04 1 c framework multi culture team

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Framework for managing
multicultural project teams

Managing
multicultural
project teams

Edward Godfrey Ochieng
The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen Business School, Aberdeen, UK, and

527

Andrew David Price
Civil and Building Department, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

Received August 2008
Revised July 2009
Accepted August 2009

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present literature that suggests that project teams
comprising members from culturally diverse backgrounds bring fresh ideas and new approaches to
problem solving. The challenge, however, is that they also introduce different understandings and
expectations regarding team dynamics and integration. The question becomes how a project manager
can effectively work and influence a multicultural construction project team, at the same time being
attentive to the diversity and creating the structure required for success.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a qualitative methodology, participants of heavy
construction engineering projects revealed a number of multi-dimensional factors that either

facilitated or limited the effectiveness of multicultural teamwork. These were synthesised into a
framework of eight key dimensions that need to be considered when managing multicultural teams.
The identified key dimensions include: leadership style, team selection and composition process,
cross-cultural management of team development process, cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural
collectivism, cross-cultural trust, cross-cultural management and cross-cultural uncertainty.
Findings – The proposed framework has implications for construction managers who work with
multicultural teams and are committed to improving team performance and productivity. The
utilisation of the proposed framework would not instantly transform multicultural teams into
high-performing ones; however, it does identify eight key cross-cultural dimensions, which need to be
considered.
Originality/value – Though the benefits of culturally diverse teams have been acknowledged
within the industry, the study highlighted that cultural differences among project teams can cause
conflict, misunderstanding and poor project performance.
Keywords Multicultural management, Integration, Kenya, Construction industry, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The construction industry is an important industry in developing countries such as
Kenya and developed countries such as the UK. This is not just, because it accounts for
a relatively high percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) but because its products
include building and its environment affects the entire economy (Egan, 2002; Mitullah
and Wachira, 2003). In the UK, its construction sector project delivery performance has
been criticised for being unreliable. Time and budget overruns are common and much
effort and resources are invested in making good defects (Strategic Forum for
Construction, 2002). Two government sponsored reports into UK construction, Egan
(1998) and (Strategic Forum for Construction, 2002), each confirmed that the
construction industry also has a long-standing reputation for being adversarial,

Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management

Vol. 16 No. 6, 2009
pp. 527-543
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10.1108/09699980911002557


ECAM
16,6

528

demonstrated by poor relationships between the client and project teams, which in turn
lead to numerous problems including poor project performance and a low number of
long-term relationships between members of project teams (Murray and Langford,
2003). These problems can often be attributed to cultural issues between project teams.
Given the supposedly severity of cultural complexity and the obvious failings of the
industry’s approach towards its workforce, it is not surprising that Egan’s (1998)
review challenged the industry to address its performance on people management.
Most recently, the industry’s “Strategic Forum” laid down challenging targets for the
improvement of its people management practices within its “Accelerating Change”
report (Strategic Forum for Construction, 2002). As Dainty et al. (2007) confirmed, the
industry needs to address its poor performance on people management by focusing on
cultural issues.
Within the general trend of globalisation, the construction industry has been under
pressure to evolve into a sector that is constantly changing to fit the needs of the
broader context in which the operations are executed. Attitudes towards working have
changed dramatically in recent years and there is currently much more emphasis on
multicultural teamwork (Weatherley, 2006). As construction organisations define more
of their activities as projects, the demand for multicultural teamwork grows and there

is increasing interest in reforming the project delivery process. Based on this demand
and the previously cited challenge of improving people management, this study has
focussed on examining the factors influencing multicultural teamwork and has
explored how team integration can be made effective for a multicultural project
environment. The study is set within the context of project competence which has been
an area of significance since the mid-1990 s (PMI, 1996). The findings have been used to
provide clients, project directors, project managers, project leaders, and multinational
construction organisations with an extensive cross-multicultural project framework for
managing cultural complexity on construction engineering projects.
Information has been gathered from eight well-established heavy engineering
construction organisations, while drawing on literature where appropriate. The
objective is to identify the key factors that are considered necessary for the successful
integration of multicultural teamwork. The practices of each project leader, been
combined and developed into a single cross multicultural project framework for large
construction organisations. Implications are drawn on the existing practices to better
multicultural team integration and suggestions are made for improvements that are
necessary to increase project teamwork efficiency.
Current issues of multicultural project teams
Getting multicultural project teams to work effectively across international boundaries
has become a major issue (Earley and Mosakowski, 2000; Brett et al., 2007; Weatherley,
2006). The trend is likely to continue and the future of business will increasingly
depend on doing projects effectively in different cultural environments (Earley, 1993,
1994; Ochieng, 2008; Peterson et al., 1995; Weatherley, 2006). It has been widely
recognised that multicultural project teams have been common in recent years.
Contemporary literature in international management has identified the management
of multicultural teams as an important subject in human resource management. Most


of the studies have focused on the positive effects of using multicultural teams. Earley
and Mosakowski (2000) stated that multicultural teams are used because of a belief

that they out-perform monoculture teams, especially when performance requires
multiple skills and judgement.
Multicultural team integration is a particular problem for clients and project
managers. Once they are established, multicultural teams are perceived to outperform
mono-cultural teams, in areas such as problem identification and resolution, by the
sheer strength of its diversity (Marquardt and Hovarth, 2001). The basic values,
concepts and assumptions differ with each culture, understanding these and enabling
the “settling-in” by recognising the cultural complexity is a required skill of a manager
(Kang et al., 2006; Vonsild, 1996). Choosing not to recognise cultural complexity limits
the ability to manage it. The fragmentation of a project delivery has been blamed on
the cultural complexities that exist. Project managers of multi-national organisations
often make the common assumption that cultural differences are unimportant when
individual members, belonging to different divisions, of the same organisation are
brought together as a team. The original research (Hofstede, 1980) suggested that 80
percent of the differences in employee’s attitudes and behaviours are influenced by
national culture still has resonance today.
Cultural differences reflect different expectations about the purpose of the team and
its method of operation, which can be categorise into task and processes. The task area
relates to the structure of the task, role responsibilities, decision making. The processes
relate to team building, language, participation, conflict management and team
evaluation. Culture is an issue with many different dimensions. Both Hofstede (1991)
and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) discussed different levels of culture.
The former mentions gender, generation, social class, and regional and national and
organisational levels. The latter presents national, corporate and professional levels of
culture. The level that is important in this study is that of national and organisational
culture.
It has been widely recognised that organisational culture is important in
construction project management (Kandola and Fullerton, 1998; Meek, 1998; Barthorpe
et al., 1999, 2000). For example, contractors are usually drawn from a number of
organisations, each with its own organisational culture. To work as a team efficiently,

it is essential to have some degree of cohesion of organisational culture. Most
construction organisations have a cultural history and set ways of getting things done
that can help or, in some cases, hinder a project (Dainty et al., 2007). It is essential
therefore to institute organisational background and culture of all the contractors
involved in the project from the outset.
Typically, leadership in construction projects is complex and critical to success in
multicultural team environments. For example, Weatherley (2006) affirmed that if
management is getting the team to do what is required, project leadership involves
motivating the project team in such a way that they want to do what is required. In this
context, project leadership is not so much about telling the project team what to do as
leading by example and developing trust and confidence in the team to take the project
forward. Indeed, this kind of team leadership is not just accidental but can be

Managing
multicultural
project teams
529


ECAM
16,6

530

developed and is a required skill for successful multicultural project teams (Earley and
Mosakowski, 2000).
In a number of countries, different ethical standards apply. This affects attitudes
towards the law and, indeed, national laws can be very different in different territories.
Weatherley (2006) claimed that in some nations, bribery and corruption have become
institutionalised and are the only means by which some local officials can earn a living.

There may be an unwarranted predilection given to local suppliers or contractors and
planning laws and approvals can be very officious. In some nations, the government
approval procedure can become the critical path on the project programme.
Project financing of multicultural project teams can be difficult. Difference in
currency rates as well as variable in different nations can play havoc with cost
management of a construction project. Owing to the above, a number of construction
organisations have difficulty in repatriating revenue from project work done outside
their home country. Ochieng (2008), established that there is also more hidden cost
linked with multicultural projects such as customs, import duties, shipping, logistics
and agent fees. A number of organisations now use low-cost design centres for the
completion of detailed or standardised design and this can lead to a considerable
reduction in costs due the low currency rates in these countries. Emmitt and Gorse
(2003, 2007) noted that communication between the main project office and the low-cost
design centre needs to be of high quality if complexity is to be reduced. It is essential
that these are used with care since although the rates may be low, productivity is often
also low so the cost savings are much less attractive than might be thought. This
undoubtedly impedes integration since error rates tend to be higher for work framed
out in this way (Weatherley, 2006). This presents a problematic context for achieving
the integrated delivery of the project, since there can be a hostile response from project
workers if there are different rates of pay for the same work.
Smith (1999) asserted that risk is present in all projects but becomes more definite in
global projects where there are often new risks, predominantly if the project is being
constructed in a country where security is an issue. Chan and Tse (2003) affirmed that
in some nations, contract law is not well instituted by other nationalities. Emmitt and
Gorse (2007) found that risks in communication and risks emerging from
misunderstandings and misinterpretation are much greater. There is also a danger
of the expatriate project team “going native” and becoming isolated from the project
and pursuing their own project goals rather than focusing on the overall project aim
and objectives (Langford and Rowland, 1995). Another key issue that managers of
multicultural project teams face is the assessment of skills and competencies of the

