1. How to Turn Cultural Dissimilarity in Teams into Individual Learning? Dr Yves Guillaume

2. Does cultural dissimilarity in teams facilitate individual learning?

3. Overview Past research A new approach Two studies Implications

4. Empirical results from a meta-analysis (k = 9; N = 10450) r = - 0.09 (CV 90% -0.2 +.02) [k=9, n = 10450] % var. acc. for 52.22% Q = 17.23, p < 0.05 (Guillaume, Brodbeck & Riketta, 2012) NegativeNonePositive Low Dissimilarity 40% underperformer/ 60% overperformer 50% underperformer/ 50% overperformer 51% underperformer/ 49% overperformer High Dissimilarity 60% underperformer/ 40% overperformer 50% underperformer/ 50% overperformer 49% underperformer/51% overperformer  effects are not accounted for by social integration related variables  unaccounted contingency factors are at play * * * * * * * * *

5. A new approach People are able to self-regulate their behavior Cultural diversity … facilitates learning and creativity engenders uncertainty about … how to interact with people who are culturally different whether group members have the ability and competence to achieve individual and group goal

6. Being culturally different in a group implies three things … 1.Variety Low Medium High  facilitates information-elaboration

7. Being culturally different in a group implies three things … 2. Dissimilarity Low Medium High  increases norm uncertainty (‘How do I behave?’)

8. Reducing uncertainty: The role of performance monitoring Definition An individual’s concerns to meet team performance standards and peer expectations It is a form of social self-regulation Measurement “I monitor my actions regularly” “I check on how satisfied others are with my performance” “I check how well I perform” “I check whether my activities produce the expected results” Items were answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”.

9. Positive Effects Increases flexibility and adaptability Mobilizes effort Enhances planning and problem solving Enables adjustments to social and interpersonal demands Helps establishing trust, earning others’ respect, gain access to valuable information, receive social support, present favorable impression of themselves Negative Effects Consumes self-regulatory resources, takes away resources from goal- directed activities Impairs speed and accuracy on simple tasks, information processing on complex tasks, and the ability to present oneself favorably in social situations Performance Monitoring and Learning  Performance monitoring facilitates learning at more moderate levels, at higher levels it undermines learning

10. 3. Status Differences LowHigh  Increases instrumental uncertainty (‘Am I able to achieve my goals?) Being culturally different in a group implies three things …

11. Status teams Status perceptions are formed on the basis of competence expectations whether a person can contribute to valued goals Status powerfully shapes interactions (e.g., participation rates in discussions, evaluation of comments, degree of influence) Competence expectations are determined by … a) past attainments, such as education and occupation (achieved status), often high in veridicality b) demographic characteristics, such as cultural background and gender (ascribed status), often low in veridicality but very influential Socially shared when considered legitimate

12. Pilot Study: Cultural background and ascribed status differences Study Background 316 second year UG students enrolled in a 24 week business game simulation course; 69 student teams with four to five members 47% of non-British origin but British citizens (e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Chinese); 9% from Europe or overseas Students form a company’s board for their decision making and compete against other teams; four areas of competencies: marketing, accounting, production, and human resource management We asked students to rate their own and their peers’ performance capabilities in any of these four areas on a one-item scale (0 = poor to 100 excellent) in week 12 and week 22; four scores were averaged to form competence/status scores We controlled for prior performance, country of birth, gender, group size, group diversity and dissimilarity, tutors, group performance Results Significant differences in competence (i.e. status) ratings between students of British versus non-British origin: Δ = 3.35; p <.05 Students of British origin were ascribed higher status Rater status or group composition had no effect, no change over time, no differences on prior performance

13. The case for high cultural status group members 62 58 62 58 62 Ø = 62Ø = 60Ø = 59  Disengagement, Withdrawal Low Norm UncertaintyHigh Low Instrumental UncertaintyHigh

14. The case for low cultural status group members 58 62 58 62 58 Ø = 58Ø = 60Ø = 61  Performance Monitoring Low Norm UncertaintyHigh High Instrumental UncertaintyLow

15. Main Study: Effects of cultural dissimilarity on learning Study Background 316 second year UG students enrolled in a 24 week business game simulation course; 69 student teams with four to five members 47% of non-British origin but British citizens (e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Chinese); 9% from Europe or overseas Students form a company’s board for their decision making and compete against other teams; four areas of competencies: marketing, accounting, production, and human resource management We controlled for prior performance, country of birth, gender, group size, group diversity, tutors, and group performance We measured cultural dissimilarity, status, performance monitoring (week 12/22, averaged), and individual performance (week 24, reflection about their own and their companies performance, blind marked, 0 = poor to 100 = excellent)

16. Effects of cultural dissimilarity on performance monitoring

17. Effects of performance monitoring on individual learning

18. Effects of cultural dissimilarity via perf. monitoring on indiv. learning

19. Implications If you want to turn cultural dissimilarity into learning … Challenge status expectations Optimize performance monitoring Compose groups?

20. Thank you!

21. References Guillaume, Y. R. F., Brodbeck, F. C., & Riketta, M. (2012). Surface- and deep-level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups: A meta- analytic integration. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 80-115. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02005.x Guillaume, Y. R. F., Van Knippenberg, D., & Brodbeck, F. C. (revise and resubmit). Nothing succeeds like moderation: A social self-regulation perspective on cultural dissimilarity and individual performance. Academy of Management Journal.