Multicultural Leadership: Richard Branson discussion The topic of the paper will be Richard Branson – an effective leader. It will include Cover page, abst

Multicultural Leadership: Richard Branson discussion The topic of the paper will be Richard Branson – an effective leader. It will include Cover page, abstract, and a References page. Cite all references using APA style. The profile (5 double spaced pages) should include: The leader (1-2 paragraphs on his/her background. Note: this is not a biography.) His/her organization (1-2 paragraphs on his/her organization, company, group, etc.) His/her leadership characteristics and philosophy as covered in the readings; that is, what is their approach to leadership? Discuss why this leader is effective in a multicultural setting. Use of concepts in the readings (readings attached) where appropriateProper use of other sourcesCite all sources Encyclopedia of Sports Management and
Marketing
Effective Teamwork, Management
Contributors: Craig Paiement
Edited by: Linda E. Swayne & Mark Dodds
Book Title: Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing
Chapter Title: “Effective Teamwork, Management”
Pub. Date: 2011
Access Date: March 5, 2019
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412973823
Online ISBN: 9781412994156
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994156.n228
Print page: 439
© 2011 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE
© 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
The need for effective teamwork has become a requirement in business. Workgroups that function as teams
have evolved as part of the “total quality management” concept. The evolution of teamwork within management systems was initiated with the belief that employees will be most productive when they identify with the
success of an organization, and a small group will have more perceived success while fitting into a largerscale organization. Thus, managers must be trained to take the role of a coach or facilitator and set goals for
the work teams to achieve. Establishing the expectation of effective teamwork and supporting team members
should increase the rate of goal attainment.
Many organizations attempt to develop their work teams in the same manner as sports teams. Management
intent on developing effective teamwork must deliberately develop an environment where the elements of
teamwork can be practiced and perfected. This takes strategy and discipline. In sport management, the idea
is not foreign to managers in many organizations, but they may not have the same opportunities to develop
teamwork in practice situations as a sport team. Many organizations place a group of workers together and
ask them to work as a team. The newly formed team is then expected to succeed or fail at their given task.
Management must be cognizant of the process for developing effective teamwork and what contributes to
effective teams.
The context of each group can vary significantly, but groups also share similar characteristics. In management
there are a number of different team categorizations. The most common types are work teams, project teams,
and management teams. Each has a nuanced difference that affects the context of the team; work teams are
general teams, project teams are time-limited, and management teams generally supervise subunits of work
teams.
The scholars Albert V. Carron and Heather A. Hausenblas have identified five categories that define groups/
teams: common fate, mutual benefit, social structure, group processes, and self-categorization. The first category, a common fate, serves as the basis for effective teamwork. The end result is reflected on all group members equally. Once a common fate is established, members must rely upon one another and receive support
from one another for a mutual benefit, which is the second category. Social structures, the third category, are
established within the group. Group norms and roles are negotiated and accepted within the social structure.
Group processes must also be present, specifically communication within the group, cooperative interactions
for the task at hand, and social interactions. Finally, the fifth category, known as self-categorization, occurs
when the members of the team begin to identify themselves as a collective that is different and distinct from
other teams.
Effective teamwork is the result of a number of factors, all generally related to the ability of the group to work
within the previously mentioned categories as a single cohesive unit. Effective teamwork is more than just
individuals participating in coordinated actions; it begins with a set of common goals, beliefs, and purposes
enacted with the dependence on and best interests of the team over that of the individual. According to the
authors Susan G. Cohen and Diane E. Bailey, the measurement of effective teamwork encompasses three
very specific dimensions: (1) quality and/or quantity of outputs, (2) behavioral outcomes, and (3) attitudes of
team members.
The quantity and quality of output for work teams can usually be measured in an objective way. The measurement is typically assessed through accuracy, speed, and creativity, among others. Behavioral outcomes are
somewhat more difficult to measure but may include organizational commitment, trust among group members, perceived cohesiveness, unified communication, and feelings of empowerment. The attitudes of team
members may be evaluated with such concepts as group efficacy, group identity, role acceptance, and shared
values.
While effective teamwork does have specific dimensions of measurement, there are also specific factors that
contribute to the ability of the team to work effectively. These factors include group size, homogeneity or heterogeneity of group members, competition with other groups, perceived or measured success, and exclusivity. Group size has been hypothesized to work most efficiently when kept small, ideally between five and 10
Page 2 of 3
Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing
SAGE
© 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
members. Heterogeneity or homogeneity of the team can have a positive or negative effect depending on
the team’s charges. People typically get along with and communicate most easily with those who are similar to themselves. A homogenous team generally shares attitudes, values, and common experience; these
elements typically predict a more effective team. However, heterogeneity can improve effectiveness by encouraging mutual learning or increasing the group’s variable strength. Competition with other teams can also
enhance effective teamwork as it supports the concept of self-categorization of a certain team. Success also increases effective teamwork as a successful team becomes especially attractive to the team members,
which increases cohesiveness, empowerment, and other positive effects. Exclusivity can increase effectiveness of presenting the members of the team the opportunity to increase their prestige or social status, which
increases their commitment to belonging to their team.
Conclusion
Effective teamwork in management has to be developed and planned in accordance with the aforementioned
factors and concepts. The context of the success of each group will provide information for its effectiveness,
but as more organizations design their structure-utilizing work teams, the development and measurement of
effectiveness of such teams must occur.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
teamwork
teams
work teams
categorization
group size
team management
sports teams
Craig PaiementIthaca College
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994156.n228
See Also:
•
•
•
•
•
Centralization Versus Decentralization of Authority
Employee Development
Employee Relations
Human Resources Management
Structure and Strategy.
Further Readings
Carron, A. V., and H. A.Hausenblas. Group Dynamics in Sport, 2nd Ed.Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology, 1998.
Cleland, D. I.Strategic Management of Teams. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
Cohen, S. G., and D. E.Bailey. “What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research From the Shop
Floor to the Executive Suite.”journal of Management v. 23/3 (1997).
Luthans, F.“The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior.”journal of Organizational Behavior v. 6 (2002).
Spencer, B.“Models of Organizational and Total Quality Management: A Comparison and Critical Evaluation.”Academy of Management Review v. 19/3 (1994).
Page 3 of 3
Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing
International Encyclopedia of Organization
Studies
Team Diversity
Contributors: Doris Fay & Yves R. F. Guillaume
Edited by: Stewart R. Clegg & James R. Bailey
Book Title: International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies
Chapter Title: “Team Diversity”
Pub. Date: 2008
Access Date: March 5, 2019
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412915151
Online ISBN: 9781412956246
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412956246.n523
Print pages: 1511-1514
© 2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE
© 2008 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Team diversity refers to the differences between team members on any attribute that may lead a single member of the group to perceive any other member of the group as being different from the self of this particular
member. These attributes and perceptions refer to all dimensions people can differ on, such as age, gender,
ethnicity, religious and functional background, personality, skills, abilities, beliefs, and attitudes.
Conceptual Overview
The occurrence of diverse teams is widely spread in organizations, with such teams operating at all organizational levels: Top management teams, production teams, task forces, or any other type of team can be
diverse. Team diversity has implications for team processes, team and individual performance, and the wellbeing of team members. It is therefore important to understand the consequences of team diversity, especially
in the light of an increasing prevalence of diverse teams. Team working itself appears to be gaining in popularity, while at the same time the workforce is becoming more diverse. For example, due to an aging workforce, organizations will depend more on retaining their older employees in the future, contributing to higher
age diversity. There is also more use of cross-functional teams to integrate expertise of employees across
broad specializations. Furthermore, where organizations establish subsidiaries beyond national borders, cultural diversity is a reality where teams bring together employees from the parent company and the subsidiary.
Hence, the existence of diverse teams has become an organizational fact and we can expect more diverse
teams to exist in the future.
Empirical findings about diversity’s impact on work group outcomes and individual outcomes are mixed, with
evidence suggesting both negative and positive diversity effects. It is therefore important to understand how
to manage diversity such that one can capitalize on its potential benefit and reduce negative effects.
Taxonomies of Diversity
The various diversity characteristics appear to have different effects on team and individual outcomes. Several attempts have therefore been made to systematize the manifold appearances of diversity, with most research using the following taxonomies: (1) surfacelevel versus deep-level diversity, (2) task-relevant versus
task-irrelevant diversity, and (3) actual versus perceived diversity.
The first taxonomy distinguishes attributes that are at the surface level of a person from attributes that are at
the deep level of the person. Surface-level diversity refers to characteristics such as age, gender, or ethnicity;
they can be readily detected when first meeting a person and refer predominantly to demographic attributes.
In contrast, deep-level diversity refers to attributes that are detected only when people interact over a period
of time with each other (e.g., values, personality, or beliefs).
The second approach refers to the role of diversity attributes for team performance and therefore differentiates task-relevant from task-irrelevant diversity. The former refers to attributes such as functional, occupational, and industry background or educational level and educational content. They reflect differences in knowledge, skills, and ability (KSA), and in information, opinion, or experience; these are attributes that are relevant
to the task. Similarly, tenure in industry and in the company could also entail diversity in task-relevant issues.
The second category, task-irrelevant diversity, comprises demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, cultural background) or personality variables. What might appear at first glance as a straightforward
way of classifying is on closer inspection a more complex matter. The specific attributes do not fall exclusively
into one or the other category. For example, depending on the task, age and gender can be task relevant,
and likewise, the functional background and the associated expertise may not be relevant to a given task.
A third approach to classify diversity takes into consideration that actual differences between team members
may not be perceived as such. Hence, it distinguishes between objective assessments of attributes (e.g., genPage 2 of 6
International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies
SAGE
© 2008 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
der, age) and the extent to which group members perceive how similar they are regarding these attributes.
The former has been referred to as actual diversity, the latter as perceived diversity.
