Buy Research Papers Samples

Sample of Research Paper 1

Topic: Company Investigation Proposal: Duke Energy

To: Dr.Instructor

From:

Re: Duke Energy

Date: February 13, 2014

For our project the group has decided to cover the Duke Energy Company. The company has been in existence for over 150 years. Duke Energy deals in supplying electric energy to 7.2 million customers in the US and it also supplies gas to over 500000 customers. The Company is also a Fortune 250 Company and is listed on the New York Stock exchange. Duke Energy supplies over 57,700 megawatts of electricity in the Carolinas, Florida and the Midwest. They also supply natural gas to in Kentucky and Ohio.

The reason why we have decided to do a case study on Duke Energy is because it is a company that stands for what we believe in as individuals. Duke Energy as a company provides both gas and electric energy to millions of people in North and Latin America making lives easier for people in these countries. The gas they provide is also clean, reliable and affordable.

The Company has also received various awards as a result of their good work and their contribution to the economy and the society at large. In 2013 alone, Duke Energy received three awards which were the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for North America award, the 100 Best Corporate Citizens award and the Top Utilities for Economic Development Award. Duke Energy is a good case study for our project also because various team members can easily get access into the company as they know individuals working there hence providing easy access into the company. Furthermore, the company’s status as a fortune 250 company makes it a good case study. It has also been in existence for a long period of time making it a company that will provide extensive data with regard to corporate structure and other features we shall be looking at in the study. Duke energy is also well known for its philanthropy among various communities and schools in the region. Lastly studying Duke Energy will allow us to get knowledge that could prove useful in future when seeking career opportunities in the company.

References

Duke-energy.com. (2014, Feb 13). Duke-energy.com. Retrieved from /www.duke-energy.com: http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/awards.asp

Hire Writers For Essays, Research Papers,Custom Written For $8/page. Get A Free Abstract Before Paying!

 Sample of Research Paper 2

Coca Cola Performance Measurement System

Introduction

Performance measurement system (PMS) has become a major area of concern for international organizations due to the changing customer needs and increasing competition. A performance measurement system is characterized by an elaborate process of communicating employee performance expectations, sustaining ongoing performance dialogue, and undertaking annual performance appraisals (Bourne et al, 2002). PMS also consists of procedural strategies for dealing with employee performance that is below expectations, how to encourage and facilitate employee development, as well as training in management of performance and administration of the system. Finally, a PMS outlines the procedure that a company should follow in addressing performance pay disputes.

This paper assesses and reviews the performance measurement system of a major multinational company - Coca Cola Enterprise Ltd. The paper examines the use of a type of performance measurement system, the Balanced Scoreboard, used by Coca Cola in a multinational context. The study builds on data and information collected through interviews, documentary analysis and internet search. The report first considers the definitions of performance measurement and Balanced Scoreboard (BSC) methodologies used by the Coca-Cola Company.

The report also discusses the main management processes involved in designing and execution of the performance measurement systems currently in use by Coca-Cola. The paper provides literature review on the implementation of the PMS, followed by detailed description and explanation of Coca-Cola’s performance system. The report ends with recommendations on how the company can improve its current PMS on the basis of expert opinion.

Methodology

The research methodology adopted for this study is interviews, documentary analysis and internet search. As such, the study makes use of both qualitative and quantitative techniques of research. The global company of choice was Coca-Cola which uses the balanced scoreboard technique of performance measurement analysis. Interviews were conducted with senior managers and directors at Coca-Cola who participate directly in the performance measurement process at the company.

Considering the small population of potential participants as well as the background knowledge on the performance measurement implementation issues, the research evaluated all available methodological option and eventually settled on a grounded approach instead of a formal questionnaire (Wade & Recardo, 2013). As such, a semi-structured interview protocol was developed and pre-tested for the purpose of gaining uninhibited responses to the open ended questions relating to the reasons for implementing the PMS at the company.

The researcher anticipated the probability of the respondents focusing on one single factor while ignoring other significant factors (Neely & Bourne, 2003). To avert this problem and ensure some level of consistency across interviews, therefore, the interview format in the semi-structured approach was as follows:

-          Each interview kicked off with a brief series of open ended questions;

-          The responses to the open ended questions were probed to ascertain that the interview comprehended the points being made as well as for gathering specific examples;

-          The open ended questions were succeeded by questions focusing on a prompt list of likely reasons;

-          The answers to the prompt list were then probed to ascertain comprehension.

The prompt list was designed from the original research design and thus based on Pettigrew et al.’s (1989) aspects of organizational situation,  performance measurement content as well as the process of designing and developing these measures. The prompts were customized to elicit the strongest reasons for the continued implementation of the performance measurement system at Coca-Cola. The prompts also sought to identify the problems and challenges encountered and how they were overcome.

