Document View

Multinational project teams, even when following a rigorous project management methodology, can be challenged by interpersonal and task issues created by cross-cultural differences. This article is for people who work with and on multinational project teams in any industry. It provides eight critical steps that many organizations have followed in management and leadership of project teams and describes specific conflicts that arise as a result of following these essential steps in multinational environments. Specific tips and tools are described to prevent many of these conflicts from arising in the first place, but if conflicts do arise, the article provides several options for addressing them in a way that considers and respects cultural diversity. The article includes brief examples from multinational project teams, including specific examples of what went right and why, as well as lessons learned. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Project management has taken on a new level of importance as organizations begin to discover that managing projects is not an intuitive skill but, in fact, has as much technical competency built into it as any other technical assignment.

In response to this increasing awareness, several models of project management have been created, and a unifying code of project management-PMBOK® Guide, the guide to project management developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI*)-has been developed to promote consistency and encourage a higher level of predictability in successful outcomes for operational projects. Although the steps for the successful management of projects described in most of these models are somewhat consistent and the desired consistency and predictability is beginning to be realized, there is one area that continues to be largely overlooked: Multinational projects, where project team members bring cross-cultural diversity to the project, continue to challenge organizations around the world.

Why Cross-Cultural Projects Fail

Even with somewhat rigorous adherence to the "proven steps" of successful project management, cross-cultural projects are not achieving the success of their unicultural counterparts. Why is this failure predictable? According to lientz and Rea (2002), there are several significant factors.

First, there is a tendency to think that "projects are projects" and the fact that different cultures are represented on a project is inconsequential. Typical of many managers who discount the effect of "soft" stuff (human factors) on business operations, these projects are treated as if they were standard projects, so when they get off track, there is little knowledge or skill as to how to get them back on again.

Because these projects often operate at a higher cost, with a higher risk and potentially higher benefit, management often gives them more attention than other projects. And when performance is viewed under a microscope, the glare of the lens can negatively bias the process, thus reducing the overall effectiveness of the whole project.

Because cross-cultural projects are not perceived to include any significant differences over unicultural projects, there may be a lack of sensitivity to local cultures. This lack causes projects to drift off course. Although the drift is blamed on content issues, close examination typically exposes cross-cultural issues as the cause. And without awareness or training on how to recognize and effectively address cross-cultural issues, project teams fail to stay the course. They fail to consider the various self-interests of the involved parties, and in response to these failures, project managers increasingly expect technology to solve their problems.

The thinking on many cross-cultural teams is that technology is culture blind, that it provides a fully consistent platform within which to plan, direct, and manage all steps and processes of complex projects. Technology comforts some managers and team members and lulls them into believing that "everything will be all right because the System is in control." However, the very fact of technology being blind doesn't eliminate the need for cultural sensitivity and responsiveness. In fact, the objectivity of technology systems masks the need for cross-cultural sensitivity and interpersonal responsiveness.

And last, lack of or inadequate measurement of the project management process, with a focus on the measurement of outcomes, eliminates the capability of the project team to make timely and cost-effective midcourse corrections.

The successful management of cross-cultural teams requires two equally important sets of competencies. One set is described by the traditional steps required to achieve project success; the second is the awareness of the key variables that define cultural diversity. But awareness alone cannot create cross-cultural project success. Team leaders and members must consistently demonstrate behavior on multinational cross-cultural projects that achieve the objectives for which the teams have been established.

Eight Steps of Project Management

This paper is not written to teach project management skills; however, reviewing the steps of project management will provide part of the foundation for understanding how to overcome interpersonal and task issues created by cross-cultural differences. The following are the eight steps of project management as defined in A Systems Approach to Project Management (Po-Chedley, 1999):

1. Summarize the scope of the project, including what will be accomplished for the customer, what the deliverables created by the project are, what the customer will be looking at to measure project success, what might limit the project's level of success, and what assumptions are being made about the project before it even starts.

