the empirical map. . .[it] provided a conceptual roof under which existing studies could fall, as compared to the atheoretical stance that had previously characterized the cross-cultural literature in management” (House et al., 2004, p. 441) because in my experience, practically it frequently makes sense to people who are trying to communicate and relate across cultures. And each time that happens, my own appreciation for Hofstede’s conceptualizations is further reinforced. Definitions of these societal cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2001; House, et al.,, 2004; Triandis, 2002; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004; James, Chen, & Cropanzano, 1996) are provided in Table 2. A number of other researchers have

Table 1 Key Excerpts From the Initial Interviews With the President and Manager of Strategy and Planning (MSP)

President MSP

Not happy with MSP’s progress—increasingly frustrated

Financial Planning Manager frustrated with President

• “I need her to drive strategy.” • “He is never satisfied . . . is always saying ‘we don’t do X very well’. . . trivializes what we all do.”

• “She needs to push the Leadership Team.” • “I’ve tried everything to meet his expectations— my team and I work so hard to do exactly what he says to do in the way he says to do it; and even then he is dissatisfied.”

• “She’s not showing confidence—is very tentative”

• “There is never any encouragement from him . . . nothing to let us know we’re on the right track.”

• “She needs to challenge them—take control—exert her influence”

• “He pushes hard—but I’m not sure he even knows what he really wants.”

• “When I make a suggestion, she goes away and then brings back exactly what I said to do—not thinking for herself.”

• “He blames me for the Leadership Team’s refusal to make any compromises for the greater good of the whole GBU [global business unit]. We operate like independent cowboys—fighting each other to ‘win’ individually. Don’t they realize we are all on the same team?”

• A manager at her level should be thinking outside the box and suggesting to me how best to achieve what I’ve asked.

• Steve is the boss. It is his responsibility to get his team to work together to come up with the strategy. My job is to facilitate the process; but I can’t make them work together and compromise.

• This is the first time I have had a boss that I felt didn’t care about me and want to help me be successful. Always before I felt like our Leadership Teams were family. Here it’s everyone for himself.

283DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

Table 2 Relevant Societal Cultural Dimensions—Definitions and Example Characteristics

Societal cultural dimension/definition Typical characteristics

Individualism/collectivism Individualism: The degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members (Hofstede, 2001)

• Ties between individuals loose/individual achievement rewarded

• Collectivism I—(institutional) extent organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action (House et al, 2004)

• Individuals expected to look after themselves

• Collectivism II—(in-group) degree individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations, families (House et al.,, 2004)

• Employees expected to be self-reliant/”self- starters,” to demonstrate initiative

• Organizational rewards based on merit, results • Individual competitiveness • “I” emphasized Collectivism • Strong, cohesive work groups/Group is more

important than any one individual • Close, long-term commitment to the group/loyalty

paramount—overrides other rules • Employer/employee relationships are perceived in

moral terms (like a family link) • Hiring/promotion decisions consider the

employee’s in-group • Everyone takes responsibility for fellow group

members • In-group competitiveness with out-groups • “We” emphasized

Power Distance Low: Extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a (country, organization) expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. (Hofstede, 2001)

• Inequalities minimized/decentralization/status symbols less evident

The degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government. (House et al., 2004)

• Power bases are transient and sharable (e.g., skill, knowledge)/upward mobility

• Differences noted between societal values and business/organizational practices (House et al., 2004, pp. 540–543)

• Power seen as a source of corruption, coercion, and dominance

• Ideal boss: democratic or participative/authoritative High: • Inequalities considered desirable/greater reliance by

less powerful on the powerful • Centralization/hierarchy/status symbols/wide pay

differentials/limited upward mobility • Power seen as providing social order, relational

harmony, role stability (GLOBE) • Employees expect to be told what to do • Ideal boss: benevolent autocrat

(table continues)