Data was gathered during the interviews, documentary analysis and internet search where the researchers took detailed notes. The notes were written up within 24 hours and later utilized as the basis for data analysis. Data analysis process entailed coding the feedback gathered and using the summarized data to establish the major themes arising from the interviews, documentary analysis and internet search.

Given that the interviews took the semi-structured format, the interviewer made the most of the discretion this method allowed to follow up the responses to the original questions. Detailed probing of the answers given resulted in additional insights into the reasons for the success of the PMS that was evident from the initial responses. These insights were gained by posing oblique extra questions that reflected back to what the interviewer had indicated but probed the completeness of the original response. In all instances this resulted in more detailed confidential information. The semi-structured interviews were undertaken with Coca-Cola directors and managers directly involved in the implementation of the PMS at the company.

Literature Review

Performance measurement systems (PMS) has been an area of research since the 1990s since Kaplan and colleagues introduced Balanced Scoreboard (BSC) as a type of PMS model. The research on PMS has since taken two directions: some studies such as Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Otley 1999; Tuomela, 2005 have researched the role of PMS in the implementation of organizational strategies (Bourne et al, 2002).

Kaplan and Nortin (2000), the Mobile case, discussed many success stories of organizations implementing new performance measurement systems. Studies by Gordon & Narayan (1984); Modell (1996); Cobb et al. (1995); Granlund & Lukka (1988); Brignall et al. (1991); Hoque & James (2000); Hussain & Hoque (2002); and Andon et al (2007) have advanced theoretical explanations on performance measurement system change and its uses in different organizational settings (Neely & Bourne, 2003).

Background

The Coca Cola Company is an American multinational beverage company, manufacturer, retailers as well as world-leading marketer of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups based in Atlanta, Georgia (Malik et al, 2010). It was founded in 1886. The company is reputed for its flagship product Coca-Cola – initially a fragrant, caramel-colored liquid mixed with carbonated water – invented by pharmacist John Smith Permberton in 1886. The company was incorporated in 1892 and currently offers more than 500 brands in over 200 countries around the world. The Coca-Cola Company operates a franchised distribution system, in which the company only produces syrup concentrate which is thereafter merchandized to various bottlers located around the world. The company’s own anchor bottler – Coca-Cola Refreshments – is located in North America. The basis of performance management at Coca-Cola Company is known as Key Results Area (KRA) (Bourne et al, 2002).

Coca-Cola’s Performance management system

Performance measurement is defined as the process by which a firm sets in place the framework within which its programs, investments, and acquisitions are designed to meet desired results (Wade & Recardo, 2013). In other words, performance measurement relates to measuring such aspects of performance as quality, quantity, costs, cycle time, productivity, efficiency, etc, of a company’s products and services. Performance measurement is often based on quantitative (report) base where the overall goals and objectives of a company are defined and evaluated. In this regard, measurement of performance is an organization-wide concept and such measures are inter-dependent (Malik et al, 2010). The aggregate contribution of the measures reflects the effectiveness of the entire organization’s effort.

Therefore, a company’s performance measurement system is not only concerned with collection of data but also with predefined performance targets and standards (Neely & Bourne, 2003). This renders performance measurement as an overall management system that entails prevention and detection for the purpose of attaining conformance of the product and service. In general, performance measurement serves to keep the company focused on the changing customer demands and competitor actions (Bourne et al, 2002). Taking all these into consideration, therefore, a performance measurement can be said to be the set of metrics that an organization employs in quantifying both the efficiency and effectiveness of its actions.

Therefore, a performance measurement system as a wide management programs serves to provide an organization with a structured approach of communicating business strategy, establishing shared understanding of the targeted goals and how to achieve it, facilitating management of self and others; and measuring and motivation performance both at the organizational and individual levels (Malik et al, 2010).

Balanced Scorecard

Balanced Scorecard is the type of performance measurement system used at Coca-Cola for measuring and managing its most crucial processes. The scorecard takes into consideration all elements of the organizational behaviors as well the stakeholders on the basis of growth, market competitors, legislation, customer expectation, product growth, customer satisfaction, among others (Neely & Bourne, 2003). As is the case with other performance management techniques, the balanced Scoreboard technique demands the company develops a vision, mission strategy and corporate strategy.  This is especially the case because these requirements are the fundaments for establishing the correct set of Balanced Scoreboard metrics from a broad list of possibilities that often still exist even after the essential few processes have been already identified. A company seeking to implement a successful Balanced Scoreboard methodology thus first needs to figure out those leveraged internal process measures (Malik et al, 2010).

The Coca-Cola Company’s performance management system (PMS) places greater emphasis on rewards, recognition, and career development (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). Therefore, the performance measurement system at the company has typical four progressive stages: (1) Annual Performance Review; (2) Plan performance for the financial year; (3) Reward and Recognition; and (4) Mid-term Review.  Figure 1 below illustrates the Performance Management System of Coca Cola Company.

