How Managers Motivate Culturally Diverse Teams: A Research Report

This research report delves into the complexities of motivating culturally diverse teams within organizations. It begins by defining a team and highlighting the increasing prevalence of multicultural teams in a globalized business environment, emphasizing the importance of effective management to leverage the diverse perspectives and skills these teams offer. The report then explores the impact of national cultures on team dynamics, introducing Hofstede's framework and other dimensions to understand cultural differences. It examines various motivation theories, including need-oriented and process-oriented approaches, and provides insights into how managers can tailor their strategies to meet the diverse needs and expectations of their team members. The report stresses the importance of cultural intelligence, awareness, and sensitivity in leadership, offering practical recommendations for managers to create a motivating environment and achieve organizational goals, ultimately emphasizing the critical role of managers in driving employee motivation and team performance in diverse settings.

How can managers motivate culturally diverse teams?
As organisations respond to the forces of globalisation, they are expanding beyond their local
markets into international markets as multinational corporations (MNC’s) (Deresky, 2017). In a
highly competitive international market, organisations are seeking the best team members to
compete effectively and efficiently, regardless of their nationality (Mustajbašić & Husaković,
2016). Consequently, traditionally homogenous teams have evolved into culturally diverse teams
across nations and in the virtual sphere. Subsequently, knowledge transfer and team synergy are
interrupted by barriers arising from members’ heterogenous cultural beliefs, behaviours,
cognition and values (Cagiltay, Kaplan & Bichelmeyer, 2015). Aside from these barriers,
multicultural teams are exceedingly desirable for their diverse perspectives, skill sets and
creativity which leads to greater innovation and problem solving if managed effectively
(Deresky, 2017). It is the manager’s responsibility to effectively motivate and lead these diverse
teams towards achieving organisational goals. This research paper serves as a tool to inform
managers of cultural diversity, what motivates various cultures and how they can lead effective,
efficient and highly productive multicultural teams.
A team is a group of two or more individuals whose work is interdependent on another’s to
achieve a shared goal (Robbins & Coulter, 2016). According to Robbins and Coulter (2016), an
organisation’s culture dictates the roles and norms that team members are expected to follow.
Mockaitis, Zander and De Cieri (2018) explain that, in their elected roles, managers exhibit
specific behaviour that leads their team to success. Additionally, managers inform their team
members of the expectations (norms) they have towards the members’ loyalty, efforts and
performances (Deresky, 2017). Knein, Greven, Bendig and Brettel (2020) posit, a team must
conform and collaborate their efforts to meet its goals. Therefore a team’s goals must align with
the organisation's goals to promote cohesion and productivity (Deresky, 2017). However, a
barrier to this conformity and unity is the socio-cultural context of the team members (Cagiltay,
Kaplan & Bichelmeyer, 2015). This, being their national cultures and subsequent dissimilarities
which extends the differences between countries’ cultures, also known as cultural distance
(Boscari, Bortolotti, Netland & Rich, 2018).
1

National cultures are the value systems and attitudes that are shared by a group of people from a
specific country that shapes their social norms, behaviours, expectations and understandings
which distinguishes them from other cultures (Erciyes, 2019). This point is challenged by
Beugelsdijk, Kostova and Roth (2016) whereby they state that culture does not only originate
from a country but rather from different regions, generations, social groups and socioeconomic
groups. Disadvantages of multicultural teams include issues surrounding stereotypes,
communication issues and mistrust between team members, however, these multicultural teams
also present the organisation with a greater diversity of ideas, restricted groupthink and an
increased attention spent on understanding others’ perspectives (Robbins & Coulter, 2016).
Nonetheless, fundamentally, ‘national’ culture shapes peoples’ behaviours and beliefs of what is
important (Robbins & Coulter, 2016; Knein et. al, 2020). Furthermore, Khan and Law (p. 37,
2018) contend national culture influences how people interpret, evaluate and understand
concepts and communication because it “shapes their customs, ideas, habits, traditions, language,
and shared systems of attitudes and feelings”. Finally, this will influence how individuals solve
problems, make decisions, communicate and orient themselves towards tasks or relationships
(Deresky, 2017). Cultural intelligence, which is an individual’s skills and ability to be aware of,
relate to and be sensitive towards other cultures’ needs, values and behaviours (Robbins &
Coulter, 2016).
In 1980, Gert Hofstede created a framework which conceptualises the relationship between a
country's national culture and their values (Beugelsdijk et. al, 2016). Five independent
dimensions show how the country’s culture impacts its citizens’ behaviours. They are as follows:
Power distance (PD) regards how a culture distributes power amongst its people, therefore it also
pertains to equality and authority (Hollenback, Gerhart & Wright, 2018). Additionally,
uncertainty avoidance (UA) concerns how threatened people are by ambiguous future situations
(Erciyes, 2019). Moreover, individualism-collectivism expresses the strength of the relationship
between an individual and others in a culture (Hollenback et. al, 2018). Furthermore, masculine
cultures value achievement, competition and assertion whereas feminine cultures value
relationships, fairness and the wellbeing of people and the environment (Deresky, 2017). Lastly,
2

long term orientation versus short term orientation indicates whether cultures look to the future,
value saving and are persistent or if they are short term oriented and focus on values and
traditions of the past (Hollenback et. al, 2018).
Besides Hofstede’s Framework, in 2004 the Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour
Effectiveness program was established to supplement Hofstede’s dimensions and managers’
knowledge on identifying and managing cultural differences (Robbins & Coulter, 2016). Out of
the nine dimensions, three new dimensions were identified; gender-differentiation, in-group
collectivism, and performance orientation (Robbins & Coulter, 2016). Robbins and Coulter
(2016) state, gender differentiation examines how much society enables women to be in decision
making and leadership roles. Additionally, Deresky (2017) defines in-group collectivism as the
degree to which individuals take pride in their belonging to social and professional groups.
Finally Robbins and Coulter (2016) describe the performance orientation dimension as the extent
to which a culture uplifts and honours group members for excellent improvement and
performance.
Whilst some individuals will want to strictly abide by their norms and values in a ‘tight culture’,
others will be more conforming and not abide as strictly to their norms and values in their ‘loose
culture’ (Deresky, 2017). It is a manager’s prerogative to understand, manage and leverage their
employees’ needs, goals, values and expectations to effectively lead and motivate them.
Motivation is a psychological process that results in goal or performance directed behaviour that
satisfies human needs (Cook & Artino, 2016). According to Maslow in Deresky (2017), needs
are a feeling of deficit. Cook and Artino (2016) declare intrinsic motivation originates from an
individual’s desire to do an activity for its innate satisfaction such as curiosity and pleasure;
whereas extrinsic motivation, entails external rewards and punishments which directs an
individual to perform the appropriate behaviour.
Mustajbašić and Husaković (2016) have identified the following: employees from a high PD
culture are motivated by hierarchy, security status whilst employees from a low PD culture are
motivated by teamwork. Additionally, employees from a high UA are motivated by stability in
3

their positions whilst those in low UA cultures are motivated by unfamiliar risks. Besides this,
employees from a more individualist culture are motivated by competition whilst those from a
more collective culture are motivated by friendship and collaboration. Moreover, employees
from a masculine culture are motivated by rigid structures and long-term orientation whereas
employees from feminine cultures are more motivated by a short-term orientation with less
restrictions in their role.
In the opinion of Alghazo and Al-Anazi (2016), managers must aim to create an environment
that is conducive to improve employee performance. Firstly, management should query which of
their employees’ needs are satisfied through working, this is known as the meaning of work
(Deresky, 2017). The general need that drives people to work is for an income (Sharabi, 2017).
However employees also work out of interest, to make contact with others, to serve society, to
keep occupied, and to earn status and prestige (Zhao & Pan, 2017). What determines their
importance is what individuals value as well as the economic stability of the country they are
working in (Deresky, 2017; Sharabi, 2017). Additionally, managers should consider employees’
work centralities, which is the relative importance work poses to people in comparison to leisure,
community, religion and family differs between cultures (Khan & Panarina, 2018).
According to Fiaz, Qin, Ikram and Saqib (2017) there are two kinds of motivation theories.
Firstly need-oriented motivation stipulates, individuals are driven to satisfy their needs (Badubi,
2017). Whereas process-oriented motivation asserts that individuals’ behaviours are started,
directed and stopped through the inclusion or exclusion of variables which either punish or
reinforce a behaviour (Badubi, 2017).
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in Robbins and Coulter (2016) proposed that every
individual, regardless of culture, has five levels of needs. In his need-oriented model, Maslow
progresses from physiological needs, to security needs protection from emotional and physical
harm, thereafter social needs such as affection, friendship and belongingness, subsequently
esteem like autonomy, achievement and recognition follow and finally self actualisation needs
like growth, potential and self-fulfillment. Once a lower-level need is met, people progress to
higher level needs (Badubi, 2017).
4

Moreover, McClelland’s Human Motivation theory addresses individuals’ needs for power,
affiliation and achievement. According to Erciyes (2019), individuals with the need for
achievement will take moderate risks and work hard under any conditions. Furthermore, people
in need of power will take the greatest risks and have a desire to control functions in the team
(Erciyes, 2019). Finally, individuals with the need for affiliation desire stronger interpersonal
relationships and fear rejection from others within their network.
Besides, Herzberg’s two factor model, known as the motivation-hygiene theory proposes that
employees’ intrinsic motivation is attached to job satisfaction whilst extrinsic factors create job
dissatisfaction (Robbins and Coulter, 2016). Herzberg proposed that managers should amplify
achievement, recognition, advancement and responsibility to motivate their employees (Deresky,
2017). Whereas Herzberg recommended improving extrinsic factors like an employee’s salary,
company policies, working conditions and job security to avoid dissatisfaction amongst
employees (Hollenback et. al, 2018).
What’s more, the Goal Setting Theory indicates that employees which accept and work towards
a defined goal are more motivated (Robbins and Coulter, 2017). Employees are driven towards
performance goals, learning goals or behavioural goals. Self-efficacy also determines if a goal is
achieved because if employees believe they have the capability to achieve the goal, they will
pursue it more (Schmidt, 2019).
Furthermore, a process-oriented motivational theory like B.F. Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory
contends that all behaviour has consequences (Deresky, 2017). Desirable behaviours that result
in rewards will be repeated, whilst behaviour that is unrewarded or punished will be less likely to
be repeated (Robbins and Coulter, 2016). In addition, Edgar Schein’s model of Leadership and
Culture proposes that managers’ basic assumptions construct the values of the team, which later
form the practices and behaviour of a team, thereafter, creating the culture of a team. According
to Schein, leadership and culture are inseparable as the leaders form the teams’ artefacts such as
team construct and the language used; its values and its basic assumptions of how the team
should operate (Erciyes, 2019).
5

Managers use monetary and non-monetary tools to influence employees’ behaviours and create a
final goal for employees to achieve. As employees move from basic needs to higher level needs,
their source of motivation becomes more intrinsic than extrinsic (Robbins & Coulter, 2016).
Firstly, managers could use monetary tools like staff discounts, rent subsidies, bonuses, long-
term contracts and other employee fringe benefits to motivate staff extrinsically (Erciyes, 2019).
Secondly, they could employ a plethora of non-monetary tools such as status, job content, career
progression and belonging to professional groups to motivate staff intrinsically (Deresky, 2017).
Besides, Cagiltay et. al (2015) recommend the promotion of valence, self-efficacy, trust and
instrumentality amongst virtual team members. Moreover, Zhao and Pan (2017) recommend
increased communication amongst managers and their subordinates, providing staff with greater
power and recognising individual achievements to further motivate employees.
Whilst it is vital to comprehend the multicultural workforces’ unique values, In Ericyes (2019),
93% of the respondents claimed that their nationality did not influence their motivation. Instead
this group reported that their managers and subsequent leadership style their style a greater
impact on their motivation. In fact, Alghazo and Al-Ananzi (2016), Deresky (2017) and Erciyes
(2019) claim that managers are the most appropriate implementers of motivational methods and
found a strong correlation between leadership and motivation.
Whilst a company’s culture is standardised, managers will need to adapt their leadership styles to
effectively motivate specific employees depending on their personal requirements. According to
Deresky (2017), managers must inspire and influence the thoughts and behaviours of their
employees around the world.
Firstly, leaders must exhibit cultural awareness, cultural sensitivity and adopt a global mindset to
be effective in multicultural teams (Robbins and Coulter, 2016). This global mindset consists of
intellectual capital, psychological capital and social capital. Robbins and Coulter (2016) define
intellectual capital pertains as a manager's knowledge of how international business is conducted
on a global scale. They state, psychological capital involves a manager's willingness to be open
6