284 VANDAVEER

contributed substantially to current understanding of cross-cultural dynamics. However, even if I had the luxury of time to do a thorough literature review at that time, I would not have done anything differently relative to the intervention. Although cultural misunderstandings very likely explained a certain amount of Steve’s and Misha’s communication and relationship “misfires” and the disappointing performance of the Manager of Strategy and Planning, other factors (e.g., significant change of job responsibilities subsequent to placing Misha in her position; insufficient clarity on Steve’s part with his LT regarding

Table 2 (continued)

Societal cultural dimension/definition Typical characteristics

Uncertainty avoidance Low: Extent members of a culture feel threatened or

anxious by ambiguous or unknown situations, and have created beliefs and institutions to avoid (Hofstede, 2001)

• Comfort with ambiguity, flatter organizational structure, fewer rules and processes

Extent ambiguous situations are threatening to individuals, to which rules and order are preferred, and to which uncertainty is tolerated in society. (Sully de Luque an Javidan—in House et al., 2004, pp. 602–645)

• Consistent with more team oriented leadership— and with participative leadership

High: • High need for structure—rules, systems, pyramidal

structure • Consistent with hierarchical organizational

structure, rules, procedures At individual level of analysis, high uncertainty

avoidance is associated with: Less tolerance for ambiguity Anxiety, stress, neuroticism Feedback seeking

Paternalism Low: (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, other Western nations)

Paternalistic leadership “combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity couched in a ‘personalistic’ atmosphere . . . (and) is composed of three main elements: authoritarianism, benevolence, and moral leadership” (Farh & Cheng, 2000).

(Typical in lower power distance and individualistic cultures)

“Paternalistic leadership refers to a hierarchical relationship in which the leader takes personal interest in the workers’ professional and personal lives in a manner resembling a parent, and expects loyalty and respect in return” (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007)

• At the individual level—considerable variability in paternalism based on personality

Pakistan, India, Turkey, China, Taiwan, and most Latin American societies have strong paternalistic values. Leaders are expected to act like parents—take care of employees and their families. (James, Chen, & Cropanzano, 1996)

• As a cultural characteristic, leaders are not expected to treat employees like family—can be seen as favoritism, conflict of interest, or something else that is inappropriate

High: (Pakistan, India, Turkey, China, Taiwan) (Typical in high power distance and collectivist

cultures) • Most effective leaders are both nurturant and task

oriented—paternalistic and authoritative • Leaders treat employees like family—look out for

them

285DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

expectations and “non-negotiables”) he expected them to “step up” as leaders and make decisions about their budgets that were in the interest of the whole GBU and Company), and so forth) were also operating in the conflict between them. This case study emphasizes the cross-cultural issues, in keeping with the theme of this special issue of CPJ.

Table 3 shows the associations I made between Steve’s and Misha’s respective statements and the societal cultural dimensions that were likely implied. Their statements served as indicators of their assumptions, expectations, needs and values.

Process and Dynamics of the Consulting Project

Having completed the interviews with Steve and Misha, I proceeded to continue the need assessment by interviewing the members of their respective teams. The consulting project process is described below.

1. Need assessment interviews—members of Steve’s LT (n � 8) and members of Misha’s planning (now strategy and planning) team (n � 5)

• Confidential interviews—results aggregated and summarized by team; individuals’ re- sponses not identified nor identifiable.

• Covered a range of relevant issues: what is currently going very well in the BU; what is not going so well; perspectives on causes (� and –), enablers of effectiveness, and obstacles; perspectives on team dynamics, leadership (style, clarity, effectiveness, etc.), and processes, structure of GBU; their own contributions to the level of successes, effectiveness of the team; views regarding what is needed to enhance the effectiveness and performance of the BU and the LT; and so forth.

2. Review of respondents’ results separately—Misha, Steve • In order that each might digest the results independently, and so that I could help prepare

each one for their team building. 3. First team building session—Steve and Misha A. The session began with storytelling. I asked each of them to describe their professional

(and life) journey that brought them to this same place in time, to work together at a historic moment in this company’s history, to achieve great things together. (This consisted of a 1/2 day getting to know each other, “softly” facilitated by me to help draw out key things that I knew about each of them that I knew would be helpful for the other to know.)

• This approach served to ease tensions and make both more comfortable for looking at the interview results.

• There were surprises on both sides—and occasional laughter as their respective stories unfolded. Already they were beginning to see how very different their upbringings had been—and how interesting the real story was about how they each arrived at this place at this time.

B. Reviewed, discussed interview results—their own statements • Surfaced assumptions, feelings, perceptions, and expectations—and introduced the societal

cultural dimensions as they might apply to what they were discussing. • Both of them appeared to be interested in learning and entertaining the notion that their

deeply ingrained imprints from their upbringing in their respective cultures could be an important source of their assumptions, expectations, needs, values. I sensed that in some way they were relieved to find an explanation that made sense to them—relieved them, perhaps of feeling they were to blame for the difficulties.

• I observed the heightened energy in their conversation as they discussed “individualism” and “collectivism,” for example, and it was interesting to see how far they took that. Misha was definitely Westernized compared to most women from her home country; however, she recognized in her own interview statements that she still had “vestiges” of expectations and assumptions from her home country’s culture and that they must be more than “vestiges” because she was feeling so distraught, anxious, fearful about failure in this assignment, and wanting so much to be “parented” by Steve and to be welcomed as “family” to him and the LT.

• Similarly, confronted with his own deeply ingrained assumptions, expectations, and U.S./ Western “lens,” Steve reflected on his stated perspectives in our interview and began to see

286 VANDAVEER

Table 3 Statements and Terminology As Indicators of Assumptions, Expectations, and Needs Potentially Stemming From Societal Cultural Values, Norms

Statement/terminology Assumptions, expectations,

needs indicated

Reminiscent of the societal cultural dimensionD of

CommentsI-C PD UA PA

President “Make these guys align on strategy”—be tough, assertive; deal with the uncertainty/ambiguity

I Medium- low

Medium Low Leader who grew up and prospered in an individualistic society and had not lived/worked outside United States had expectations of his supervisee that were consistent with his cultural norms (“I”), but not hers (“we”).

“I need her to drive strategy.”

“She needs to push the Leadership team.”

“She needs to challenge them— take control— exert her influence.”

Manager of Strategy and Planning

C Medium- high

High

“He blames me for the Leadership Team’s refusal to make any compromises for the greater good of the whole GBU [global business unit]. We operate like independent cowboys—fighting each other to ‘win’ individually. Don’t they realize we’re all on the same team?”

“I’m a facilitator, not a driver.”

Sees the group’s goals as more important than any individual’s goals—but feels powerless to do anything about the team’s refusal to compromise.

“Steve is the boss. It is his responsibility to get his team to work together to come up with the strategy.

“Getting our team of westerners to align on strategy is the boss’s job.”

It is Steve’s job— he’s the boss.

(table continues)

287DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

Table 3 (continued)

Statement/terminology Assumptions, expectations,

needs indicated

Reminiscent of the societal cultural dimensionD of

CommentsI-C PD UA PA

My job is to facilitate the process; but I can’t make them work together and compromise.”

President That Misha will use his suggestions as input to her own thought process . . . that she is “paid the big bucks” for suggesting to Steve what to do/how to proceed.

I Medium- low

Med Low

“When I make a suggestion, she goes away and then brings back exactly what I said to do—not thinking for herself.”

“A manager at her level should be thinking outside the box and suggesting to me how best to achieve what I’ve asked.”

The harder Steve tried to stimulate Misha’s own thinking, the more displeased she saw he was, and the harder she tried to do exactly—to the letter—what he suggested . . . which caused him to see her as not competent in her position.

Manager of Strategy and Planning

Expected encouragement and to be treated “like family”. . . needed more useful feedback . . . expected Steve to bring the Team together.

C Medium- high

High High

“He is never satisfied.”

(table continues)

288 VANDAVEER

the impact they were having on Misha—actually having the opposite effect to what he wanted. He recognized that he had misattributed Misha’s ineffectiveness with the LT to inability and/or unwillingness to do her job any other way than how she had always done it.