Figure 1: Coca-Cola Performance Management System

·   Review results ·   Coaching & feedback on KRA1, KRA2 ·   Prepare Development Plan for KRA1 and KRA2 ·   360 degree feedback on Competencies ·   Competency Development Plan

·   Set KRAs ·   Finalize current year Development Plans of KRA1, KRA2, and Competencies

·  

·   Performance-linked pay ·   Recognize Top Performers

Assess Results

Appreciate ‘Top

Accomplishments’

·   Coaching & feedback

on previous year KRA1,

KRA2 and Competencies.

·   Prepare development

plan for current year

KRA1, KRA2, and

Competencies.

The Coca-Cola company begins with formulating all goals from the organizational level to employees, after which monthly review is conducted to assess implementation of the goals. Monthly review is conducted at interdepartmental level, where neither change is offered nor a record made which  can be done at goal setting level. At midyear stage, the company realigns its goals in addition to designing new policy ways to achieve organizational goals. During the final review, the company undertakes checks and balances, then matches actual achievement with the set  goals to measure outcomes or results. If the company gets positive results in terms of greater productivity, it analyzes the real reasons for the results to appropriately reward employees with extraordinary yearly base performance (Wade & Recardo, 2013). The rewards often include salary increment, promotions of jump and designation change.

Effective performance measuring requires constant monitoring and considerable direction from the manager. At Coca Cola, performance is highly linked with their pay system. As such, the company’s management relies on grading to define pay. This achieve by conducting survey of leading companies in the industry, where they consider minimum three year pay ranges of the companies and compute the average (Malik et al, 2010). Coca-Cola then aligns their pay system with their management grades. This takes into consideration the inflation rate each year regardless of an individual’s performance. The company informs its employees about their individual performance during the appraisal period. This translates that Coca-Cola is a goal-oriented company and demands of its employees to achieve their individual targets so as to get appraised. Therefore, Coca-Cola’s system for performance measurement is based on meeting of objectives, which are rated on basis of a 4-point rating scale (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). The employees are categorized into five main groups:

TNTR – Too New To Rate

NP – Not Meeting Performance Expectations

DP – Developing Performance

SP – Successful Performance

EP – Exceptional Performance

Figure 2 below shows the 4-poing rating scale at Coca-Cola

Ratings of Objectives		Definition
Exceptional Performance (EP)	Objectives (Business KRA & Self/people Development	a.       Consistently delivers outstanding results & exceed expectations and accountabilities b.      Exceeds aggressive targets & objectives c.       Outcomes add substantial value to team, business & customer/client
	Competencies:	Excels in demonstrating the competencies (skills, knowledge & behaviors) required for the role.
Successful Performance (SP)	Objectives (Business KRA & Self/People Development	a.       Consistently delivers all agreed upon outcomes and meets expectations & accountabilities b.      Adds value to team, business and  client/customer
	Competencies:	Broad strengths across most competencies (skills, knowledge, and behaviors) required for the role
Developing Performance (DP)	Objectives (Business KRA & Self/People Development)	Sometimes meets agreed upon results, but not all expectations and accountabilities
	Competencies:	Demonstrates most of the competencies (skills, knowledge and behaviors) required for  the role, but not the full range. Significant  improvement is needed in at-least one or more skills and knowledge areas (weakness that prevents successful performance of the job)s
Not Meeting Performance (NP)	Objectives (Business KRA & Self/People Development	Performance falls below agreed upon outcomes and expectations on multiple critical accountabilities.
	Competencies:	Does not consistently demonstrate many of the competencies (skills, knowledge, and behaviors) required of the role. Significant improvement is required.
Too New to Rate (TNTR)	Typically spent less than 3 months in the role

Based on their individual rating, the employees are appraised to the next level. There are specific objectives for the different ratings which an employee needs to fulfill as well as certain competencies that must be demonstrated. The KRA setting process becomes an integral part of Coca-Cola’s performance measurement process. The KRA reflects a set of objectives that the company outlines to be achieved by individual employees to enable the organization to achieve its goals. This means that there exist strong relationship between the performance measurement process and achievement of organizational objectives at Coca-Cola.

The External Environment Analysis

The Coca-Coca Company is operating in hyper competitive environment which necessitates effective performance measurement at the company so as to ensure highly skilled and technically qualified workforce. This is especially crucial because organizational success greatly depends on the performance of the employees. Coca-Cola places high relevance of performance measurement to remain relevant and competitive in the increasingly competitive business environment.