project team (Ochieng, 2008). For example, in a number of countries, the training and
education standards and the relative value of qualifications can be very different.
Weatherley (2006) also highlighted that job methods can be different because of
specific local conditions such as working in heat, earthquake risk or local trade
practices. Interestingly, participant C, D and E noted that due to the current political
climate, it can be difficult to find individuals who can work effectively away from their
home country.
Langford and Rowland (1995) established that cultural differences are usually
significant when managing project teams across different parts of the world. Hofstede


(1991) and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) classed the differences as
national characteristics, ethnic differences, organisational culture or professional.
Indeed, if not addressed these differences can lead to major divergence of working
practice and can severely affect the project conclusion. For example, in some countries,
status and hierarchy are very important. This can lead to a lack of empowerment of
more junior project staff. Religious observance can also be very significant in getting
the project completed successful. Setting aside time for prayers during the working day
might be required. In a number of countries, they do have religious festivals, fasts and
feast days that are classed as non-working days (Reva and Ataalla, 2002). Language is
another factor that affects multicultural project teams (Brett et al., 2007; Reva and
Ataalla, 2002).
Brett et al. noted that trouble with: accents and fluency; direct versus
indirect-communication; differing attitudes toward hierarchy; and conflicting
decision making norms can cause destructive conflicts in a team. The trouble with
accents and fluency can occur when individuals who are not fluent in teams’ dominant
language may have difficulty sharing their knowledge. Direct versus indirect
communication can transpire when some project workers use direct, explicit
communication while others are indirect, for example, asking questions instead of
highlighting problems with a project leader. Brett et al. (2007) further argued that team

members from hierarchical cultures expect to be treated differently according to their
status in the organisation. With conflicting decision-making norms, project team
members vary in how quickly they make decisions and in how much analysis they
may require beforehand. Brett et al. asserted that an individual who prefers to make
decisions quickly may grow frustrated with those who need more time. It is essential
for the project manager to set out a common language so as to ensure a common
understanding (Emmitt and Gorse, 2007). This arguably delimits non-native speakers
who are working in their second or third language with a substantial loss of efficiency,
as well as increased risks or misunderstanding.
The realisation of integrated multicultural teamwork as a single unit still remains
the aspiration within the construction sector (Egan, 2002). The various parties within
the delivery team continue to face cultural issues. Egan (2002) stated that integrated
teamwork is the key to construction projects that personify good whole life value and
performance. Integrated teams deliver greater process efficiency and by working
together over time can help drive out the old style adversarial culture and provide safer
projects using qualified trained workforce. Egan further argued that teams that only
construct one project team at the client’s expense would never be as efficient, safe,
productive or profitable as those that work repeatedly on similar projects. This, in
particular in developing countries, has proven to be a long and complex process
(Ochieng, 2008). However, partnerships and co-operatives are being formed; and
integration and collaboration are becoming generally accepted needs for individuals
and companies to survive.
Despite the above difficulties, it is vital for the construction industry to improve
multicultural teamwork in construction projects. It is possible to get project teams from
different countries and organisations to work together effectively. The task for project
leaders is to understand cultural issues and the secret of success so that more

Managing
multicultural
project teams

531


ECAM
16,6

532

multicultural construction project teams can be managed effectively to the benefit of
the clients in a way that properly rewards organisations involved in that delivery. The
present study explored how a project manager can effectively work and influence a
multicultural construction project team. The research aim is to shed light on whether
the espoused benefits of multicultural teamwork actually represent an achievable
reality for an industry with working practices grounded in fragmented and adversarial
project delivery mechanisms. It also seeks to identify key multi-dimensional factors
that either facilitate or limit the effectiveness of multicultural teamwork. In this way,
they enable the key requirements for efficient multicultural team integration to be
better identified.
Methodology
Eight organisations were selected from a number of heavy construction engineering
organisations to ensure that a variety of project environments would be examined.
The aim of this was to explore expert views from successful project directors,
project managers, and project engineers on cultural complexity within the Kenyan
and UK construction industry. The main advantage of this sample was that each
participant had worked on projects in developing and developed countries. This
allowed the authors to focus in-depth on the experiences of each participant. The
participants worked in various types of organisation formations and project
arrangements. All participants were considered to have practical understanding of
managing multicultural project teams and their views were considered those of
knowledgeable practitioners. Interviewing more than one project leader in an

