Intercultural team working ÒProfessionals in multicultural corporations Ò Òin a team context Ò Òterms - team player, team skills, team building Ò ÒGoal - accomplishing professional projects Òeffective communication within multicultural teams is a skill Ò Group - three or more individuals who are working on a common goal Òthe result is reflected in relationships and interactions ÒTeam - common goals and purposes, but members of a team share leadership responsibility - creating a team identity Ò Òimplementing innovative thinking ÒEquality – participative leadeship style ÒIndividual – coach leadership Ò ÒConflict – brainstorming and discussions Ò ÒTask – team is a temporary organization Ò ÒHierarchy – authority and decision making power ÒGroup – patriarchatic leadership styles Ò ÒConsensus – reaching compromises Ò ÒRelationship – good morale and close relationship ÒInitiator - who suggests ideas and introduces new approaches Ò ÒInformation seeker - asks for clarification and additional information Ò ÒCoordinator - shows relationships among various ideas and suggestions Ò ÒEvaluator - a person restating ideas and describing relationships Ò ÒSupporter - encourages others, praises and suggests solidarity Ò ÒHarmonizer - mediates differences and suggests areas of agreement Ò ÒGatekeeper - prevents dominance by others and facilitates interaction Ò Ò Òor self-centered roles - should be limited within the team ÒBlocker - has negative responses to most ideas Ò ÒAttacker - is aggressive to achieve personal status Ò ÒClown - refuses to take ideas seriously and disrupts with jokes Ò4 stages Ò1 identifying the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviours, establishment of relationships with leaders Ò Ò2 conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues, resistance to the influence of the team Ò3 Norming—resistance is overcome, in-group feeling and cohesiveness develop, new standards evolve, new roles are adopted Ò4 Performing—roles become flexible and functional, and group energy is focused on the task ÒThe 5th stage – added later - Tuckman and Jensen Ò5 Adjourning - involves dissolution, finishing roles, completing tasks, and reducing dependency Ò ÒSometimes the stage- called mourning, former group members often experience loss—especially when the team is dissolved suddenly ÒCriticism – Òreal life group development is more complex and develops like a spiral, not in steps Òsometimes –each team is unique, less than the four-stages Ò ÒBUT, Tuckman's model can be a helpful starting point for small teams ÒRecommendation – win-win – Europe and North America ÒUK, Estonia, Fonland Holland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden ÒOthers - the best possible deal for themselves - partners are opponents Òwin-lose ÒRussia, Ukraine, Latvia, Bulgaria, Spain Ò Ò Ò1 Written contract – signed, a comprehensive document, lawyer Ò Ò2 contrsct - seen a a guide, changes are acceptable – in terms and conditions ÒColours – indicate personality and determine roles within a team Ò Òthe quiz consists of 35 questions divided into 7 modules - the specific person is asked to select one statement that describes him/her in the best way Ò Òthe answers are evaluated and the respondents are given the primary, and also three secondary colours Ò Ò The person’s qualities can be compared to other people’s ones and used in building an effective team of people Ò ÒKALIL, C. Free Personality Quiz, www.truecolors.com Ò Ò Ò1 team building – brainstorming new ideas, exchanging experiences, social gatherings Ò Ò2 defining strengths and weaknesses of the team – training for missing competences Ò Ò3 explaining goals – responsibility and authority Ò4 ensuring creative use of culture differences –empathy Ò Ò5 ensuring effective communication - the common language, communication channels, clear communication roles Ò Ò6 managing risks – reduces insecurity of the team members ÒSusan, a US manager, was leading a team in Japan building a customer-data system. She was working closely with the Japanese team and discovered several problems in the system that could have a severe impact on operations. She quickly informed her boss in the US by email and gave copies of her report to the Japanese team members. She insisted on finding a person responsible for the problem. Her boss was happy, but she felt something was wrong between her and her team, and the efficiency of the team was getting worse. ÒShe had an impression that she was not given all information and that some documents were not translated into English Ò ÒWhat was the problem? ÒWhat kind of mistakes did Susan make? ÒHow would you handle the situation? ÒForm 2 teams Ò Òbuilding an egg package that can sustain a 1 m drop. Ò Òeach team must also present a 30-second advert for their package saying why it’s unique and how it works Ò Òeach group will drop their egg using their package to see if it really works ÒInternational project Erasmus Intensive Programme – 2012-2016 Ò6 countries: ÒUniversité Jean Monnet de Saint-Etienne in France Technische Hochschule Wildau in Germany, Fachhochschule Salzburg GmbH in Austria, University of Joensuu in Finland, The University of Tartu in Estonia, Ò School of Business Administration in Karviná, Silesian University in Opava, in the Czech Republic. Ò Ò2 weeks of working together – in multicultural teams – working on project Ò ÒEach university – 6 students Ò ÒLectures and seminars – intercultural communication ÒVisiting local companies Ò ÒLosing face – Japanese culture