Ethics and Teams
The use of teams, especially self-managing teams, has been seen
as a way to overcome the negatives of bureaucracy and hierarchical
control. Giving teams the authority and responsibility to make
their own decisions seems to empower individuals and the team alike
by distributing power more equitably. Interestingly, research by
James Barker shows that sometimes replacing a hierarchy with
self-managing teams can actually increase control over individual
workers and constrain members more powerfully than a hierarchical
system (Barker, 1993). Studying a small manufacturing company that
switched to self-managing teams, Barker interviewed team members
and found an unexpected result: Team members felt more closely
watched under self-managing teams than under the old system.
Ronald, a technical worker, said, “I don’t have to sit there and
look for the boss to be around; and if the boss is not around, I
can sit there and talk to my neighbor or do what I want. Now the
whole team is around me and the whole team is observing what I’m
doing.” Ronald said that while his old supervisor might tolerate
someone coming in a few minutes late, his team had adopted a “no
tolerance” policy on tardiness, and members carefully monitored
their own behaviors.
Team pressure can harm a company as well. Consider a sales team
whose motto of “sales above all” hurts the ability of the company
to gain loyal customers (DiModica, 2008). The sales team feels
pressure to lie to customers to make sales. Their
misrepresentations and unethical behavior gets them the quick sale
but curtails their ability to get future sales from repeat
customers.
Teams Around the Globe
People from different cultures often have different beliefs,
norms, and ways of viewing the world. These kinds of
country-by-country differences have been studied by the GLOBE
Project, in which 170 researchers collected and analyzed data on
cultural values, practices, and leadership attributes from over
17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures (Javidan et al., 2006).
GLOBE identified nine dimensions of culture. One of the identified
dimensions is a measure called collectivism. Collectivism focuses on the
degree to which the society reinforces collective over individual
achievement. Collectivist societies value interpersonal
relationships over individual achievement. Societies that rank high
on collectivism show more close ties between individuals. The
United States and Australia rank low on the collectivism dimension,
whereas countries such as Mexico and Taiwan rank high on that
dimension. High collectivism manifests itself in close, long-term
commitment to the member group. In a collectivist culture, loyalty
is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and
regulations. The society fosters strong relationships in which
everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their
group.
Harrison, McKinnon, Wu, and Chow explored the cultural factors
that may influence how well employees adapt to fluid work groups
(Harrison et al., 2000). The researchers studied groups in Taiwan
and Australia. Taiwan ranks high on collectivism, while Australia
ranks low. The results: Australian managers reported that employees
adapted more readily to working in different teams, working under
different leaders, and taking on leadership of project teams than
the middle managers in Taiwan reported. The two samples were
matched in terms of the functional background of the managers, size
and industries of the firms, and local firms. These additional
controls provided greater confidence in attributing the observed
differences to cultural values.
In other research, researchers analyzed the evaluation of team
member behavior by part-time MBA students in the United States and
Mexico (Gomez, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2000). The United States
ranks low on collectivism while Mexico ranks high. They found that
collectivism (measured at the individual level) had a positive
relationship to the evaluation of a teammate. Furthermore, the
evaluation was higher for in-group members among the Mexican
respondents than among the U.S. respondents.
Power distance is another
culture dimension. People in high power distance countries expect
unequal power distribution and greater stratification, whether that
stratification is economic, social, or political. An individual in
a position of authority in these countries expects (and receives)
obedience. Decision making is hierarchical, with limited
participation and communication. Countries with a low power
distance rating, such as Australia, value cooperative interaction
across power levels. Individuals stress equality and opportunity
for everyone.
Another study by researchers compared national differences in
teamwork metaphors used by employees in six multinational
corporations in four countries: the United States, France, Puerto
Rico, and the Philippines (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). They
identified five metaphors: military, family, sports, associates,
and community. Results showed national variation in the use of the
five metaphors. Specifically, countries high in individualism
(United States and France) tended to use the sports or associates
metaphors, while countries high in power distance (Philippines and
Puerto Rico) tended to use the military or family metaphors.
Further, power distance and collectivistic values were negatively
associated with the use of teamwork metaphors that emphasized clear
roles and broad scope. These results suggest that the meaning of
teamwork may differ across cultures and, in turn, imply potential
differences in team norms and team-member behaviors.
Key Takeaways
Self-managing teams shift the role of control from management to
the team itself. This can be highly effective, but if team members
put too much pressure on one another, problems can arise. It is
also important to make sure teams work toward organizational goals
as well as specific team-level goals. Teams around the globe vary
in terms of collectivism and power distance. These differences can
affect how teams operate in countries around the world.
Exercises
- Have you ever felt pressure from team members to do something
you didn’t want to do? If so, how did you handle it?
- In what ways do you think culture can affect a team?
References
Barker, J. R. (1993, September). Tightening the iron cage:
Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.
DiModica. P. (2008, March 13). Managing sales team ethics and
sales morality. Value Forward Group.
Retrieved August 1, 2008, from
www.valueforward.com/20080313.html.
Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and
meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork.
Administrative Science Quarterly,
46(2), 274–303.
Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The
impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the
evaluation generosity of team members. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(6),
1097–1106.
Harrison, G. L., McKinnon, J. L., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W.
(2000). Cultural influences on adaptation to fluid workgroups and
teams. Journal of International Business
Studies, 31(3), 489–505.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R.
(2006, February). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural
lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90.