As a market leader, Coca-Cola is facing a number of pressures from its external environment. In the last decade, the company has come under increasing criticism and protests from both the public and regulatory bodies in the different countries that it does business in. The 2008-09 global financial crisis and subsequent recessions also had far reaching negative effects on the performance of Coca-Cola, significantly compromising its financial stability. However, the company was still able to perform better relative to its competition. The company involved itself in a number of strategic social ventures geared at benefitting its image in the eyes of the public. This greater focus on corporate social responsibility served to maintain Coca-Cola’s loyal customer base together with keeping the trust of stakeholders. Currently, the company faces a range of political, social, economic and technological challenges as follows:

Political Factors

The Coca-Cola Company falls in the FDA non-alcoholic beverages category. The operations of the company are therefore subject to regulation of different rules and regulations by different countries. The government reserves the power to set fines for companies that fail to meet standard law requirements. In this regard, Coca-Cola has to remain vigil of the regulations and political climate of each country it operates in so as to maintain and protect their brand image by responding appropriately to risks. Coca-Cola can be impacted in significant ways by any adverse changes in the laws and regulations e.g. taxation requirements, accounting standards, foreign jurisdictions and environmental laws (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). A number of governments across the world have recently accused Coca-Cola of misuse of water and environmental depletion, some filing public suits against the company.

Also, the operations of Coca-Cola especially in the international markets, depend on the political climate. Thus, business is impacted negatively in countries or regions experiencing civil strives such as the Arab world. The company can also be affected by government restrictions on relocating capital across borders.

Political conditions, and by extension economic conditions, also dictate the ability of Coca-Cola to penetrate emerging and developing markets. This is because the political and economic climate influence Coca-Cola’s potential to effectively form strategic business alliances with local companies, ability to enhance its production amenities, distribution and sales networks, and technology.  

Economic

A global company is significantly affected by such economic factors as economic stability, growth in revenue, total profit, and contribution to GDP etc. Coca-Cola has the largest scale of distribution channels in the non-alcoholic beverages in over 200 countries in the world. As a multinational company, therefore, Coca-Cola is impacted in significant ways when the economic conditions in the countries it operates changes for the better or worsens.

In recent, Coca-Cola has operated in major economic shifts. In 2001, the performance of Coca-Cola was adversely affected by the recession. The 2007 economic recession had far reaching negative effects on the company’s revenue, especially because about 75 percent of its revenue comes from North America that was greatly affected by the economic downturn. Since then, the non-alcoholic beverage industry in which Coca-Cola dominates has seen increased sales in markets outside the U.S. Many soft drink companies have experienced improved economic conditions in such international markets as Germany, Brazil, and Japan following the easing of the 2008-09 global financial crisis and recession.

Social

Coca-Cola as the world’s leading manufacturer of non-alcoholic beverages is facing such social challenges as changing consumer lifestyles. A growing number of US citizens, for example, is concerned with healthier lifestyles. This translates that the market with the greatest revenue share for Coca-Cola is shrinking as more and more consumers switch to bottled water and diet cola. In the same light, consumers between the age bracket of 37 and 55 are growing increasingly concerned with their nutrition. In addition, the large portion of the population is baby boomer, meaning that many of Coca-Cola’s loyal customers are getting older and minding their diet a lot. This means that demand is only increasing for healthier and other beverages, affecting sales of traditional carbonated Coca-Cola products.

For purposes of maintaining its brand image, Coca-Cola is aggressive in its corporate social responsibility. The company has set apart huge sums of money to fund education of poor children around the world e.g. program guaranteeing basic education for children in Pakistan (Wade & Recardo, 2013). Coca-Cola is also an active campaigner against the HIV/AIDS pandemic – donating in excess of $1 million to raise awareness to that effect.  

Technological

The industry in which Coca-Cola does business is greatly influenced by technological innovations. Technological aspects affecting the performance of a company include the following: 

i.                    The efficiency of a company in advertising, marketing and promotional strategies. These are affected by technological advances in the internet and television that utilize incomparable effects for advertising. These advances are used to present product ads more attractive. Coca-Cola is a company that is renowned for superior advertising, marketing and promotional programs to sell their products.

ii.                  The introduction of cans and plastic bottles has significantly boosted sales volume of beverages around the world due to their ease of carrying and disposing.

iii.                Coca-Cola has taken advantage of the ever-evolving technology in its manufacture and distribution of products. For instance, Coca-Cola’s factories in Britain use state-of-the-art equipment to ensure highest product quality together with quick delivery, leading to increased production and sales volumes. Over the years, Coca-Cola has strived to create competitive advantage by being the leader in new and unique technologies (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). This can be evidenced by the company’s introduction of ice-chilled coke, environmentally friendly plastic bottles, and vending machines free of HFC. These inventions have significantly boosted the brand image of Coca-Cola in the eyes of the public and the stakeholders, in addition to contributing to improved financial performances (Wade & Recardo, 2013).

Recommendations

The Coca-Cola company believes and pursues the GROW and the WHALE DONE approach. By using the GROW model, Coca-Cola is able to assist its employees to understand exactly where they want to be as well as what they have to accomplish or develop so as to improve on the current level. The performance measurement system is in itself a  continuous process, where the review is not conducted annually or quarterly, but rather a continuous process for measuring performance, management and improvement based on daily and monthly reviews by the manager. The WHALE DONE approach, on the other hand, implies that Coca-Cola believes strongly in appraising any positive performance immediately as espoused by the theory of motivation.

To this effect, this paper recommends  that Coca-Cola works to develop its Competency Framework to make goals SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time  bound) so as to increase overall effectiveness (Wade & Recardo, 2013). Coca-Cola would benefit from redesigning their system in more precise way to define their employees’ career path, recognition as well as future goals. This would significantly add to improved performance of the organization.

Coca-Cola company also pursues the basics steps of performance measurement system that starts with planning to coaching to feedback (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). However, this paper recommends that the company should consider adopting proper check and balance system for goals and performance. At present, Coca-Cola undertakes yearly based performance evaluation; the company can achieve high motivational level for their employees if it started doing this on quarterly bases. In addition, the company needs to put in place a better system of consultation between the management and employees pertaining to the latter’s career path. This will go a long way in helping the management to comprehend and assess employees’ needs, and reward them properly.

Further, there is need for Coca-Cola company to ensure fairness in appraisal and job satisfaction in addition to aligning their PMS to effectively addressing apprehensions and grievance pertaining to such appraisals. As a large organization, the company should drop the obviously cumbersome 360 degree appraisal implementation strategy (Wade & Recardo, 2013).

References:

Bourne M., Neeley, A., Platts, K., & Mills, J. (2002). The Success and Failure of Performance Measurement Initiatives: Perceptions of Participating Managers. International Journal of Operational Production Management 22(11):1288-1310.

Malik, A. T., Khan, U. H., Shah, A., & Gul, S. (2010). Performance Measurement using Distributed Performance Knowledge Management System: Empirical case study of Coca Cola Enterprises. International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.6, No.1 February 2010, Pp.250‐282.

Manzoni, A., & Islam, S. M. N. (2009). Performance measurement in corporate governance: DEA modeling and implications for organizational behavior and supply chain management. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Neely, A., & Bourne, M. (2003). Implementing performance measurement systems: a literature review. Int. J. Business Performance Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003.

Tonchia, S., & Quagini, L. (2010). Performance measurement: Linking balanced scorecard to business intelligence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Wade, D., & Recardo, R. (2013). Corporate Performance Management. London: Routledge. 

Hire Writers For Essays, Research Papers,Custom Written For $8/page. Get A Free Abstract Before Paying!

Sample of Research Paper 3

Team Development and Performance throughout the Global Business Game (GBG)

Table of Contents

Executive Summary. 2

1.    Introduction. 3

2.    Team Work Development and Team Working. 4

3.    Impact of Teamwork in Company Performance. 5

4.    Strengths and Limitations Team working. 5

5.    Limitations of Team Working. 6

5.1.     The Inability to Instil Trust in the team Members. 6

5.2.     Hindrances to Communication. 7

6.    Role and Contribution to real team development, team working, and strategic business decision making  8

6.1.     Teamwork Decision Making Methods and Impact on Company Performance. 9

6.1.1.      Overcoming Communication Barriers. 9

6.1.2.      Inculcating a Culture of Trust 11

7.    Global Business Teams are able to be successful 11

8.    Self-Assessment Evaluation and Summary. 12

9.    Conclusion. 12

Self-assessment 13

Bibliography. 27

Executive Summary

With the start of globalization change, there has been in surge in matters connected to businesses. Companies are looking into ways the issues that are connected to globalization are well handled through a relook at their local ways of operation. Consequently with the rise in global business setting, a number of organizations are forming teams that are comprised of members from varied nations (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 23). People with varied cultural basis, languages and trends are engaged on a single platform to work as one. Though these groups are meant to enable acquisition of varied abilities, the teams are faced with several challenges that involve language barrier and varied cultural settings. These tend to affect their performance and advancement as a team (Tuckman, 1965, 386). This is discussed in the paper as well as the viable solutions that would enable effective team advancement and performance success in the companies that use them. The paper has gone ahead to give examples of such companies that use them.

Team Development and Performance throughout the Global Business Game (GBG)

1.      Introduction

Each and every global organization’s competitive advantage relies on their capability to manage their vital resources and information that are distributed to varied geographical positions. In the present times there are many company methods that are applied to include isolated processes (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 25). However the most effective method is the global business team: a borderless team of persons of varied origins in the world, engaged in varied cultures, businesses and duties, that get together so as to harmonize certain aspects of multinational setup on an international basis.

It is virtually hard for a multinational company to exploit economies of an international size, optimize the change of knowledge or inculcate a global base with no awareness of the organization of the global business teams. Research shows that a small number of companies attribute their performance to be of high standard while the rest did not meet their objectives (Bantel & Jackson, 1989, 117; Bettenhausen, 1991, 345). Basically, about 30% of the teams rated their performance as being overly ineffective. How are organizations able to create team development and performance in the global business stage? In the first step they have to be aware of the hindrances to an effective business team performance. They later apply rigid procedures so as to alleviate these hindrances and create a working team that leads to high performance.

2.      Team Work Development and Team Working

Teamwork is vital in the effectiveness of a company’s operations. Social experts and group theory researchers study teams so as to come up with theories that describe effective methods.

The first theory foundation was done in the 1950s with the help of psychologists in assessing the manner humans connect to themselves. They focussed on the manner work affects team relations and the response taken by team members to acquire the talents and expertise of other individuals in sorting out an issue at the workplace. Other areas of focus were the changes in the teams as time went by and the manner that technology was incorporated in undertaking tasks. The first study on team work was done after the Second World War and was keen on noting the reasons for failure of military groups.

The theories that were used to assess team-member tasks development is; Interaction Process Analysis, which was postulated by Freed Bales in 1950. Here he assesses the members of a group with the help of formal inventory model. David Buchanan and Andrzej Huczynski put out a theory in 1980s that looked at the aspects of power and form in team-working. Significant theories were done by Meredith Belbin, Charles Margerison and Dick McCann in the 1980s that look into the manner allocated members of a group tasks and connect these with duties advanced due to individual group member’s nature.

3.      Impact of Teamwork in Company Performance

This part assesses the impact of teamwork on a company’s performance. For a company to be able to develop, it has to be able to instil constant skills in the workers in the teamwork through learning. The assumption is that the groups accords the employees with a setting for shared duties, skills and a constant professional and individual advancement.

According to research done in Bulgaria, team workers are known to always acquire new skills when compared to those that do not work in groups. Managers similarly are known to be more motivated when they are engaged in group work and they get to learn from others hence bringing about effective results.

The Finnish Quality of Work Life did studies that show connection in teamwork and staff training. The staffs that are engaged in team work have a higher probability for getting training and for advancement of their knowledge those individuals that are not in groups. Team work has similarly the ability of affecting the intensity of training; team work motivates the participants in getting to learn faster and is able to remember things much faster.

4.      Strengths and Limitations Team working

There are a number of benefits in team working. With a number of minds directed towards a certain objective, the company is able to acquire more ideas. Focussing on things from the point of view of others can elevate the probability of quality innovation.

Teams bring about a setting of backing and push an individual to application. A team setting can propel the courage of a person, making them to acquire the most effective results.

Good teams acquire the most from a person. In the instance that a person may not be able to discharge their duties as needed, another person may offer the most effective resource for the company. The higher the number of people that work together, the more they get to learn and increase their chance of being better workers in their places of work. Teams are able to bring about improved communication and respectful connection in the staffs.

5.      Limitations of Team Working

Local and international teams are plagued by several issues – disconnection of personal team members’ objectives, a shortage of the most vital expertise and experience, and the absence of clarity with regard to team goals amongst others. However global business teams incur a number of hindrances that arise from varied geographical, linguistic and culture. Teams are not able to succeed if they cannot instill trust in their members or if they are not able to cut the most notable communication hindrances (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 26). The outcome of a study of 58 top executives from five American and European multinational companies agree that significant hindrances  face global business teams – hindrances that lead to extended issues every team are faced with.

5.1.            The Inability to Instil Trust in the team Members

Trust is vital to the effectiveness of global business teams as it motivates collaboration and limits unproductive conflict. Every member of the global business team issued a special cognitive focus to the team. If it is handled in the best manner, the resultant variation can bring about major issues and lead to a joint wisdom that is above that of any person (Bliese, 2000, 349). With no common trust, the team members may not be in a position to show their genuine ideas; and if they do, they are bound not to be taken into consideration. In most of the ways, the lack of trust is bound to change the team’s diversity into a liability and not an asset.

Global business teams are precisely bound to be faced by a number issues dealing with trust. Part of the elements that define the level of trust individuals have, three significant attributes, quality of communication and extensive company setting (Berscheid & Walster, 1978, 125). Quite precisely, studies show that a good number of people have trust towards each other in cases where they share the same attributes, interact constantly and work in a similar cultural setting that issues strict sanctions for acting in a fashion that is not trustworthy. Global business teams, in their manner undergo intense limitations on the three phases (Brislin, 1986, 137). Not astonishingly, the instant the global business teams do not succeed, it is in most cases due to the team actions that did not insist on instilling trust.

5.2.            Hindrances to Communication

Communication hindrances arising from geography, language and culture can destroy a global business team. 

With the team individuals staying in varied nations, kept apart by the time zones and varying time periods, organization of team meetings may bring about logistical issues (Ariel, 2001, 65). Definitely, technology like e-mail and video-conferencing are able to make it possible for the associates to engage as one with no consideration for physical distance; though technology ought to be seen as an advantage that adds value to, and not stand it for the team meetings (O’Leary, & Cummings, 2002, 38). Facial meetings bring about acquaintance and trust that is not acquired using virtual methods. The instant the members are not able to see the other person’s language of the body and direct experience on the response exhibited, the emotional phase of the association vital to a team’s undertaking effective performance is in jeopardy (Ariel, 2001, 63). Free-association, as an example, needs unstructured collaboration for some time that is not appropriate to a virtual meeting.

The incompetence to be aware of what another individual is putting across is in most cases a rigid hindrance to communication in cases where cultures are vast. If this issue on language variation as a hindrance is not well handled, the probability of forming a setting that is viable to better sharing of varied ideas - and therefore useful to acquiring vital answers – is highly limited (Bedeian, & Mossholder, 2000, 290).

A major instance is a team that has members that from varied cultural settings and speaks varied languages as well as below par tools in a similar language. This team would most definitely need interpreters that, with no regard to their skills, are bound not to acquire complete success in interaction. Similarly in instance of global teams that persons are of the same language, variation in semantics, pitch and dialects may be a hindrance (Bedeian, & Mossholder, 2000, 289). For instance, while the name ‘table a motion’ means to defer meetings in the US while in the UK it says to look into the matter that moment.

The global business team arises from several cultures and at the end may result to contrast in values, accepted code of behaviors and trends of attributes to the team (Adler, 1997, 23; Pedhazur, & Schmelkin, 1991, 67). A good example is the contrast in personal and group cultural tendencies in coming up with a decision. In the case where certain team members are from greatly personal beliefs like the US and parts of UK and others quite group affiliated like Japan and Venezuela, there has to be ways to handle these contrast so as bring about commonality, otherwise the team will suffer and not acquire high performance as needed (Brodbeck, et al. 2000, 3; Wiener, 1988, 536).

6.      Role and Contribution to real team development, team working, and strategic business decision making

The work done in teams has developed from time to time and has grown to be an effective method that is used all over the globe. These teams are allocated objectives that they are supposed to meet in a set of time; they are a base for the effectiveness of the whole team. It is hence that the role each person plays in the group is vital.

In the group game, the first section the team did not have any knowledge of working in group and so personal role playing was used. This resulted to each member having varied outcome in terms of performance, further proving that a section of the team well understood their needs while others lacked the necessary capability. Later the objective of the team was changed and we connected all as a team so that we are able to learn from each other and strengthen what we did. This led to the continued improvement in the operations as the team worked cohesively to meet the set goals. This led to the knowledge of team connection.

In the first part I was the supporting manager in the company where I was to make sure that all of the company operations are met. There however challenges in the skills of the team members leading to a drop in quality of work. In the second part I was the supporting staff where every team member connected their skills towards meeting the quality of the operations allocated to company. I was able to learn that connection on efforts and skills leads to quality performance.

            Personal Contribution was discussed by Belbin in his theory, where he acknowledged that the role played every member relied on the success of another member hence the need to connect in the meeting of company goals. This had the impact of leading to success for the company. No one in the group was considered to be better than the other one, this called for the seeking of everybody’s opinion regardless of the role played as it has a function in meeting the overall company goal.

The manager, the role I played involved managing the operations of the group since I was keen in the company goals. For the goals to be achieved it called for coherence of the group and awareness of the duty’s played. Errors made had to be noted and corrected fast. My contribution to the team was effective and made it possible to meet a huge part of the goals, though a section of the goals were yet to be met.

6.1.            Teamwork Decision Making Methods and Impact on Company Performance

Having a well-defined and an all-inclusive team is vital for a successful global business team. Not being able to manage the operation of the team is next to failure in meeting the goals of the team (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 334). The objectives for a successful team operation are to enable a successful interaction in the team and to instil trust. This section assesses the methods that are applied while making decisions and the impact that they have on company performance. 

6.1.1.      Overcoming Communication Barriers

A number of operations can be applied to manage communication hindrances which affect the global business teams.

So as to handle effectively language barriers, the company has to invest in education language as well as diverse culture training. The training limits the desire for third parties and hence allows direct contact and autonomy in interaction (Brodbeck, et al. 2000, 28). A good example is ABB Group which shows advancement in language expertise that helps to limit communication hindrances. The leadership accepted that it had below par language making the company feel accommodated.

