‘‘Affording teamshigh status inthe organisationmakes being ateam membermore desirable,regardless ofculture.”At the other end of the spectrum were firmsfor which performance-based rewards were anovel concept. “Rewarded?” said one executivewhen asked about this. “In what way? Well, athank you or a pat on the back, I suppose. Tosome degree that does happen.”Our research indicates that in effective teams,individuals derive their rewards from the team.In the multicultural teams we have examined,both task performance and team membersatisfaction were higher in teams that derived asubstantial amount of their rewards from teamactivity. Team rewards also related positively toteam cohesiveness, commitment, spirit and trust.However, we feel that research results such asthese must be treated with caution in othermulticultural contexts. For example, we knowthat people from individualistic cultures such asthe United States and collectivist cultures likemuch of Asia are guided <strong>by</strong> different norms forreward allocation (Leung & Bond, 1984).Individualists are typically more comfortablewith rewards based on equity, where rewardsare based on the level of individual contribution.The norm for collectivists is more likely toinvolve equality of reward allocation, where allteam members share equally in the team rewards.We believe that the effectiveness of theparticular reward allocation strategies weobserved was influenced <strong>by</strong> the culturalcomposition of the team. In individualisticcultures, making the ability to work well in ateam a key component in an individual’sperformance review, is likely to be moreacceptable than tying rewards directly to teamperformance.TEAM STATUSThe argument that the status of a team willaffect its performance is based on the notionthat being a member of a high status team willincrease team members’ feelings of self worthand effectiveness. Individuals are motivated tomaintain and enhance their team’s standing, andhence their own standing. The positive effectthat high team status has on the individual will,in turn, improve individual performance.The status of teams varied considerably in theMTs we studied. In some firms, teams clearlyhad high status in the organisation and werecentral to the power structure, while in otherfirms, teams exerted little influence.Overall, we found that higher status teamswere more effective and had more team spirit,trust and commitment to the team. Successfulteams get the recognition and support thatsignals to the rest of the organisation that theyare a very important element of organisationalsuccess.However, the extent to which individuals fromdifferent cultures derive their self esteem fromwork teams can vary considerably. For example,people from collectivist cultures, typical of muchof Asia and the Pacific, are more likely toidentify strongly with their cultural or familygroup than they are with a work team composedof relative strangers.Therefore, the status of work teams may havea greater impact on the feelings of self-worth,confidence, group potency and desire to work inteams for individualists (such as Anglos) thanfor collectivists (such as Asians). However,affording teams high status in the organisationcertainly makes being a team member moredesirable, regardless of culture.TRAININGIt has often been advocated, as a requirementfor successful implementation, that teams betrained in interaction skills as well as technicalor job-related skills (Wagner, Hibbits,Rosenblatt, & Schulz, 1977). Just as often,however, managers seem to assume thatemployees automatically have the skills to beeffective team members. In situations where all teamactivities and tasks cannot be specified in advance,training in team skills is especially important.In our study, team training levels varied fromno regular training to a programme that startedwith an induction process where team memberswere given team-based company orientations.This was followed <strong>by</strong> ongoing training in teammethods and methods related to job definitionsand control.Not surprisingly, the most effective teams werethose with the highest level of training. The levelof team training was related strongly to teammembers’ satisfaction with the processes used <strong>by</strong>the team, but was also related to most otherprocesses associated with effective teams.Our research suggests that training in team orinteraction skills is particularly valuable inmulticultural teams, where members often havevery different assumptions about how teamsshould operate.SELF MANAGEMENTThe argument for ‘self-managing’ teams stemsfrom the notion that the benefits of team workare related to the delegation of a substantialamount of authority to the team (Barry, 1991;Pearce & Ravlin, 1987). However, if too muchauthority is delegated, teams can charge off ininappropriate directions.Our research into multicultural teams failed toshow clear support for self management as aCREATING EFFECTIVE MULTICULTURAL TEAMSThe firms we studied are alreadyconfronting a level of work forcediversity that is still on the horizon ‘‘for much of the rest of the world.”determinant of team effectiveness. While wefound that the level of self management ispositively related to team members’ satisfactionwith team processes, it is not clear that thisrelationship extends to task performance ormembers’ satisfaction with the team.Such results indicate that the degree of selfmanagement must be considered in terms of thetype as well as the amount of authority that isdelegated. While setting direction for the teammay empower it, dictating work processes andprocedures may actually inhibit teamperformance. Alternatively, insufficient directionmay result in teams with an unclear sense ofappropriate task-related processes.Achieving an appropriate level and type ofdelegation may be particularly difficult whereteam members of different cultures havedifferent ways of getting things done, as wasindicated in our research. When members of ateam have different expectations of what powerstructure is appropriate, a clear relationshipbetween the degree of self management andeffectiveness may be difficult to identify.SOME CONCLUDINGSUGGESTIONSThe firms we studied in Australia and NewZealand were typical of many organisationswith regard to the processes used to implementteams. However, these firms are alreadyconfronting a level of work force diversity that isstill on the horizon for much of the rest of theworld.Our studies of high performing teams in thismulticultural environment provide the followingguidelines for managers throughout the worldwho are just beginning to face this issue.20UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLANDBusiness ReviewVolume 2 Number 1 200021