Theories Relevant to Work Group Diversity
Researchers exploring diversity in surface-level attributes, i.e., demographic variables, tend to draw on the
similarity-attraction paradigm and social identity theory, whereas scholars looking into the effects of task-relevant diversity rely on the cognitive resources perspective.
The similarity-attraction paradigm assumes that similarity on any attribute increases interpersonal liking,
whereas dissimilarity decreases interpersonal liking. Lower level of interpersonal liking is associated with less
positive attitudes toward each other, less information sharing, poorer communication, and increased message
distortion and errors in communication. This harms team processes and impairs team outcomes. As diversity
implies dissimilarity, the similarity-attraction paradigm suggests that diversity is detrimental to team outcomes.
Social identity and the related social categorization theory make similar predictions about the effects of diversity on team processes. These theories are based on two assumptions: First, the theories suggest that
people try to maintain a positive self-identity. Second, they hold that human beings have a tendency to simplify the world by sorting each other into social categories that are relevant to their own identity. For example,
members of a team will use the categories male or female, or nurse or medical doctor, or any other detectable
attribute to categorize each other. To secure a positive self-image and to enhance selfesteem, people develop positive views and judgments about their own category and less favorable ones about members of other
categories. For instance, in a hospital’s task force where half of the team members are nurses and the other
half medical doctors, social identity theory predicts that the nurses will develop a positive bias towards their
own category (the so-called in-group) in order to maintain their self-esteem. At the same time, they will distance themselves from the doctors (from their perspective, the out-group). Members of out-groups are more
likely to be treated in a disparaging manner and discriminated against. The same process—the positive bias
toward the ingroup and negative bias toward the out-group—happens likewise to the doctors. These processes impair group functioning, reduce identification and commitment with the task at hand, and are suggested
to impair team performance and cohesion.
The cognitive resource perspective, in contrast to the previous theories, argues for a positive effect of diversity. “Cognitive resources” refers to a team’s means as far as their pooled KSA, experiences, and perspectives;
it is therefore also referred to as the “information/decision making” or “trait” perspective. Diversity in task-related attributes is assumed to increase the pooled cognitive resources, which should in turn benefit a team’s
quality of decision making, problem solving, and creativity. For example, a team that is charged with new
product development possesses a broader range of relevant expertise if team members come from different
functions within the organization in comparison to a team that is staffed with members from the R&D department only. Such a cross-functional team disposes over information on marketing, product development, production, and financial issues, and thus can draw on a larger pool of expertise. The wider breadth of cognitive
resources is suggested to benefit team performance, such that team members can be more creative and effective in the new product development.
Related to the cognitive resource perspective is the notion of social networks as a source. While individuals
based in the same organizational department are likely to have similar networks within the organization, people from different department are likely to have nonoverlapping social networks. Thus, a team diverse in functional composition has access to a larger network as well as access to a larger pool of information, skills, and
supports that lie in this network. This network-based advantage may also apply (but to a smaller extent) to
other diversity attributes, as for example members belonging to an ethnic minority within a team (e.g., one
Page 3 of 6
International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies
SAGE
© 2008 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Chinese among four white Americans) might be more likely to meet with people of the same background belonging to other teams.
Empirical Evidence: Impact of Diversity on Work Group Outcomes
Comprehensive reviews such as those compiled by Katherine Williams and Charles O’Reilly or Frances Milliken and Luis Martins suggest that the pattern of diversity effects on group outcomes such as cohesion,
team performance, or member satisfaction is inconsistent and complex. For example, while top management
teams’ functional diversity was found to be positively related to organizational innovation by Karen Bantel and
Susan Jackson, the study done by Deborah Ancona and David Caldwell found a negative effect of functional
diversity for new product teams. Karen Jehn and colleagues showed a positive effect of informational diversity
(i.e., diversity in taskrelevant attributes) on team performance; looking beyond direct effects, they found that
the positive result of informational diversity was enhanced when the teams were at the same time homogenous in terms of their demographic composition and their values.
Explorations of diversity effects on individual team members’ satisfaction and morale also deliver a complex
pattern. Karen Jehn and colleagues found that individuals in teams with higher diversity in values were less
satisfied, and had a lower level of commitment and intent to stay, whereas the reverse was true for diversity
in demographic variables. One of the critical components seemed to be the level of emotional conflicts experienced, enhanced by demographic diversity. This was further explored by Lisa Pelled and colleagues who
found that emotional conflict was a function of demographic diversity and contextual variables. This research
suggests that, depending on contextual variables, demographic diversity and underlying differences in belief
systems and attitudes might lead via emotional conflicts to lower cohesion, poorer coordination, and poorer
communication on the group level, and to individuals developing lower satisfaction, higher absenteeism, and
greater turnover. On the other hand, Pelled and colleagues showed that differences in taskrelevant characteristics facilitate task conflicts. As task conflict comes along with dissenting opinions, conflicting viewpoints, and
the sampling of diverse information, it has been frequently suggested that task-relevant diversity facilitates
creativity and innovation, problem solving, and decision quality in groups.
Critical Commentary and Fut…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment