High Performance in diverse teams – Australian context
Globalization has induced global workforce within various multinational organisation and penetrated around the world. Australia which holds a harmonious community which has benefited from an active program of immigration over the last 50 years and people from more than 200 countries resides here. As a result it was surveyed last year that, nearly 1 in every 4 residents was born overseas comprises of 30.8 % have born in North West Europe, 17.3 % in Eastern and Southern Europe and 12.7 % in South East Asia. This essay attempts to identify and discuss the communication challenges that an Australian leader ought to expect while leading his organisation, how the leaders could confront the ethical issues, and to identify and synthesize and discuss the optimal mix of leadership styles that is appropriately adaptable in Australia. Identification and discussion on the communication challenges that a leader should expect to encounter in Australian organisations. In multicultural organisation messages must be tailored for different cultures and languages. Intercultural or cross cultural communication is the process of sending and receiving message between people who interpret verbal and non verbal differently based on their cultural background. Following are few challenges in terms of communication quite often faced by Australian business leaders: High Context V/s Low Context Communication Barrier: Many anthropologist and cross cultural researchers have brought attention on cultural categorization of multinational business environment. The cultures will be either high or low context based upon whether the person understands the message from the setting or from the words being exchanged. So such cultural difference is one of major communication challenge. It properly links management style and staff behaviour to discuss the issue of cross-cultural management in communication. In a high-context culture, people interdependent on each other. Information is widely shared through the word with potential meaning (Roberge & van Dick, 2010). In a low-context culture, people tend to be individualized, kind of alienated and fragmented, people do not involve with each other too much. High context communication tends to engage an indirect way to express while low context communication prefers direct information exchange. Mostly indigenous workforce of Australian origin, European and other western origin predominantly fall in low context culture, however most of the African and Asian origin workforce is inclined to high context culture. Hence Australian multinational which comprises of workforce of both kind of origin face difficult contextual challenge (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Therefore, two kinds of culture communication style also conflict with each other. Because of two culture will bring different result like high use of nonverbal elements for high context and low use of nonverbal elements for low context. Otherwise about high context also possess that communication is seen as an art form ways of engaging someone and then a way of exchanging information for low context. Therefore we can witness that two kings of contexts show that relationships depend on trust and relationships begin and end quickly. As a result, as a leader that should be know how things get don depends on relationships with staff and attention to group process and always distinguishes between people inside and people outsider one's circle.
Low V/s. High Power Distance diversity: Manpower from low power distance countries enjoys distributed power within the organization. Superiors are dependent on subordinates and seek consultation on a limited extent which reduces emotional distance between them. However, within high power distance culture power is always centralized within the organization. Only a moderate dependence exists between subordinators to superiors....
References: Armstrong, C., Flood, P. C., Guthrie, J. P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S., & Mkamwa, T. (2010). The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance: beyond high performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 49(6), 977-998.
Bell, M. (2011). Diversity in organizations. Cengage Learning.
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
Huhtala, M., Feldt, T., Lämsä, A. M., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2011). Does the ethical culture of organisations promote managers’ occupational well-being? Investigating indirect links via ethical strain. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 231-247.
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2012). CEO leadership styles and the implementation of organizational diversity practices: Moderating effects of social values and age. Journal of business ethics, 105(1), 41-52.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational Behavior 15th Edition. prentice Hall.
Roberge, M. E., & van Dick, R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how does diversity increase group performance?. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 295-308.
Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 197-212.
Worthington, J. (2013). Reinventing the workplace. Routledge.
Wang, H., Tsui, A
Upshur, R., & Bernstein, M. (2014). Workplace Ethics and Professionalism. In Neurosurgical Ethics in Practice: Value-based Medicine (pp. 161-169). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document