Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 389–406 | Cite as

The Effects of Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams

  • D. Sandy Staples
  • Lina Zhao


Diversity in the national background and culture of team members is common in virtual teams. An experimental study, with short term teams, was undertaken to examine the effect of cultural diversity on team effectiveness and to examine if this effect changes depending if the team worked face-to-face (F2F) or virtually. Heterogeneous teams were created that had greater diversity than homogeneous teams of individualism/collectivism values, different languages spoken, country of birth, and nationality. The teams worked on a desert survival task either F2F or virtually (via audioconference and electronic chat tools). The overall results indicated that heterogeneous teams were less satisfied and cohesive and had more conflict than the homogeneous teams, although there were no statistical differences in team performance levels. However, examining just the heterogeneous teams found that the performance of the virtual heterogeneous teams was superior to that of the F2F heterogeneous teams. The results support Carte and Chidambaram's (2004) theory that the reductive capabilities of collaborative technologies are beneficial for newly-formed diverse teams.


team diversity virtual teams cultural diversity national culture experiment survival task reductive capabilities of collaborative technologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, W.N. and S.R. Hiltz. (2001). “Culturally Heterogeneous vs. Culturally Homogeneous Groups in Distributed Group Support Systems: Effects on Group Process and Consensus,” Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  2. Baltes, B. B., M.W., Dickson, M.P., Sherman, C.C., Bauer, and J.S. LaGanke. (2002). “Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87(1), 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blau, P.M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity : A Primitive Theory of Social Structure, New York, Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, M.H. (1988). “Finding Universal Dimensions of Variation in Multicultural Studies of Values: The Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(6), 1009–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bottger, P. C. and P.W. Yetton. (1987). “Improving Group Performance by Training in Individual Problem Solving,” Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carte, T. and L. Chidambaram. (2004). “A Capabilities-Based Theory of Technology Deployment in Diverse Teams: Leapfrogging the Pitfalls of Diversity and Leveraging its Potential With Collaborative Technology,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(11–12), 448–471.Google Scholar
  7. Earley, C. (1989). “Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China,” Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earley, P. C. and E. Mosakowski. (2000). “Creating Hybrid Team Cultures: An Empirical Test of Transnational Team Functioning,” Academy of Management Journal 43(1), 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evaristo, R. (2003). “The Management of Distributed Projects Across Cultures,” Journal of Global Information Management 11(4), 58–70.Google Scholar
  10. Green, S. G. and T.D. Taber. (1980). “The Effects of Three Social Decision Schemes on Decision Group Process,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hambrick, D. C., S. Canney Davison, S.A. Snell, and C.C. Snow. (1998). “When Groups Consist of Multiple Nationalities: Towards a New Understanding of the Implications,” Organization Studies 19(2), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haslam, S. A., C. McGarty, P.M. Brown, R.A. Eggins, B.E. Morrison, and K.J. Reynolds. (1998). “Inspecting the Emperor's Clothes: Evidence that Random Selection of Leaders can Enhance Group Performance,” Group Dynamics 2(3), 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstede, G. (1983). “The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories,” Journal of International Business Studies 14, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofstede, G. (1994). VSM94: Value Survey Module 1994 Manual, IRIC, Tilberg. Accessible at (August 2005).
  16. James, L. R., R.G. Demaree, and G. Wolf. (1984). “Estimating Within-Group Interrater Reliability with and Without Response Bias,” Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janis, I. L. Victims of Groupthink Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. Jehn, K. A. G.B. Northcraft, and M.A. Neale. (1999). “Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson, C., Y. Dittrich, and A. Juustila. (1999). “Software Engineering Across Boundaries: Student Project in Distributed Collaboration,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42, 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, D. W. and F.P. Johnson. (1994). Joining together: Group Theory and Group Skills (5th ed.), Boston, Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Kayworth, T. and D. Leidner. (2000). “The Global Virtual Manager: A Prescription for Success,” European Management Journal 18, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kessapidou, S. and N.C. Varsakelis. (2002). “The Impact of National Culture on International Business Performance: The Case of Foreign Firms in Greece,” European Business Review 14(4), 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lau, D. C. and J.K. Murninghan. (1998). “Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional Dynamics of Organizational Groups,” Academy of Management Review 23(2), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maznevski, M. and K. Chudoba. (2001). “Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness,” Organization Science 11, 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonough, E. F., K.B. Kahn, and A. Griffin. (1999). “Managing Communication in Global Product Development Teams,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 46(4), 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. McLeod, P. L., S.A. Lobel, and T.H. Cox. (1996). “Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups,” Small Group Research 27(2), 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milliken, F. J. and L.L. Martins. (1996). “Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups,” Academy of Management Review 21(2), 402–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mortensen, M. and P. Hinds. (2001). “Conflict and Shared Identity in Geographically Distributed Teams,” International Journal of Conflict Management 12(3), 212–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potter, R. E. and P.A. Balthazard. (2002). “Virtual Team Interaction Styles: Assessment and Effects,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 56, 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell, A., G. Piccoli, and B. Ives. (2004). “Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future Research,” Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 35(1), 6–36.Google Scholar
  32. Rogelberg, S. G. and M.S. O'Connor. (1998). “Extending the Stepladder Technique: An Examination of Self-Paced Stepladder Groups,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 2, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salk, J. E. and M.Y. Brannen. (2000). “National Culture, Networks, and Individual Influence in a Multinational Management Team,” Academy of Management Journal 43(2), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarker, S. and S. Sahay. (2002). “Information Systems Development by US-Norwegian Virtual Teams: Implications of Time and Space,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  35. Sondergaard, M. (1994). “Research Note: Hofstede's Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and Replications,” Organizational Studies 5(3), 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Staples, D. S., I.K. Wong, and A.F. Cameron. (2004). “Best Practices for Virtual Team Effectiveness,” in: David Pauleen (ed.), Virtual Teams: Projects, Protocols and Processes, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey PA, pp. 160–185.Google Scholar
  37. Stedham, Y.E. and J.H. Yamamura. (2004). “Measuring National Culture: Does Gender Matter?” Women in Management Review 19(5/6), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Straus, S.G. (1996). “Getting a clue: The Effects of Communication Media and Information Distribution on Participation and Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups,” Small Group Research 27, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, L.F. and M.D. Coovert. (2003). “Teamwork online: The Effects of Computer Conferencing on Perceived Confusion, Satisfaction, and Postdiscussion Accuracy,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 7(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van de Ven, A.H. and D.L. Ferry. (1980). Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  41. Van Ryssen, S. and S.H. Godar. (2000). “Going International Without Going International: Multinational Virtual Teams,” Journal of International Management 6, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson, W.E., K. Kumar, and Michaelsen. (1993). “Cultural Diversity's Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups,” Academy of Management Journal 36(3), 590–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams, K.Y. and C.A. O'Reilly. (1998). “Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research,” in B. M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (20), 77–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queen's School of BusinessQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations