<P> With the rise of globalization, international assignments and multicultural teams, managing cultural diversity has become essential to organizations. As managing cultural diversity in team work has historically been a challenge (Earley & Gibson , 2002), academics and practitioners have directed resources toward enhancing understanding of how best to manage team diversity and improve effectiveness of international assignments (Tsui et al, 2007). Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is the abi lity to behave effectively in culturally diverse situations (Earley & Ang, 2003). Theory and research suggest that cultural diversity within teams often relate negatively to team member experiences of team processes, thereby negatively impacting team outcomes. The current study relies on similarity/attraction theory (Byrne, 1971 ), social identification theory (Turner, 1982) and self-categorization theory (Turner. 1982) to evaluate the relationship between cultural diversity and team processes (cohesion , participation, relationship and task conflict) and team outcomes (performance and satisfaction). The moderating effect of Cultural Intelligence on the relationship between cultural diversity and team processes was also explored. Data were collected from fourth year business school students working in teams of four to six to manage a virtual company competing with other teams in a stimulated market. A significant negative relationship was found between cultural diversity and team cohesion and participation; and a significant positive relationship was noted between cultural diversity and both team relationship conflict and task conflict. Furthermore, team satisfaction correlated positively with team cohesion and negatively with both types of team conflict while team performance was unrelated to team cultural diversity and perceptions of team processes. Finally, team members' CQ positively moderated the relationship between team cultural diversity and team processes (cohesion, participation and relationship conflict), where the team was comprised of two different cultures only. Where teams were comprised of members from more than two cultural groups, the moderation was negative. </p> / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This research presents results from a multi-site field study of 51 Kaizen event teams in six manufacturing organizations. Although Kaizen events have been growing in popularity since the mid 1990s, to date, there has been no systematic empirical research on the determinants of Kaizen event effectiveness. To address this need, a theory-driven model of event effectiveness is developed, drawn from extant Kaizen event practitioner articles and related literature on projects and teams. This model relates Kaizen event outcomes to hypothesized key input factors and hypothesized key process factors. In addition, process factors are hypothesized to partially mediate the relationship between input factors and outcomes. Following sociotechnical systems (STS) theory, both technical and social (human resource) aspects of Kaizen event performance are measured. Relationships between outcomes, process factors and input factors are analyzed through regression, using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for potential correlation in residuals within organizations. The research found a significant positive correlation between the two social system outcomes (attitude toward Kaizen events and employee gains in problem-solving knowledge, skills and attitudes). In addition, the research found significant positive correlations between the social system outcomes and one technical system outcome (team member perceptions of the impact of the Kaizen event on the target work area). However, none of the three technical system outcomes (employee perceptions of event impact, facilitator ratings of event success and actual percentage of team goals achieved) were significantly correlated. In addition, the research found that each outcome variable had a unique set of input and process predictors. However, management support and goal difficulty were a common predictors of three out of five outcomes. Unexpected findings include negative relationships between functional diversity, team and team leader Kaizen event experience, and action orientation and one or more outcomes. However, many of the findings confirmed recommendations in Kaizen event practitioner articles and the project and team literature. Furthermore, support for the mediation hypothesis was found for most outcome measures. These findings will be useful both for informing Kaizen event design in practicing organizations and for informing future Kaizen event research. / Ph. D.

The purpose of this research was to determine how team design and project management (planning and tracking) affected planning and design performance and the people involved in the process. A laboratory study was conducted to evaluate three factors: team design (individuals versus groups of three), project support (no project support versus manual project support versus automated project support), and the engineering design life-cycle, which includes conceptual design, preliminary design, and detailed design. There were six observations per treatment, involving a total of 72 undergraduate engineering students. The impact of these factors were evaluated for planning time, design cycle time, cost effectiveness, cost variance, schedule variance, mental workload, and job satisfaction. For treatments that called for groups, group process was evaluated in addition to group workload. The results showed groups took 61% more time to plan their projects compared to individuals (p<0.01). Planning time was 31% longer for participants with manual support compared to those with automated project support (p<0.01). Schedule variance (p<0.01) and cost variance (p<0.001) decreased 24% and 23%, respectively, over time during the design process. The design cycle time was 17% longer for participants without project support compared to those with automated project support (p<0.05). During design, groups and individuals allocated their time differently (p<0.05). Mental workload, measured with the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), showed workload increased 16% over time (p<0.001). In addition, the combination of design phase and project tracking support affected the TLX (p<0.01). Job satisfaction was 5% lower at the end of the design project compared to the beginning of design (p<0.05). From the analysis on group process, the type of project support affected the group process during planning. Groups with manual support interacted 83% more than those with automated support (effective behaviors: p<0.01; ineffective behaviors: p<0.05). During design, the roles individuals played within the group affected how much they contributed to the group's process (effective behaviors: p<0.0001; ineffective behaviors: p<0.01). There were several practical implications that can be drawn from this study. In the decision to use teams versus groups, there was evidence that groups were able to attend to more of the design requirements than individuals, which resulted in the design of systems with higher reliability. However the tradeoff of using groups were in the labor cost and in longer planning and status report meetings. Therefore the organization's goals need to be carefully considered before selecting the team design. For project support, there were clear benefits to automating the planning process. Automation resulted in better Gantt chart and planning sessions that were completed more quickly compared to those with manual support. Furthermore, systems designed with automated support resulted in lower design costs compared to systems designed without project support. / Ph. D.