to new experiences and thoughts. Finally, social capital is a manager's ability to configure
relationships and trust with others of diverse backgrounds (Robbins and Coulter, 2016).
In 2019, Erciyes established that managers utilise different types of power in varying leadership
styles to motivate employees. Firstly, hard power is utilised in a more hierarchical structure
whereby employees are pressured and given an ultimatum to meet a goal (Erciyes, 2019).
Whereas soft power utilises persuasion to get employees to do what they manager wants but
leverages the employees' intrinsic motivations to achieve a goal. Managers will utilise various
control mechanisms and delegate power differently according to the task at hand, the company
culture and what employees’ value.
Fiaz et. al (2017) investigated leadership within a bureaucratic company in Pakistan and found
that autocratic leadership has a negative impact on employee motivation, whilst laissez faire
leadership and democratic leadership had a positive impact on employee motivation. Thereby,
employees felt more motivated when they were controlled less, and they could participate more
in the decision-making process.
In autocratic leadership there is a high power distance between the manager and their
subordinates, team members' behaviours are work centered and they are driven to be highly
productive (Alghazo and Al-Anazi, 2016). Contrary to this, Hollenback et. al (2018) state
democratic leadership and Laissez faire leadership, employees have greater control, influence
and authority over the work being done.
Correspondingly, Alghazo and Al-Anazi (2016), identified that transactional leadership
correlates with extrinsic motivational factors, whilst transformational leadership correlates with
intrinsic motivational factors. Transactional leaders are outcome oriented and have a work
centered focus whereas transformational leaders are more motivational, process oriented and use
a work centered and people centered approach (Alghazo & Al-Anazi, 2016). During times of
difficulty in managing a multicultural team Deresky, (2017) recommends that managers;
acknowledge cultural gaps, intervene in the team’s structure if there is conflict, conduct
managerial intervention by setting the norms of the team early and if the team's dynamics are still
conflicting it would be best to remove a team member from their post.
7

To build and manage multicultural teams effectively, managers should implement the 'SPLIT'
framework as stipulated by the Harvard Business School (2019). Firstly, managers should
consider the team structure, and how it impacts distribution of power. To induce a more
collaborative and productive team, managers can create shared goals in the team. Additionally,
managers should consider the process in which the team communicates, builds trust and
disagrees. Thereafter, managers should be mindful of the language used in the team and
encourage non-native English speakers to participate. Accordingly, managers must encourage
team members to learn about each other’s identities and cultural differences to promote cohesion
and collaboration. Finally managers must consider what technology facilitates effective and
efficient team operations and employ it.
The former literature review exhibited the key elements of this research paper, these include
culture, multicultural teams, cultural dimensions, theories of motivation, tools for motivation and
leadership styles. The following discussion will provide managers with realistic scenarios,
relevant theories and practical solutions to managing multicultural teams.
In teams where there is a low PD, employees are motivated by teamwork whereas in teams
where there is a high PD managers are more authoritative figures and incentivise employees to
work (Zhao & Pan, 2017; Erciyes, 2019). According to Robbins and Coulter (2016) and Khan
and Panarina (2018), Sweden and the United States of America are countries with a low power
distance. Whereas France, Mexico and Singapore are more hierarchical societies and thus have a
higher power distance (Robbins & Coulter, 2016).
Americans and Swedes would be motivated by democratic leaders and motivational factors such
as being given autonomy over their work and having less bureaucracy in the working
environment. Whereas the French, Mexicans and Singaporeans would be incentivised by the
bonuses and subsidies offered by their autocratic leaders. The latter would work in a more
hierarchical structure whereas the former would enjoy a more equal distribution of power in a
collaborative team.
8

Additionally, in Italy, Mexico, France, Russia and Pakistan the culture is permeated with high
UA, as people are anxious about job security, need more time to plan and are not big risk takers
(Khan & Panarine, 2018). Contrarily, employees with a low UA in countries like Canada, the
United States of America and Singapore will be comfortable with rapid changes (Zhao & Pan,
2017). Employees with a low UA can be motivated by opportunities for rapid change, promotion
and taking risks. Whereas the employees with high UA would be motivated by managers which
ensure them of their career's security. Additionally, these low-risk takers would want more
control held by their superiors and their superiors would most likely incentivise their work
through coercive power.
Besides this, employees from Australia, with a high individualistic outlook are more motivated
by autonomy and opportunities for their own gain whereas employees from a collectivist culture
like that of South Africa are more motivated by team goals and team support (Hofstede Insights,
2020).
Moreover, employees that are short term oriented, like the Japanese and Chinese care more about
traditions and events from the past. They will be motivated by leaders who provide them with
immediate gratification and uphold the organisation's traditional values and expectations for
employee performances. Contrary to this, long term-oriented employees from Australia,
Germany and Canada are more concerned about future learning opportunities and promotions
(Robbins & Coulter, 2016).
Then again, employees from a masculine culture like Australia will follow traditional roles and
compete with each other, whereas employees from a feminine culture, like Sweden will be more
flexible in their roles (Zhao & Pan, 2017). Employees from the masculine cultures will be
motivated by competition, promotions, self-fulfillment and monetary benefits whereas
employees from feminine cultures are more motivated by relationships and building team spirit.
Finally, when considering the GLOBE project's gender differentiation, Egypt was one of the
highest rated countries for maximising gender differentiation in comparison to Slovenia which
had a much lower discrimination between genders (Robbins & Coulter, 2016).
9

