Shield: Product Development In A Distributed Team Case Study

Understanding National Culture

The cultural similarities between India and the USA

The Indian and USA members of the shield team possessed various similar characteristics. Some of the similar characteristics included deep knowledge in coding. The Indian and USA members both understood the project inside out and had the necessary skills and resources to accomplish the project. The teams had spacious offices with people working in groups depending on the level of skills and expertise. The various teams carried out brainstorming sessions to come up with methods of developing the code.

Moreover, the teams had a similar culture that resulted in the need to become the leader in the project. The culture was evident when the Indians wanted to own the project with the reason that the code originated from India. On the other hand, the USA team members wanted to solely own the project due to the belief of possessing more knowledge than the Indians.

However, the teams had various differences that hurt the working relationship. The USA team had the culture of working with people in the same locality. Therefore, the USA team failed to work efficiently with the Indian team due to the distance between the two countries. On the other hand, the Indians had no problem working with the overseas team. The Indians believed that working with the Americans was an upgrade to the normal work previously done in regards to information systems. The Indians could send reports to the Americans requesting clarifications and progress updates about the project.

Additionally, the India and USA teams had a cultural difference of communicating. The American team believed in sending short emails containing reports about the project while the Indian team sent long reports. The Americans found the long reports hectic to read, while the Indians were disturbed by Americans not reading and sending reports.

Furthermore, the Indian team had the culture of needing consistency at work while the Americans were comfortable with changes at work. The culture was evident when the Indians complained that the coding work kept changing from time to time. However, the Americans felt comfortable dealing with the random nature of the coding project.

The Indian team had the desire to work with the Americans, which aligned with the Indian national culture of getting information from developed countries. The Indians felt that working with the Americans could improve the level of skills and expertise in information systems (McGinness, 2014). However, the Americans did not trust or want to work with the Indians. The Americans felt that the Indians had little knowledge about the project and were not supposed to work on the codes. The attitude towards the Indians matched the American national culture of only working with teams made up of local citizens (Kalisch, 2012).

Managing Motivation

The Indian team had adopted the Silicon Valley office layout. The Indians had big offices with large spaces and entertainment spots. Additionally, the Indians stayed in groups of people possessing the same skills with whiteboards to write on while brainstorming on the codes. On the other hand, the Americans were poor at communicating about the progress of the project, which differed with the Americans culture of giving immediate feedback (Kidder, 2012).

The differences between the Indian and American shield team workers
Indian workers	American workers
§ Wanted to work with the Americans	§ Did not want to work with the Indians
§ Were comfortable with long reports	§ Wanted to send short emails.
§ Had the desire to work with overseas teams based in America	§ The Americans only believe in working together with team members within the locality.
§ The Indians were not comfortable with the rapid changes at work.	§ The Americans felt comfortable working with a rapidly changing project.

Evaluate motivation within the Shield team

The shield teams had different levels of motivation depending on the working conditions. The Indians had a high level of motivation at the beginning of the project due to the (Peltokorpi, 2013) much involvement and communications that took place. However, over time the motivation faded away due to poor treatment by the American counterparts. The Indian team developed less commitment to the project with some of the team members leaving to do other work. The Indians felt less involved and needed in the project even after developing the code for the project. The Indian team did not like that the Americans did not read reports and give timely feedback about the project (Lin, 2011).

 Additionally, the Indians did not like the rapid changes involved in the work and preferred consistency. The rapid changes resulted in the Indians not understanding the progress of the project (Breugst, 2012). Furthermore, the Indians felt demotivated by the kind of interaction shown by the Americans. For example, the Americans sat alone in a group during a meeting with the Indians. The Americans did not want to interact with the Indians which resulted in the members from India seating alone in offices. However, the Indians felt that more communication and appreciation form the American could result in higher levels of motivation (Tsai, 2011).

On the other hand, the Americans had a high level of motivation due to the belief of solely owning the project. The Americans felt capable of doing the work alone and did not need the assistance of the Indians (Hung, 2013). Additionally, the Americans had favorable working conditions, which included working with experts who came from the country. The reduced distance resulted in quick consultation and progress of the project. However, the Americans felt demotivated to work with the Indians due to lack of trust. The Americans felt that the Indians lacked sufficient knowledge and expertise to work on the project effectively. Therefore, to lift the levels of motivation, the Americans alienated the Indian counterparts (Hoch, 2012).

Effective Decision-making

The low motivation of the teams to work together negatively affected the project by causing delays (Sikorski, 2011). The delay came up due to poor communication between the Indians and the American team members. The clarifications and progress reports did not reach the parties in time to give feedback or go ahead notifications, which resulted in halting of the project.

Furthermore, the low motivation levels resulted in team members leaving to perform other tasks. The Indian team members felt less needed and utilized when allocated simple jobs (Carton, 2012). The less involvement led to the need to move on and look for activities that fully utilized the potential and skills held. Therefore, the Indian team had few workers to tackle various activities necessary for project accomplishment.

Furthermore, low motivation led to complaints among the Indian team asking for equal treatment by getting allocated complex tasks. The Indians also complained that the Americans should show more appreciation. The complaints caused bad blood among the team members where each felt the need for higher priority. The American’s wanted to own the project due to the high level of expertise while the Indians also felt knowledgeable and had come up with the project code. The result was the parties doing different jobs without coordination (Wageman, 2012).

Source of motivation	Result
§ Lack of communication	§ Lack of clarity and delay in the project
§ Rapid changes in work	§ Indians did not understand the progress
§ Feeling of ownership	§ The teams felt differently motivated since the Indians felt that the Americans took over the project while the Americans felt motivated by the belief of solely owning the project.