2. Identify all the team members and stakeholders, including what types and levels of expertise are required to support project success, which must be included to add the needed value, and who can or will influence the project process or outcome.

3. Create plans, schedules, and budgets within which the project must operate to foster success; include network diagrams, critical path, Gantt, and milestone charts to ensure the project and its phases are visible and well described.

4. Describe hand-off management requirements, including all reporting relationships, processing relationships, points of critical transactions, customers, suppliers, and products to be handed off.

5. Determine measurements, including any and all performance indicators and tracking mechanisms.

6. Determine and create communication processes, methods, and media, including those to document formal communication; acknowledge and benefit from informal communication; ensure currency and accuracy of communication; and review, assess, and manage changes.

7. Manage risks, including identifying and documenting potential problems with preventive and contingent strategies.

8. Manage team performance by ensuring that all team members are clear regarding what is expected from them; that they have access to the resources they need; that they understand how the resources work and the critical path to which they will be held accountable; and that both natural and imposed consequences exist to shape team behavior.

Each of these steps is essential to supporting project success. In unicultural teams, the steps tend to be interpreted similarly by team members, so their behavior tends to be much the same. Multicultural teams have team members who interpret the steps in ways that are consistent with the variables of their own culture but may be inconsistent with the way they are interpreted by team members from different cultures.

Key Variables of Multinational Project Team Members

Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner, in Riding the Waves of Culture (1997), identify specific variables that define cultures.

These variables that operate as a continuum and have significant implications to cross-cultural team success. When opposing beliefs collide on a project team, the results can range from simple conflict to outright chaos. Below are some of the more obvious variables and their corresponding beliefs and an example of how each has presented itself on a project team.

Do the rules apply the same way to everyone in the organization and on the team, or should the team make special exceptions for special people? Universalist (rules)-based cultures believe that what is good and right is always good and right and must apply to everyone equally. Thus, when the nephew of the company president, a new hire with no experience, is asked to sit in on a critical cross-cultural project team in a developmental capacity, some members of the team expect him to refrain from contributing. The team leader explained during the introduction of the nephew that the nephew's development would result from his observation of the team process, his personal analysis of the experience, and an in-depth discussion with the team leader after each team meeting.

Particularist (relationship)-based cultures believe that relationships have special obligations; therefore, they may at times precede rules. Some members of the team expected the nephew's participation, and in fact encouraged it as a way of showing respect for the company president. When the nephew contributed ideas that seemed to take the team off its agenda, some members were outraged that this behavior was not only accepted, but encouraged. Others were outraged at the disrespect these team members were demonstrating for the company president. The team spent valuable and precious team time discussing this issue. The team was not only taken off track from its assignment but engaged in heated conversations that damaged team member relationships.

Which is more important, and who should get recognitionthe team or the individual? People in communitarian cultures regard themselves as part of a group first; group gets the emphasis because it is shared by so many. People in individualistic cultures regard themselves as individuals first and then as part of the group; the individual is emphasized because he or she is the foundation of the group. One cross-cultural project team had been established to reduce the cycle time of a product distributed globally. The product was suffering from its lengthy go-to-market cycle time as well as the sometimes conflicting laws and regulations of the various national legal systems. The cross-cultural team was created to address both of these issues.

Some of the team members had their annual bonus (as was customary within their division only) partially based on the results of this team as well as the amount of direct contribution each team member offered to the resolution. Other team members were in it "for the good of the company" and felt no need to separate out who did and said what as part of the team process. When the team completed its mission, extensive conversation ensued as several of the team members expressed a strong and vocal need to take credit for that which other team members believed was the work of the team. The team was not only less than pleased by a successful team outcome, but engaged in heated conversations that damaged team member relationships.

What is the most professional means of communicating on the team, neutral (not visibly or audibly expressing one's feelings) or affective (visibly or audibly expressing one's feelings)? One cross-cultural project team was composed of team members who had significantly different perspectives on the definition of "professional demeanor." Some team members expressed serious concern that others were less than professional and thus not taking the team's work seriously. The first group said that the second group was too loud, seemed to laugh too much, jumped to conclusions too quickly, or at least seemed to express themselves too easily, and overall were less than professional. The first group of team members was considered by the "loud" group as too stuffy, too serious, not creative enough, and overall not willing to have any fun. As might be imagined, the serious group stopped taking the loud group seriously, and the loud group stopped interacting with the quieter group. Almost like a cartoon, the team became polarized between the two groups, with those team members who did not have a strong communication style preference looking on in dismay.

Who has more status and thus should receive higher accord, those who have achieved something (with a focus on "doing") or those who are something (focus on "being")? In achievement-oriented cultures, team members who accomplish business goals, who achieve year-end objectives, or who have successfully "done this before" typically have more credibility than team members who are older, went to the right school, or were born in the right city. When achievement-oriented team members on a cross-cultural team didn't pay the proper amount of respect to the older team members (recognizing that respect looks and sounds like different things to different cultures), other members of the team respectfully withdrew their participation in protest. This action resulted in difficult and misunderstood conversations that damaged team member relationships.

What is the right way to manage a project: do one thing at a time in a logical sequence following a rapidly unfolding critical path, or multitask and follow the natural laws of nature following a cyclical and perhaps repetitive path, while ensuring that everything is considered and nothing is left to chance? Imagine a cross-cultural project team that is already encumbered by the time zones between geographic areas. Imagine one group of team members who live and die by deadlines or milestones and would rather do it now and manage the damage later than delay through multiple cycles of reflection and consideration. Imagine this fast-paced culture working to achieve objectives with a culture that believes in doing it right the first time and is willing to spend the time that it may take to make sure to do that. Imagine team members who make an appointment and consider it sacred working with team members who seem to believe that an appointment time is a target and "close" is good enough. This difference in beliefs about time and how to budget it, how to manage it, and how to spend it have caused many a team member to say things that damage team member relationships.

Linking Cultural Variables with the Steps of Project Management

Cultural beliefs are the most closely held and adamantly guarded component of culture. Reconciling these oppositional perspectives becomes the task of the cross-cultural project manager. The task of reconciliation can be a long and arduous journey. Another option is to consider each step in managing effective projects:

Project Scope Summary

* Don't accept anything at face value. Test all perceptions about "facts" as if they were assumptions, and surface assumptions early and often.

* Look for constraints around cultural or regulatory issues and seek "middle ground" resolution of interpersonal issues whenever possible.

* Document success criteria, share with customers and other stakeholders to build recognition for cross-cultural capability.

Team and Stakeholder Identification

* Create a network with multicultural insights and pay special attention to strong influencers.

* Seek cultural diversity and use the team's diversity for insight to players.

* When you think you are sure about a player's cultural needs, check further.

Plans, Schedules, and Budgets

* Respect local holidays and traditions (e.g., Cinquo de Mayo, Ramadan).

* Pay special attention to milestone events and provide explanations and descriptions of linkages and causeand-effect relationships as much as possible.

* Check for tariffs, offsets, and local content requirements.

* Allow for exchange rate fluctuations on financial transfers and allow additional time for materials to go through customs.

* Identify and assign actions that ensure support of strong influencers.

Hand-Off Management

* Encourage communication between all customers and suppliers before, during, and after hand-offs.

* Make deliverables of each hand-off explicit and test understandings at each hand-off. Do not assume anything.

* Get strong clarity on performance indicators for international hand-offs and ensure that team members from each represented culture understand and agree before any hand-offs are made.

Measurement

* Use multicultural sub-teams to create indicators and then validate the indicators with others from represented cultures.

* Assign multicultural tracking accountability and plan ahead for culturally appropriate responses when indicators reveal problems.

* Get agreement from strong influencers and use measurement units preferred by the customer, even if it means more than one measurement unit may be needed at some steps of the project.

Communication

* What will be the Lingua Franca-English?

* At what level will it be okay to hold meetings and publish minutes in the local language?

* Establish and maintain information distribution network using teleconferencing and videoconferencing with personal contact as much as possible.

* Respect time zone differences, but create a contingency plan for absence of key people at meetings.

* Use informal communication networks when implementing project changes.

Risk Management

* Conduct risk assessment periodically, looking for risks specific to each culture represented.

* Insist on periodic problem reports, including both task and relationship issues that may be developing.

* Build cultural awareness into your risk management scenarios.

Team Performance Management

* Test the team performance management system for multicultural issues.

* Test the multicultural implications of your good-job and bad-job definitions.

* In lieu of regular personal contact, provide photo and short biography of team members to all others on the team.

Summary and Implications for Human Performance Technology Practice

The bottom line on cross-cultural teams is that for the team to win, everyone must win. Teamwork in cross-cultural teams requires a large dose of collaboration. Avoid making any assumptions, about what is said or what is seen. Test everything because appearances can be deceiving. What appears to be so in one culture may mean exactly the opposite in another culture. (Example: to "table" something has the opposite meaning in Britain than it has in America.) seek a middle ground if at all possible, and where one belief in a given situation appears to have an exceptional amount of weight, enter into dialogue to determine where flexibility may exist in another situation.

Listen to people who have been there and do as much research as possible on the norms and beliefs of the cultures represented by members of your team. Ask questions to clarify specific issues around all cultural diversity dimensions and help your team learn as members work on their tasks. Equally important, don't assume that because someone is from a specific culture that he or she will share the cultural beliefs and biases typically associated with that culture. Again-don't assume anything.

And last, measure, measure, measure. Measure both task and relationship issues because all cultures seem to agree, "That which gets measured gets done."

[Reference]  »   View reference page with links

References

Lientz, B.P., & Rea, K.P. (2002). International project management (1st ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

Po-Chedley, D. (1999). A systems approach to project management. Wakefield, RI: Cambridge Consulting.

Trompenaars, R, & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. New York: McGraw Hill.

Related Readings

Bennett, M. (1988). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

Dalton, M., Ernst, C., Deal, J., & Leslie, J. (2002). Success for the new global manager: How to work across distances, countries, and cultures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dresser, N. (1996). Multicultural manners: New rules of etiquette for a changing society. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hampden-Turner, C.M. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rogers, E.M., & Stenfatt, T.M. (1988). Intercultural communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Storti, C. (1994). Cross-cultural dialogue. Boston: Intercultural Press.

Storti, C. (1994). Cross-cultural dialogue. Boston: Intercultural Press.

Varner, L, & Bearner, L. (2004). Intercultural communication in the global workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

[Author Affiliation]

Marcey Uday-Riley, CPT, MSW, calls herself a "human performance engineer." To explain, she will concede that she does organization development consulting and training of leaders and employee performance. As a partner in IRI Consultants to Management, with over 25 years practical experience, Marcey supports organizational transformation in the United States and around the world. She integrated her initial career as a clinical behaviorist with organization development and human performance technology principles. In addition to actively working on client engagements, Marcey has presented at ISPI conferences internationally, nationally and regionally, ASTD conferences, the Mid America Human Resource Symposium, and the International Association of Personnel in Employment Security. She has been an adjunct professor or guest lecturer at Oakland University in Michigan, University of Michigan-Dearborn, and Eastern Michigan University. In addition, Marcey has been published in the ASTD LINKS (2004), The Best of Teams (1997), Human Resources Executive: Studies in Success, No Laughing Matter (Sept. 1996), and the textbook by Camp, Blanchard and Huszczo, Toward a More Organizationally Effective Training Strategy and Practice (1986). She may be reached at meur@mindspring.com.

by Marcey Uday-Riley, CPT, MSW