organisation allowed more information about their actual practice (and opinions) to
be obtained. In order to investigate the factors that influenced project management
practice it was necessary to have a range of organisations in terms of status, size,
and projects managed. The eight organisations that were selected, where 20 of the
participants interviewed, operated in the energy, pharmaceutical and petrochemical
sector. The selected organisations were well balanced in terms of projects managed.
In general, terms there was a link between the existence of project work and the
type of projects undertaken. The following is a summary background of the
organisations used in this study, for the purposes of confidentiality, the firms name
have been changed. For the purposes of identification, the eight organisations have
each been given one-letter identification from (A) to (H). Participants have been
given an alphabetical identification that links them to the organisation they work
for as illustrated in Table I.
The verification and validation took place after the interpretation of data; this
involved presenting the framework to the main participants of this study in Kenya and
the UK. This was achieved through workshops and group discussions. These
workshops enabled the framework to be continuously adjusted and refined. The main
purpose of this process was to ensure that the framework that was developed was not
influenced by the researcher’s own interpretation and thus distanced from the reality in
question. The validation took place after the verification process; this involved
presenting the proposed framework to a different group of managers who were not
involved with the study. This was achieved through a focus group. All cross-cultural


findings compiled throughout both the preliminary and the main study stages were
presented to the project leaders in Kenya and the UK. A verification and validation
questionnaire assessing the effective factors for efficient cross-cultural integration was
presented to the participants of study. The full questionnaire can be found in Ochieng
(2008). The aim of the questionnaire was to measure their level of agreement on the
variables that were identified in the analysis. Both the verification and validation

employed the use of the Likert uni-dimensional scale because it ensured all variables
identified from the analysis were measured. Participants were asked to indicate the
level of agreement on each variable using a scale from 1-5 where 1 indicated “strongly
disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “fairly agree”, 4 “agree” and 5 “strongly agree”. The
employment of the questionnaire ensured participants could express their opinions of
the proposed framework freely and frankly. As established in this study, the
emergence of a good multicultural team was found to likely to depend on the
establishment of a number of identifiable project level practices. The results are
presented below under headings derived from the analysis.

Managing
multicultural
project teams
533

Results from the 20 interviews
The results of the two focus groups suggested that there must be an evident
commitment from the client and project manager. This applies at board level, and
throughout the firm. The participants suggested that without guidance from the top,
there is a danger of the project team developing their own working culture within the
project environment. There was recognition by the participants that the principal
objective of building cultural understanding through leadership is to manage
effectively cultural differences and cross-cultural differences that might emerge on a
project. As argued in this study cultural differences among project teams can cause
conflict, misunderstanding, and poor project performance. It was, therefore, not
surprising that the key categories that emerged from the verification process as
significant were sorted and grouped within the eight main sub-categories of:
(1) leadership style;
(2) team selection and composition;
(3) cross-cultural management of team development process;

(4) cross-cultural communication;
(5) cross-cultural collectivism;

Organisation

Profile of projects

Participants

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Energy and petrochemical
Energy and petrochemical
Energy and petrochemical
Defence, energy and petrochemical
Power plants
Energy, pharmaceutical and petrochemical
Energy, pharmaceutical and petrochemical
Power plants

A
S
R

J
G, H, L, P, Q
C, I
D, E, F, K
B, M, N, O

Table I.
Profile of projects and
participants


ECAM
16,6

534

(6) cross-cultural trust;
(7) cross-cultural management; and
(8) cross-cultural uncertainty.
These eight sub-categories were found to be inter-connected are thus were reported
together.
Leadership style
From the verification results, the UK participants’ preferences for and reliance on
responsive, inspirational, participative, and charismatic leadership styles in projects
was evident, while a large majority of participants in Kenya favoured participative,
authoritarian, and inspirational leadership styles. Interestingly, during the
discussion with participants B, G, L, M, C, and A, C, E, I, J, R in Kenya and the
UK they acknowledged that it is not the technical project skills but the emotional
intelligence leadership competencies that are most effective in building dynamic
project teams. It would seem that participants in Kenya favoured the three styles