• What Misha already knew from her experiences elsewhere—and what Steve was now appreciating—was that we don’t really understand our own culture until we are confronted with a different culture (as in the oft-cited example “a fish doesn’t comprehend water until it is out of it”). And this was another new experience for Misha: U.S. culture plus this company’s particular corporate HQ culture plus having a manager who, for the first time, didn’t embrace her as family.

There was much more, but this description serves to make the point that the dyadic team building between Steve and Misha was a process of discovery, and the societal cultural dimensions of their respective countries was a useful tool for opening up an authentic and deeper conversation between them.

C. Reviewed the interview results of Steve’s LT and Misha’s small team (relevant excerpts are shown in Table 4).

4. Clarified needs (of the team, Misha, Steve); roles—Misha’s and Steve’s; expectations 5. Individual Coaching: Steve and Misha

I worked with Misha and with Steve individually between team building meetings, to help each of them enhance their (a) processing of what transpired in their meetings— extracting and internal- izing the insights and learnings; (b) understanding of themselves and each other; (c) skills in

Table 3 (continued)

Statement/terminology Assumptions, expectations,

needs indicated

Reminiscent of the societal cultural dimensionD of

CommentsI-C PD UA PA

“I’ve tried everything to meet his expectations . . . do exactly what he says to do in the way he says to do it; and even then he is dissatisfied.”

“There is never any encouragement”

“This is the first time I have had a boss that I felt didn’t care about me and want to help me be successful. Always before I felt like our Leadership Teams were family. Here it’s everyone for himself.”

Note. I-C � Individualism-Collectivism; UA � Uncertainty Avoidance; PD � Power Distance; PA � Paternalism.

289DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

communicating and relating with each other; and (d) facilitating their thinking through important issues.

Steve and Misha were making good progress in understanding each other and communicating more effectively. However, it was still the case that the change in Misha’s job responsibilities meant

Table 4 Excerpts From Need Assessment Interviews

President’s leadership team (n � 8) Manager of Strategy and Planning (MSP)’s planning

team (n � 5)

What is going especially well with the business unit?

What is going especially well with the business unit?

• Excellent team—all high performers/high potential

• We have successfully completed several big projects—all on time and within budget

• Have support of top management • President • Have increased market share by X% in 2

years Very highly regarded by senior management

• President—strengths include . . • MSP—great boss Intellectually gifted Very supportive—professionally and personally Huge Capacity “with capital ‘C’” for work Really cares about us Results driven (� and -) Extremely smart—quick Competitive (� and -) Analytical skills Very high energy Project management skills Cares about people (shows indirectly) Gives good feedback—teaches us how to do things • MSP—strengths include Always available to us Analytical thinking Knowledge of finance and planning Listens well—is perceptive, insightful Global experience—cross-cultural savvy Systems thinking Team player—really cares Demonstrates courage—takes on challenges

What is not going so well—what needs improvement?

What is not going well—what needs improvement?

• We aren’t aligned on strategy, and have not been successful in trying to align

• President and MSP are not connecting well—we get conflicting messages; we start, stop and restart a lot

• MSP is weak in her position • President is a hard task manager Introspective, quiet • Our team ever gets any praise or encouragement

from Steve Not skilled in facilitating meetings of strong

westerners in conflict with each other • Even when we make significant contributions, there

is no thanks, no acknowledgement; it’s just on to the next task.

Not comfortable with intangibles, uncertainty, ambiguity

• Worry about MSP’s stress level

Has difficulty being “heard” among westerners • President Very U.S.-centric No prior international experience, and now

he’s in a global leadership role “Pace setter” management style (does a lot

himself—not good at delegating responsi- bility and authority)

First time leading a multi-cultural team, so not attuned to cultural differences—allows the westerners to dominate

290 VANDAVEER

that she was not a strong fit for the role as Steve needed it to be. Being “tough,” “assertive,” and “pushy” was against Misha’s very nature—and opposite to the characteristics that had made her so effective in her prior roles. Feeling better about her relationship and communication with Steve, Misha nevertheless was still miserable—still feeling socially isolated, pressured to be more like an aggressive Westerner and “push” the team members to come up with a strong and sound business strategy and to compromise. I took her through an exercise of analyzing her two main alternatives: (a) stay—tough it out—and learn from this challenging assignment; or (b) leave—find a different job within the company.