The reason why decision-making might vary among the Shield team members

The team members experience differences in decision making due to the differences in culture. The Indians have the culture of working in a constant environment while the Americans can comfortably work in a rapidly changing environment. Therefore, the differences cause the team members to make different decisions. For example, the Indian workers cannot make appropriate and quick decisions in the face of change while the Americans can come up with decisions easily (Breugst, 2012).

Furthermore, the time differences affect the team’s decision making since daytime in India is night time in the USA. Therefore, the team members cannot communicate properly due to not working at the same time (Hung, 2013). The team members just begin the work without knowing where the other parties left, which leads to confusion.  The teams lack proper communication time to exchange ideas and solve problems facing the project.

The team could also face varied decision making due to the Americans not trusting the Indians. The Americans do not believe that the Indians poses the necessary level of expertise to work or make decisions on the project. Therefore, the American team could end up making different decisions compared to the Indians to avoid looking similar regarding expertise and skills (Kidder, 2012).

Influencing Others

The ensuing implications for team process

The differences in decision making led to a fallout among the team members. The team members who felt unappreciated during the decision making process left for other activities that promised more power and control (Wageman, 2012). The team members required equal treatment during the decision making, which led to a fallout when the Americans did not consider the Indian’s suggestions.

On the other hand, the differences in decision-making caused frustration and demotivation to the members who felt left out of the decision making. The members felt equal to each other concerning skill and thus required the same level of respect and treatment. However, failure to come up with decisions arising from synergetic meetings resulted in some members feeling not part of the project (Kalisch, 2012).

The factors	Implications
Time differences	Different decisions, frustration, fallout
Cultural differences	Delay, frustration
Mistrust	Frustration, discrimination, fallout

Howard’s attempts to influence the Shield team

Howard should come up with ways that improve the team’s desire to work together with respect and trust (Kalisch, 2012). During the meetings with the American and Indian teams, Howard realized that the teams had different attitudes towards each other. The Indian team felt undermined while the American team did not trust the abroad partners.

Howard should increase the amount of communication between the Indian and American groups (McGinness, 2014). Howard could appoint a liaison to act as the link between the parties. The liaison should often meet with the Indians for communication about the progress and problems faced during the project accomplishment. Furthermore, the liaison should ensure that the American team gives feedback to the Indians by giving constant reports on the progress and changes in the project.

On the other hand, Howard should ensure that the teams engage in a mutual sharing of ideas and ensure that the American team respects and trusts the Indians (Lin, 2011). The action could succeed when Howard allows the Indians to travel to America and participate in brainstorming activities with the USA team. The brainstorming actions will help the Americans to understand the level of knowledge and expertise possessed by the Indians.

Moreover, Howard should increase the travels to India for meetings with the team to avoid the feeling of alienation (Tsai, 2011). The first meeting with the Indians exposed the issues that weakened the relationship with Americans, which included such as mistrust, discrimination and poor communication. The Indians stated that the constant visits could raise the spirits and desire to work. Therefore, Howard should ensure constant visits to the Indian team.

Howard’s solutions	The problem solved
Continuous visits	· The Indians will stop feeling alienated by the Americans and raise issues affecting the relationship. · The Americans will understand that the Indians have the same level of skills and expertise.
Constant communications	· The Indians will learn of the changes in the project · The team will exchange ideas about the project.
Mutual sharing of ideas	· The team will handle the rapid changes together.

The project requires the development of a cross-functional team involving the Indians and Americans with different skills and expertise. The cross-functional teams should undertake the various stages of the project together without discrimination. The teams will enable bonding in regards to seeking advice and clarifications on changes to the problem. Therefore, the Indians will understand the progress and the Americans develop trust in the abroad counterparts.

The other recommendation includes division of labour in a way that develops dependency. For example, the Indians could get a part of the project that the Americans depend on to continue the project. The division of labour will increase the communications among the team members thus avoiding alienation and the need to only work with members from the same location.

Breugst, Patzelt, Shepherd, 2012. Relationship Conflict Improves Team Performance Assessment Accuracy: Evidence From a Multilevel Study. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), pp.187-206.

Carton, Cummings, 2012. A Theory of Subgroups in Work Teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), pp.441-470.

Hoch, 2012. Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee Integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), pp.159-174.

Hung, W. 2013. Team-based Complex Problem Solving: A Collective Cognition Perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), pp.365-384.

Kalisch, 2012. It Takes a Team. AJN, American Journal of Nursing, 112(10), pp.50-54.

Kidder, D. and Bowes-Sperry, L. 2012. Examining The Influence of Team Project Design Decisions on Student Perceptions and Evaluations of Instructors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), pp.69-81.

Lin, Baruch, 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility and Team Performance: The Mediating Role of Team Efficacy and Team Self-Esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), pp.167-180.

McGinness, C. 2014. Bring Your Whole Self to Work: Maturation of Team Work Through Diversity. Journal – American Water Works Association, 106(5), pp.42-44.

Peltokorpi, V. and Hasu, M. 2013. How Participative Safety Matters More in Team Innovation as Team Size Increases. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), pp.37-45.

Sikorski, Johnson, 2011. Team Knowledge Sharing Intervention Effects on Team Shared Mental Models and Student Performance in an Undergraduate Science Course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), pp.641-651.

Tsai, Chi, Grandey, 2011. Positive Group Affective Tone and Team Creativity: Negative Group Affective Tone and Team Trust as Boundary Conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), pp.638-656.

Wageman, R., Gardner, H. and Mortensen, M. 2012. The Changing Ecology of Teams: New Directions for Teams Research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), pp.301-315.