because it allowed them to gain more commitment and motivation from the project
workers. Participants in Kenya noted that an authoritarian leadership style could
only be used on projects if you have all the information to solve a project problem,
and your project workers are well motivated to carry out any project task. In the
UK, authoritarian leadership style did not receive the same attention; instead,
participants in the UK argued that if you apply responsive and inspirational styles
it allows project workers to make decisions on projects. As discussed in this study,
the construction industry has been found to have a long-standing reputation for
being adversarial, demonstrated by poor relationships between project teams, which
in turn lead to numerous problems including poor performance. This could explain
why project leaders highly rated the two types of leadership style. During the
discussions participants highlighted that the two styles should not be used when
things go wrong, rather the two styles should be used when you have full trust and
confidence in the project team. It was also suggested that factors that might
influence the type of leadership style to be used could depend on relationships
between project teams, type of project task, duration of the project, how well the
project workers are trained and how well the project manager knows the task.
Team selection and composition process
During the two meetings, there was a consensus that in order for team selection and
composition to be effective individuals should be selected on value for money and their
ability to work in a team. Reflecting on their experiences, both participants identified
“respect among team members” as essential to team selection. The importance of
“picking individuals on value for money”, “ability to work in a team” and “respect
among team members” gained the highest score in the verification exercise. In the UK
participants suggested, that the use of profiling methods (multicultural analysis) could
be used to find out if an individual is going to fit into a project team. While there is,
some increase of personal profiling in the UK, in Kenya it was found that team
selection was mainly based on ability and not personal profiling. As a result,

participants from Kenya noted that there have had to face issues to do with
compatibility of personalities. Reflecting on their experiences, participants in Kenya
acknowledged that the use of personal profiling is vital if construction firms are to
address the issue of cultural complexity. Interestingly, even though both groups failed
to rate technical ability highly in their questionnaires they noted that it is essential for
the project manager and senior managers to have a sound technical capability. What is
surprising is that in this particular category there was only a difference of 3 percent on
the average score from both groups. Therefore, this suggests that the Kenyan approach
does correspond favourably with the UK manner of team selection. In order for senior
managers in Kenya to improve on team selection and the composition process, it is
vital for the construction industry to alter how senior construction managers are
trained. This will mainly depend on the structure of politics in Kenya.
Cross-cultural management of team development process
A high majority of the participants affirmed that holding an initial professionally
facilitated teambuilding activity gives the project team the start that enhances the
likelihood of developing a good multicultural team. During the discussions,
participants S, K, F, D and E in the UK suggested that teambuilding events could
comprise an opportunity to refine, so to speak, the composition of the group by testing
their capacity to work together. In Kenya, it was found that management of team
development processes comprised of holding an initial teambuilding workshop to
allow the team to develop another ingredient of team loyalty, that is, clear explicit
project aims and objectives. During the workshop, participants further highlighted
that it also facilitates, the planning, deployment, and review of good communication
practices at all levels. From the verification results, there was no significant difference
between the two groups. Both groups highly rated teambuilding and recognition of
team reward variables. The results suggest that there is a link between the two when it
comes to team development. Participants from both groups noted that knowing the
project team is always an asset in getting the project tasks completed on time.
Interestingly, results reported here show that participants in Kenya and the UK
differed slightly when it came to developing team loyalty but there was an equal

percentage on recognition and reward. Therefore, for this particular category project
managers grouped the variables as follow: teambuilding, develop team loyalty,
recognition and reward and then establish individual drivers.
Cultural communication
From the verification results the two groups identified seven key dimensions of
cultural differences on communication behaviours as highlighted in Table II. The two
groups differed in a number of ways, for instance participants in Kenya highly rated
cultural empathy compared to the UK participants. While reflecting on their personal
experiences, it was observed that the national culture from the two countries differed
when it came to emotional dependence on the team. Participants in Kenya were more
conforming, orderly and traditional when it came to tackling personal issues with
project workers while a few of the participants in the UK believed that project leaders
had to be particularistic when dealing with personal issues. In this category, five

Managing
multicultural
project teams
535


ECAM
16,6

536

Table II.
Cross-multi-cultural
project team performance
variables

Team selection and composition process
Picking people on value for money
Be based on ability individuals offer
Capability to fit into the team
Ability to work in a team
Respect between team members
Measure individuals’ beliefs
Be based on technical ability
How: Through Meredith assessment and
multicultural analysis
Cross-cultural management of team development Cross-cultural communication
Establish clear lines of responsibility
process
Cultural empathy
Facilitated team-building workshop
Establish team effectiveness
Know individuals’ drivers
Implement value management techniques
Recognition and reward
Develop team loyalty (shared aim and objectives) Establish trust
Implement honesty
Encourage respect for others
Cross-cultural trust
Cross-cultural collectivism
Establishment of good interpersonal relationships
Good team organisation
Introduce mutual respect between project leaders
Institute participatory leadership
and team members
Establishment of commitment from all team

How: Facilitated team-building activities
members
Open decision making
How: Through multicultural analysis
Cross-cultural uncertainty
Cross-cultural management
Articulation of project goals and objectives
Keep project teams informed
Establishment of clear project roles
Inter-disciplinary procedure should be in place
Managers need to be cross-cultural
Verify project goals with the project team
communicators
Encourage co-operative culture
Effective interpersonal skills
Promote constructive feedback process
Adopt project procedures which would apply to
Establishment of open communication
everyone
How: Build cohesion and stability in teamwork
How: Introduce multicultural training and gather
more data to reduce culture and information gap
Leadership style
Responsive leadership
Inspirational leadership
Participative leadership
Charismatic leadership
Authoritarian leadership

variables received the highest score in the verification questionnaire these were:

establishment of clear goals, team effectiveness, implementation of trust, and the
encouragement of respect between team members. There was an equal recognition of
the importance of the five variables when it comes to effective team performance on
projects. The only slight difference highlighted was the use of value management
techniques. The consensus in the UK was that a project manager could do well without
value management techniques as long as the five variables mentioned above are in
place. In Kenya, participants felt that since most of the projects are financed by the
government and international aid agencies, it was essential to have value management
techniques since expatriates who work on projects in Kenya have different social
values about personal achievements as they do on decision making and
communication processes. Participants in the UK felt that language is a major
vehicle for communication but can be a big issue since words have different meanings
and values to people. In order to manage this particular category, a high majority of


participants in the UK suggested that a project manager should have the ability to
understand and clearly communicate team goals, roles, and norms to other members of
a multicultural team. As established in this study, it is vital for a project manager to be
cross-culturally and communicatively competent. As demonstrated by the two groups
in this category, the culture of a project manager plays a major role in how the project
team will perceive cross-cultural communication on projects.
Cross-cultural collectivism
In addressing cross-cultural collectivism, almost all the 20 participants agreed that
good team organisation, open decision making and commitment is essential in
achieving cultural collectivism. It was not surprising to see that when both participants
reflected on their personal experiences they associated the three variables with
effective multicultural team performance. The factors emerging from this category
indicate that the framework needs to address, leadership style, team purpose and
collective working processes. Combining these requirements with cross-cultural
considerations, participants A, C, D, E, F, I, J, K, R and S in the UK suggested

cross-cultural collectivism could be achieved by a framework, which is driven by
participatory leadership from both the client and project manager. Even though
participants B, G, H, L, M, N, O, P, Q and T in Kenya favoured authoritarian leadership
style, on this particular category most participants agreed that in order to build an
effective team it is essential to have a participatory leader. In achieving the above,
participants in the UK favoured the use of multicultural analysis while participants in
Kenya disagreed slightly. During the discussion session, participants in Kenya
highlighted that with the growing trend of globalisation the construction industry in
Kenya needs to start using profiling techniques. In doing this the effective
multicultural teamwork can be achieved at many levels in the project environment.
Cross-cultural trust
In this particular category, participants agreed that cross-cultural trust depends on
good interpersonal skills and mutual respect among the project team. Out of the three
variables mentioned in Table II, good interpersonal skills and mutual respect among
the project team received the highest score. The response rate from the two groups did
not drop below 95 percent. This illustrates that in order to achieve an effective project
performance it is essential to have teambuilding activities in place. Almost all the
project leaders indicated that they recognised that their project decisions stood to gain
from contributions that project workers make. In general, the participants agreed that
the notion of cross-cultural trust is an important dimension of multicultural teamwork.
Referring to their experience the participants suggested that, this part of the
framework had been found to be effective in practice. In practice, participants
highlighted that the achievement of project performance on multicultural teams
reinforces the understanding of cross-cultural trust on projects.
Cross-cultural management
While the above categories discussed, outlined the key issues presented in this study,
the overall issues examined in this category required a more concerted

Managing
multicultural

project teams
537


ECAM
16,6

538

organisational-wide approach. From Table II, participants in Kenya and the UK agreed
that cross-cultural management depended on the six variables identified within this
particular category. An important issue highlighted in the verification exercise is the
application of team cohesion in achieving cross-cultural management. In the context of
achieving project performance, a majority of participants agreed that open
communication and constructive feedback processes need to be in place. This in
turn can help project leaders to build a co-operative culture pattern within a project
environment. With a description of their project roles, the majority of participants
suggested that it is vital for the project manager to keep the project team informed.
This could be achieved through weekly meetings. Even though a majority of the
participants affirmed the importance of disciplinary procedures, participants in the UK
agreed that they needed to respect the culture of the local communities when working
outside the UK.
Cross-cultural uncertainty
As established in this study, one of the causes of poor performance on multicultural
project teams is the cross-cultural uncertainty, which can emerge during the initiation
phase of cross-cultural interaction between project teams. In reducing uncertainty on
projects, it was found that it is essential for the project manager to try to articulate
project goals, roles, procedures, and most importantly to possess good interpersonal
skills. On this category, there was a difference of 4 percent from the four variables
mentioned. Surprisingly, the two groups disagreed with the notion that managers need

