For this assignment, you will identify a workplace conflict that you are now experiencing. Address the following in a paper:Provide a brief description of the conflict. (Note that you should strive to

Varied Cultures and Team Development

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Varied Cultures and Team Development

The stages of a team’s life and Cog’s ladder were both developed in the United States.

In Tuckman’s model, teams undergo stakes such as forming, storming, norming, and them performing before adjourning (Chekwa, Zoellner, Oingbure, & Hunter, 2016). Such stages allow the progressive growth of a team. Similarly, the Cog Ladder of Group Development defines the stages that a working group undergoes before maturation into a well-functioning team. In the model team development is a process that utilizes time and energy before becoming productive. Individuals must wait and be ready for the few challenges as the roles of individuals within the team and personality enhance development (Chekwa, Zoellner, Oingbure, & Hunter, 2016). The five stages of the Cog Team Development Ladder include the polite stage, why are we here, bid the power, constructive, espirit. However, these stages vary based on cultures. During the Polite Stage, people tend to be polite and familiarize with each other while establishing their individual identities within the group. There is a high avoidance of conflicts. Then comes the Why are We Here? The stage where group members ponder the purpose of the group and their contribution to it.

Later in Bid for Power Stage, the individual traditional roles within the team arise hence roles like moral director, leader, writer, timekeeper, technical expert(s), taskmaster, mediator, creative thinker, define the development of the team. Since there is already an evolution of roles beyond the polite stage, power inter-individual struggles surface. Team members build expectations of one another, they might subtly anticipate performance of preferred roles.

In the Constructive Stage, individuals for the performance of roles in which they receive best compliments from members, hence harmony and envisioning of new strategies come up. Finally, the Esprit Stage comes with few teams becoming interdependent, sharing the esteem of group goals and accomplishments and identifying with the team.

Based on the American culture

The Chinese, Russians, Eastern Europeans, favor collectivism under socialism and communism while the Americans, Canadians, and Western Europeans favor individualism democracy, and capitalism. According to when there is collectivism, there is the promotion of openness, authority, uniformity, discipline, hierarchy. This leads to the need to have people starting a team with an open view. Such individuals get to a group with the intention of openly talking about others and themselves.

They will start the group by focusing on the power, talents or abilities of success instead of seeking politeness and mere familiarization with others. Since they also believe in authority, the individuals will quickly seek a leader to take care of the group or even decide on how the group has to be developed, run, and enhanced. Since they honor uniformity those divided roles might not be necessary (Barkley & Eggertsson, 2017). Instead, people will work in any role and will consider hierarchy in which the leader will demand collective work from the group. The success of a team will be enhanced and celebrated because no particular talent is being focused on by any of the group members (Minkov, 2018). The members, therefore, will always work to build the team and work better for the successes of the team. Efforts of success will always require the contribution of the team after which all members will either like or hate being in a team because of failure or success.

On the other hand, American, Canadians, Western Europeans who are individualistic, will obviously be polite and follow the process of team formation and development based on the Cog and Tuckman’s model. In individualism, there is emphasize on diversity, liberty, autonomy, and creativity (Kaasa, Vadi, & Varblane, 2014). With such alignment, a team formation will have to start with that politeness, the questioning of why people are there then familiarization of roles, bidding the power, tension, construct chances of success, and celebration of the team efforts.

The Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans have low levels of power distance. People who have low autonomy are self-expressive and grant subordinates in decision making (Preyer & Sussman, 2016). In terms of power distance, the Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans consider the involving subordinated during the decision-making process, hence there is fairness. In that case, the formation of a team could extend the polite stage and the why am I here stage. Individual self-determination inspired the need to seek equal opportunities hence it leads to the emergence of emancipative values which back up universal freedoms (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, Kunst, Spadafora, van Essen, 2018). Getting a leader would take a while they will form a group first and even skip some of the steps because they want to have the success as first as possible and will take time to have the team adjourn (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014, p. 165).

When it comes to uncertainty avoidance, the Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans are extroverts who embrace the unknown and engage with others in knowing that makes them have low levels of uncertainty avoidance and high levels of risk taking uncertainties. With such a feature, their teams could take little time to form and once formed the attachment is great. In this case, the individuals do not fear to risk and can take tasks that they do not prefer in the experimentation process (Barkley & Eggertsson, 2017). This means there is no time for a constructive stage, instead people focus on teamwork and working for the best of such a group.

On the other hand, people who are self-restraint and obedient have high power distance hence the managers cannot grant subordinates, the decision can be made from above without involving everyone. The Chinese, Koreans, and other Eastern European people value closeness, hence will always want to be as close as to the other individuals as possible. In that case, the formation will be quick and they will then move on to the aim of the team. Chinese and like people are introverts who are not interested in engaging with the unknown and do not get involved with others in knowing that makes them have high levels of uncertainty avoidance and low levels of risk raking uncertainties. They can indulge in groups very slow and take time to start off on important issues (Kaasa, Vadi, & Varblane, 2014). According to Minkov & Hofstede (2014) this group could take a lot of time in the initial stages and their groups could end quickly without that attachment (p. 165). That fear of failure, preference of tasks that do not have risks, will result in a long duration of familiarization and focus on success that results in seeking where the individual is best talented for them to come out as powerful or prominent.

The Americans and the United Kingdom value masculinity, hence they may consider more the views from the masculine aspect and have men in power. The Chinese and Netherlands are feminine and respect women. In their teams, it is possible to have them let women take important roles as far as they have the ability or the team trusts them (Hofstede, 2014). There is equal competition which could reduce tensions.

Conclusion

Group dynamics, group collaboration, and Cog's Ladder are all forms of team building and development. However, these models might be reshuffled based on where they are utilized because of differing cultures of the people that affect preferences and models of operation.

References

Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., Kunst, V. E., Spadafora, E., van Essen, M. (2018). Cultural distance and firm internationalization: A meta-analytic review and theoretical implications. Journal of Management, 44, 89-130.

Barkley, D. & Eggertsson, M. (2017). Using Hofstede’s model to improve multicultural management in the European union. doi:10.18374/JIMS-17-1.

Chekwa, C., Zoellner, J., Oingbure, A., & Hunter, D. (2016). Teamwork and leadership. 12(1), 26-32.

Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., & Varblane, U. (2014). Regional cultural differences within European countries Evidence from multi-country surveys. Management International Review, 54(6), 825-852. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0223-6

Minkov, M. (2018). A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new

Minkov, M., Bond, M. H. (2015). Genetic polymorphisms predict national differences in life history strategy and time orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 204-215.

Preyer, G., & Sussman, M. (2016). Varieties of multiple modernities. Boston, MA: Brill.

Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 319-335.