Explanatory Paradigms

A variety of mechanisms are associated with multicultural conflict. Transnational teams may be plagued by in -group biases (Salk & Brannen, 2000) and high levels of ethnocentrism (Makilouko, 2004).

Social Identity Theory. Given that national culture identification is one of the most com­mon social categories to which people iden­tify (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), in-group and out-group social categorization can be swift and long-lasting in transnational teams. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) posits that the existence of diverse groups can lead to “us versus them” comparisons along group lines. Individuals often focus on differences rather than similarities, mistrust the other, and develop a bias in favor of one’s own group (McCann & Giles, 2006, 2007). These differences are particularly salient in organizations, where negative ste­reotypical evaluations are frequently cited as an outgrowth of intergroup comparisons (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Firms need to be sensitive to the potential that embedded cultural perceptions may have a destructive influence on team performance (Davison & Ekelund, 2004).

To illustrate this point, consider the exam­ple of a Thai subsidiary of a well-known Japanese manufacturing company operating in Thailand in the mid-1990s. The Japanese management team was widely known to hold (and openly express) their strong precon­ceived negative attitudes about the abilities and behavior of the local staff (e.g., Thai staff as having minimal ability to solve prob­lems, etc.). When a major, new account was landed in the firm, there was great excitement among the local staff about new opportunities that could emerge. However, when transna­tional teams were formed and role allocation decided, minimal responsibility was allocated to the local (Thai) members of the team.

expatriates tended to stereotype all Thais as being lazy, to underestimate local staff’s work ability, and to act as though they knew every­thing even though they had been in Thailand for only a short period of time. (p. 333)

Thais commented that “expatriates tended to be bossy and sometimes jumped to conclusions without thinking about the local cultural and environmental differences” (p. 336). Without question, in the scenario above, the cultural stereotypes of the Thai workforce permeated Japanese managerial decisions in this firm, and the “us versus them” categorization that social identity theory describes was salient.

Similarity Attraction Theory. A second theory with implications for conflict at the team level is SAT. According to SAT, people like and are attracted to others who are similar (rather than dissimilar) to themselves in terms of val­ues, beliefs, and attitudes (Baskett, 1973). As the composition of a group varies in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, education, culture, and a variety of other demographic variables, per­ceptions of similarity and difference become more and more salient, influencing interper­sonal and organizational processes and out­comes including communication, cooperation, performance, and conflict (J. B. Smith, 1998).

An example taken from a large beverage company in Thailand that employed signifi­cant numbers of (a) in-country educated local staff and management, (b) internationally edu­cated local staff and management (e.g., Thais educated in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States), and (c) expatriate man­agement (often Americans or Britons posted to Thailand) helps us see how the attraction/ similarity mechanism works and may mediate national identity. In the above beverage com­pany, if one looks only at the national cultural variables associated with each group of work­ers, there would be little reason to suspect greater “cultural” conflict among the two Thai groups as compared with the expatriate man­agers. But as one of this chapter’s authors expe­rienced when working in Thailand, it was not uncommon in multicultural team meetings for internationally educated local staff and manag­ers (many of whom spoke imperfect Thai) to conflict with locally educated/raised employees over issues such as decision-making styles and speed of project implementation while interac­tion between the (at some level “more similar”) internationally educated local staff and man­agement and the expatriate employees often went quite smoothly. It seems that perceived similarity based on training and education superseded many of the national cultural dif­ferences that existed between the groups.