to be cross-cultural communicators. From the verification results, “cross-cultural
communicator” had the lowest score. Interestingly, when reflecting on their own
experience, participants in the UK noted that from the projects they have managed
outside UK, it was essential to understand what were the project team’s needs, wants,
and desires. One of the competencies a project manager must possess in order to
manage effectively is the ability to explain the behaviour of individuals in the project
team and predict how the team will behave. In summary, there was a consensus that in
order for a project manager to reduce uncertainty one has to gather more cultural data.
Discussion on achieving multicultural team working
The findings indicated that multicultural teamwork requires greater fluidity and
flexibility in responding to cultural issues on projects. From the findings it was further
established there is an increased need to get project teams from different nationalities
to work together effectively. Participants further suggested that integrating project
teams from different nationalities can be problematic and performance is not always at
the level required or expected. In addressing the above, there was a need to propose a
framework that would:
(1) Highlight cross-cultural requirements for high-performing multicultural project
teams.
(2) Establish how project leaders:
.
can influence multicultural project teams to perform better; and
.
can be cross-culturally competent.


Figure 1 summarises the main components of the framework that emerged from this
study.
The findings show that a framework for multicultural project performance needs to
draw together:
.

project purpose, objectives, values, roles, processes;
.
cultural understanding through leadership; and
.
critical areas for cross-cultural action.

Managing
multicultural
project teams
539

However, it is essential not to lose sight of what has been learned in the broader sense
about the factors associated with multicultural teamwork on projects and effective
team performance. The results showed that the culture of a project leader plays a major
role in how members of a multicultural team perceive the multicultural project team
performance framework proposed in this study. From the findings, it can be observed
that participants felt that the framework highlighted the key factors of cultural
complexity that have to be tackled within a multicultural project team that is
determined to deliver a high level performance. However, participants in Kenya were of
the view that though the framework presented a useful means to maximise the
performance of multicultural teams, much training would be needed before its full
implementation. Interestingly, during discussions with participants in Kenya they
acknowledged that there is an increased need to get project teams and managers from
different nationalities to work together. In their opinion, the framework provided a
generic application and established a basis for building understanding, an awareness
of cultural differences, and how they be managed.
Reflecting on their personal experience, a majority of participants in the UK agreed
that the proposed a framework, which could be generally applied and took account of
the cultural differences of project teams. With an ongoing increase in multicultural
teamwork on construction projects, both participants affirmed that the framework

provides a groundwork from which further research can be carried out on multicultural

Figure 1.
Framework components


ECAM
16,6

540

teamwork. Results revealed by the verification and validation exercise, suggest that it
is essential that researchers in construction management advance beyond the mere
appeal of cultural diversity studies towards a more complete and detailed explication
of multicultural team processes.
Cross-multicultural project performance framework
From the results, it was found that a number of conditions and initiatives are
conducive to good multicultural team performance for both the core team and the rest
of the project team community. Reflecting on their personal experience, the two groups
of managers agreed that the conditions and initiatives within the five main variables
identified in this study:
(1) adherence of defined procedures;
(2) clearly communication procedures;
(3) development of effective people selection;
(4) ability to deal with cross-cultural integration; and
(5) collective work plan.
It can be observed that the two focus groups agreed with the above conditions. There is
recognition that a climate of good team performance can be achieved if the five cultural
effects are combined and managed effectively. The emergence of good multicultural
teamwork is likely to depend on the establishment of a number of conditions and

identifiable project level practices. These are likely to fall within the following
categories as exemplified in Table II.
Figure 2 is a representation of the cross multi-cultural project performance
framework proposed in this study.
Conclusion
The growing trend in engineering design and construction is giving rise to a need for
the development of effective multicultural teams. Now that construction companies are
able to move resources to almost any location worldwide and have the capacity to work
on a global scale; for many organisations future opportunities to work entails thinking
more clearly about cross-cultural issues and more overtly and systematically an
understanding of multicultural teamwork. As proposed in this study, this requires the
integration of thinking and practice related to cross-cultural management. Although
much can be achieved by working with multicultural teams, the truly successful
construction firms are likely to be those, which embed the change through integrated
changes to leadership style, team selection and composition process, cross-cultural
management of team development process, cross-cultural communication,
cross-cultural collectivism, cross-cultural trust, cross-cultural management and
cross-cultural uncertainty. In applying the above, participants affirmed that the
value of multicultural teamwork can be captured at many levels in the organisation, be
they project based or permanent, and furthermore will allow project teams to reach
high performance levels consistently. The proposed framework in this study has
implications for construction managers who work with multicultural teams and who


Managing
multicultural
project teams
541

Figure 2.