Additionally, the Chinese were found to have a high rating for-in-group collectivism whereas
New Zealanders had a much lower rating. Nevertheless, New Zealanders scored high on the
performance orientation dimension which contrasted greatly with Argentina's lack of societal
encouragement.
This research paper serves as a gauge for managers to measure their understanding of the
concepts related to multicultural teams. These concepts included teamwork, Hofstede and the
GLOBE project's cultural dimensions. From this, managers can use this paper as a framework to
identify and categorise employees’ values, attitudes and behaviours from countries around the
world. Furthermore, several need-oriented and process-oriented motivational theories were
described, consequently managers can use this paper to design motivational strategies depending
on their team’s goals and employees’ individual values.
Thereafter, it is established that managers need to decide on what leadership style will be
appropriate to motivate and guide a productive, collaborative and efficient team. Consequently,
autocratic teams, led by transactional leaders are more effective for time constrained, riskier
tasks. Subsequently, democratic and laissez faire teams paired with transformational leaders
distributed more power to employees and created highly engaged employees that achieved higher
order needs like esteem and self actualisation.
Finally, this research paper combined information from the literature review and contextualised
it with examples from the cultures of a plethora of countries around the world which are
accumulating in the global workforce.
10

References:
Badubi, R, M. (2017). Theories of Motivation and Their Application
in Organizations: A Risk Analysis. International Journal of Innovation and Economic
Development 3(3), 44-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.33.2004
Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2016). An overview of Hofstede-inspired
country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International
Business Studies 48, 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0038-8
Boscari, S., Bortolotti, T., Netland, T, H., & Rich, N. (2018). National culture and operations
management: a structured literature review. International Journal of Production
Research, 56(18), 6314 - 6331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1461275
Cagiltay, K., Kaplan, G., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2015). Working with multicultural virtual teams:
critical factors for facilitation, satisfaction and success. Smart Learning Environments,
2(11), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0018-7
Cook, D, A., & Artino Jr, A, R, A. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary
theories. Medical Education, 50, 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074
Deresky, H. (2017). International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures. (9th
Edition). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
11

Erciyes, E. (2019). A New Theoretical Framework for Multicultural Workforce Motivation in
the Context of International Organizations. SAGE OPEN 9(3), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019864199
Harvard Business School. (2019). Managing Global Teams. Retrieved from:
https://www.library.hbs.edu/content/download/69471/file/Managing%20Global
%20Teams.pdf
Hofstede Insights. (2020). Country comparison. Retrieved from: https://www.hofstede-
insights.com/country-comparison/australia,japan,south-africa/
Khan, M, A., &. Panarina, E. (2018). The Role of National Cultures in Shaping the Corporate
Management Cultures: A Four Country Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Eastern
European and Central Asian Research 4(1), 1-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v4i1.152
Knein, E., Greven, A., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2020). Culture and cross-functional
coopetition: The interplay of organizational and national culture. Journal of International
Management 26(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2019.100731
Mockaitis, A, I., Zander, L., De Cieri, H. (2018). The benefits of global teams for international
organizations: HR implications, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 29(14), 2137-2158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1428722
Mustajbašić, E., & Husaković, D. (2016). Impact of Culture on Work Motivation: Case of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 3(3), 79-87.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23281662
Noe, R, A., Hollenbeck, J, R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P, M. (2018). Fundamentals of Human
Resource Management. (7th Edition). New York: USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
12

Robbins, S, P., & Coulter, M. (2016). Management. (13th Edition). Harlow, England: Pearson
Education Limited.
Schmidt, G. (2019). The need for goal-setting theory and motivation constructs in Lean
management. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 12(3). DOI:
10.1017/iop.2019.48.
Sharabi, M. (2016). The meaning of work dimensions according to organizational status: does
gender matter? Employee Relations 39 (5), 643-659. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2016-
0087
Zhao, B., & Pan, Y. (2017). Cross-Cultural Employee Motivation in International Companies.
Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies 5(4), 215-222.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2017.54019
13