Misha’s thought process—and her decision are shown in Table 5. Note that this was done after the second dyadic team development meeting (described below).

6. Ongoing dyadic team building: Steve and Misha (three more sessions)

Session 2 covered what each needed from each other, and specific commitments were made. Then they engaged in discussion about BU strategy— how to get alignment. My role in that meeting was to help ensure that they heard each other, occasionally calling time out for a “coaching moment.” Misha suggested that Steve engage an internal strategy and organization change profes- sional in a different BU to facilitate the strategy development work—pointing out that that would allow her (Misha) to participate as a team member, using her in-depth knowledge of the BU’s and company’s financials; her intimate knowledge of each of the international regions’ circumstances, needs, capabilities; and her good understanding of the business’s economics, strengths, vulnerabil- ities, and so forth.

Table 5 Misha’s Decision and Thought Process

Pro Con

Alternative 1: Stay • Challenge will make me stronger • If I keep trying without success, I’ll spiral down • I bring to the job: Need something positive right now Global experience—many countries Hurt my career? Real experience—different cultures Destroy my reputation? Different ways of thinking • This culture—I don’t feel I fit Field experience • Steve is never satisfied

• Measure of success is intangible (uncertainty avoidance) and drawn out in time

Significant experience—big organizational change

• Effectiveness is judged from typical American perspective—the louder and more aggressive, the more effective you are judged to be

Track record of consistent success • If work is not going well, it impacts me per- sonally; work is my life

Will learn a lot U.S. company headquarter New skills—leading in a large American

global company headquarter Further cultural learning • The chances of real success here are low. • Big step in self development

Alternative 2: Leave • Get out of a very stressful situation • Giving up after all these months of trying will

make me feel like a failure - Will feel better—back in control

• Reunite with my family • Hurt my chances of getting another good position?

• I’ve begun losing sight of all those years of achievement

291DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

Steve accepted her proposal. It worked: The strategy and organization change professional had what it took to get the “cowboys” aligned on a sound strategy. And Misha’s contributions in that meeting were acknowledged by the whole team.

Session 3 included active communication and planning, now that the business strategy was set. Misha could now do what she was very good at—working with each of the LT members to plan execution within their organization. After the plan was agreed, Misha told Steve about her decision to look for another job within the company—sharing with him her decision thought process. Steve expressed appreciation for her consideration of “what’s best for the GBU” and also expressed some sadness to see her go. He and this wise, quiet, perceptive woman from the other side of the world had had quite a learning and development journey together.

The merger activities made a quick transition difficult, as the positions in the merged company had been filled from top down. Steve worked hard to find a good position for her and that happened 6 months later.

7. GBU LT development • We used the LT’s summarized interview responses as a platform for discussion and work. • Misha participated as a team member and became increasingly more respected and valued,

and her insights and different ways of thinking becoming more appreciated by the LT members.

Results

The agenda for Session 4 of Steve’s and Misha’s team building was to do a “learning look-back” and to evaluate this engagement. Both Steve and Misha declared it a “success,” in that:

• they had achieved better understanding— of each other and of themselves; • communication had opened; • their relationship had improved—to the point that they now rated it as “very good”; • Misha’s decision to search for a different job within the company was the right one for her

and for the BU; and • both Steve and Misha evaluated the intervention outcomes as “successful beyond what they

expected.”

Key Learnings

My learnings from this engagement were several and included the following:

1. My prior relationship with Misha was a not insignificant factor in the success of the intervention from Misha’s perspective. Over a period of about 6 years previously our numerous opportunities to work together had been accompanied by countless dinners with the various management teams in several different developing countries—sharing stories, learning others’ cultures, eating local food—and even shopping for art and crafts and holiday gifts together on weekends with the country managers. Almost 20 years her senior, I was seen by Misha as a “mentor” and “role model” (which I learned in the last team building session between her and Steve). Although she did not include “mother” in her description, I wondered whether her happiness to see me at the beginning of this engage- ment might have had something to do with feeling that I was “family.” At least, she felt safe; and that was what was important and what allowed us to do the work in the way that we did it.

2. The APA Ethical Principle #3.05 regarding multiple relationships was a concern to me when I first began working internationally— especially in Eastern cultures, but also even in Western cultures with big expatriate communities. Expectations are that the consultant will indeed participate in dinners, outings, ex-pat gatherings, community activities; and in fact, to be successful, one really does need to have that kind of “dual relationship.” Copied from the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct:

3.05 Multiple Relationships. (a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time

292 VANDAVEER

is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.

Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.

In this case, as I saw that Misha felt “family connection” with me, and I wanted to be sure that I neither succumbed to protecting her (like her mother!)—nor to unnecessarily erecting barriers to our relationship. I handled that by discussing it directly with her. She was interested—wanted to understand—and wanted me to remain objective and therefore maximally helpful to her and to Steve. I was “coach” and “facilitator”; she was client and a “cultural teacher” to me (as she always had been) and to Steve, as he was to her.

My insight was that this was a dynamic process that stimulated the growth of us all by its evolution and mutual learning, as opposed to an assessment ¡ intervention ¡ outcomes causal, linear process.

3. Misha’s suggestion that someone else more skilled at strong facilitation be engaged to facilitate the strategy work was a good one in another way besides achieving very successfully the Team’s objective of getting a good strategy. It also put Misha in a position with her LT peers where she could shine. As a member of the LT (as opposed to being facilitator), she was able to display and contribute her strengths; and her credibility considerably improved with the other LT members.

4. The impact of my Self on this consulting engagement was obvious and made me even more keenly attuned to my approach. I needed to be careful to strike just the right balance and timing in engagement and holding back, challenging and supporting, teaching and letting the process take its course for a while—the art of the helping role. Working with two people from different cultures further enhanced my awareness of my own culture and my impact in the consulting process, contributing to my own further learning and development.

Discussion

There have been a good number of high quality studies done in recent years on cultural dimen- sions—at the societal, organizational, group, and individual levels (see References). It is my hope that there will be more collaboration between practitioners and researchers to advance the science and practice of cross-cultural savvy and leadership.

This particular engagement came in the midst of a large corporate merger for which I was the change management consultant to the corporate merger team. Consequently I did not do an exhaustive literature review of cross-cultural research. I went with what I knew, using the scientific work with which I was familiar to frame our work and serve as a platform for enhancing communication between Steve and Misha. That proved to be helpful. Each person in the dyad recognized aspects of themselves in the descriptions of the societal dimensions, and that helped them bridge across their different cultural upbringings to connect. And that connection helped lead to their achieving greater understanding, much improved communication, and a “very effective” working relationship. Both of them say that what they learned from each other has served them well in subsequent years and different assignments.

References

Farh, J. L. & Cheng, B. S. (2002). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84 –127). London: McMillan.

293DYADIC TEAM DEVELOPMENT

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479 –514. Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations

across nations (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2002). Cultural diversity. Thinkers. Chartered Management Institute. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. In W. J. Lonner, S. A. Dinnel,

& D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture: Unit 2: Conceptual, methodological and ethical issues in psychology and culture. Bellingham: Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Wash- ington University. Retrieved from http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/readings.htm

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

James, K., Chen, D. L., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Culture and leadership among Taiwanese and U.S. workers: Do values influence leadership ideals? In M. N. Ruderman, M. W. Hughes-James, & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Selected research on work team diversity (pp. 33–52). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. doi:10.1037/10507-002

Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Is national culture a meaningful concept? Cultural values delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-country regions. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 46, 133–159. doi:10.1177/1069397111427262

Triandis, H. C. (2002). Individualism and collectivism. In M. Gannon & K. Newman (Eds.) Handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 16 –45). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2004). Managing people across cultures. West Sussex, England: Capstone Publishing Ltd.

Received October 24, 2012 Latest revision received December 26, 2012

Accepted December 27, 2012 �

294 VANDAVEER