Cross-multi-cultural
project performance
framework


ECAM
16,6

542

are committed to improving team performance and productivity. The utilisation of the
proposed framework would not instantly transform multicultural teams into high
performing ones; however, it does identify eight key cross-cultural dimensions, which
need to be considered. From the above, it is hopefully, evident that in order to develop
effective multicultural project teams it is necessary to create an environment, which
both acknowledges and values cross-cultural complexity.
References
Barthorpe, S., Duncan, R. and Miller, C. (1999), “A literature review on studies in culture:
a pluralistic concept”, in Ogunlana, S.O. (Ed.), Profitable Partnering in Construction
Procurement, Spon, London, pp. 533-42.
Barthorpe, S., Duncan, R. and Miller, C. (2000), “The pluralistic facets of culture and its impact on
construction”, Property Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 335-51.
Brett, J., Behfar, K. and Kern, M.C. (2007), Managing Multi-cultural Teams, Harvard Business
School Publishing Corporation, Boston, MA, available at: www.hbrreprints.org (accessed
3 January 2008).
Dainty, A.R.J., Green, S. and Bagilhole, B. (2007), People and Culture in Construction, Taylor
& Francis Group, Oxford.
Earley, P.C. (1993), “East meets West meets Mideast: further explorations of collectivistic and
individualistic work groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 319-48.
Earley, P.C. (1994), “Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance”,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 89-117.
Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), “Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of
trans-national team functioning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 26-49.
Chan, E.H.W. and Tse, R.Y.C. (2003), “Cultural considerations in international construction
contracts”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 4,
pp. 375-81.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, London.
Egan, J. (2002), Accelerating Change, Rethinking Construction, London.
Emmitt, S. and Gorse, C.A. (2003), Construction Communication, Blackwell Publishing Limited,
Oxford.
Emmitt, S. and Gorse, C.A. (2007), Communication Construction Teams, Taylor & Francis,
Oxford.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage Publications, London.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, Intercultural Co-operation
and its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1998), Diversity in Action. Managing the Mosaic, Institute of
Personnel and Development, London.
Kang, B.G., Price, A.D.F., Thorpe, A. and Edum-Fotwe, F.T. (2006), “Ethics training on
multi-cultural construction projects”, CIOB, Vol. 8 No. 2, Englemere, pp. 85-91.
Langford, D.A. and Rowland, V.R. (1995), Managing Overseas Construction Contracting, Thomas
Telford, London.


Marquardt, M.J. and Hovarth, L. (2001), Global Teams: How Top Multinationals Span Boundaries
and Cultures with High-speed Teamwork, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA.
Meek, V.L. (1998), “Organisational culture: origins and weaknesses”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 453-73.

Mitullah, W.V. and Wachira, N.I. (2003), “Informal labour in the construction industry in Kenya:
a case study of Nairobi”, Working paper No. 204, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Murray, M. and Langford, D. (2003), Construction Reports 1944-98, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Ochieng, E.G. (2008), “Framework for managing multicultural project teams”, unpublished PhD
thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough.
Peterson, M.F., Smith, P.B., Akande, A. and Ayestaran, S. (1995), “Role conflict, ambiguity, and
overload: a 21-nation study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 429-52.
PMI (1996), A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge, Upper Project Management
Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Reva, B.B. and Ataalla, M.F. (2002), “Cross-cultural perspectives of expatriate managers working
in Egypt”, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Smith, N. (1999), Managing Risk in Construction Projects, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Strategic Forum for Construction (2002), “Rethinking construction: accelerating change”,
consultation paper, Strategic Forum for Construction, London.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves Culture, Nicholas Brealey
Publishing, London.
Vonsild, S. (1996), “Management of multicultural projects: how does culture influence project
management?”, paper presented at the “Challenge of the 21st Century: Balancing Teams
and Task”, Management Association, World Congress on Project Management,
International Project, Paris, June.
Weatherley, S. (2006), “ECI in partnership with Engineering Construction Industry Training
Board (ECITB)”, Master class Multicultural Project Team Working, ECI UK 2006, London,
6 December 2006, available at: www.gdsinternational.com/infocentre/artsum.asp?lang¼
en&mag¼182&iss¼149&art¼25863 (accessed December 2006).
Corresponding author
Edward Godfrey Ochieng can be contacted at:

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Managing
multicultural
project teams
543