Training in cultural expertise is vital in the global business team. An effective awareness of the contrast that exists can elevate the success of communication: individuals acquire verbal and non-verbal communication in a better way (Brislin, 1980, 140; Turner, 1982, 56). Training in cross-cultural expertise can develop awareness and admiration for diversity and change it competitive benefit.

Setting policies that show the needed sets of behaviour is vital in handling communication challenges, develop team interaction and make the team to act as a team (Adler, 1997, 34).

A global client-based team formed in packaging company in Europe can lead to better operation. The team was built on two issues; a team member had to interact with the others on varied issues when handling a client, the other would be client’s contact with all the other staff an choices are arrived at as one team (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 346; Baird, & Meshoulam, 1988, 117). These policies made sure that the varied associates to the team to be responsible on matters dealing with prices and scheduling of products.

The lack of data can lead to the use of notions that may results to individual attacks. On the other hand, personal ideas that are acquired through use of facts are quite objective (Yates &Orlikowski, 1992, 302). This makes it possible for the team to be able to share ideas with no regard to their odds.

Advancing choices to develop the debate: coming up with choices is vital in making sure that the expression of varied point of focus in the global business team (Ohmae, 1985, 46). Two known methods are; dialectical inquiry and devil’s advocate are keen on getting other choices. In the first one, the team is bent on advancing a complete response with regard to the varied assumptions; a debate arises on the advantages of the method used, the team assesses the solution (Williams, & O’Reilly, 1998, 78). The methods are useful for the global business team.

This method enables the team to form a strong base and make a valid expression of the varied notions. A good example is found in VeriFone, which is on fore front in mechanizing and issuance of safe payment-based operations, it applies this method in the top leadership so that they are well versed of the global setting that is present (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 340). The team is composed of the CEO and the data acquired are discussed for a month in varied places in the world.

6.1.2.      Inculcating a Culture of Trust

Scheduling facial meetings: these meetings are a good form of communication. They assist to advance a rigid base and build trust. It is vital for the first meetings are done facially.

Rotating and connecting the team top management: here it is done in varied nations; the top leadership appreciates cross-border interaction and is able to do away with encounters that block the acquisition of success (Brislin, 1980, 390). Additionally, integration of the team brings about connection as he or she will lead as well as act as a part of the team that adds value to it.

Linking rewards to team performance: this motivates group performance to handle issues and resolve them.

Building social capital: the teams will go on to grow, it is hence necessary to undertake company efforts in forming familiarity and trust in the managers. Unilever uses development programs to make this happen.

7.      Global Business Teams are able to be successful

When the teams are well handled they are able to meet their desired objectives. Challenges to communication and instilling trust destroy the best teams. It is only through the use of correct methods that these issues can be handled in the best manner.

A rigid model for making a high-performing global business team is vital. The moment a team is comprised of members with expertise acquired from several nations, the competition acquired is rigid (Ancona & Caldwell, 664). Though intellectual variation is good, it will most definitely lead to a certain level of individual friction and communication challenge. The methods that note and expect these challenges, and use the most appropriate aspects, are required so as to assist the team to connect varied notions and acquire at an improved set.

8.      Self-Assessment Evaluation and Summary

My role in the team work as a supporting manager was to ensure that all of the duties connected to company were undertaken in the manner that they are supposed to. The self-assessment evaluation as a method for assessing the impact of the teamwork in the company was a vital tool in the analysis process. The time taken was one hour in answering all of the questions which was quite much lesser than my other team members. As the game progressed I took up the role of the manager which involved much more duties of connection the whole group. This took a lot more time as a lot of duties and was called upon. The contribution to the team was satisfactory as it called on the each and every person to play a role in coming up with an input this reflected by other team members similarly. The teams’ strength was in the connection and communication with other members that made the work much easier and faster as well as called on the skills of each member. Weakness however rose in the communication and differing of ideas that best suited the case in point.

In the assessment for the groups, the team depended more so on accepted code of behaviour and communication in coming up with decisions while working with the members. When it came to working to information, the assessment relied on the trust and data-base decision making. The working with results of the teamwork and the company, the company relied on the locations the company did its activities.

The teamwork process effectively made it possible for the group to meet its objectives in the most effective way possible. Though there were some challenges; TM1 was unable to meet consensus on the best way to handle an issue facing the group, the team worked them out using the decision making methods discussed earlier. Personal working instils a lot of lack of confidence and inefficiency which is opposite of what teamwork is able to achieve. This was later managed with settling on an all-inclusive method in sorting out an issue for the company.

9.      Conclusion

Global business game is an aspect that has manifested itself in globalization and it has gone on to grow. The method brings together skills and resources that help a company to meet its goals. There is however challenges that arise like language and culture barrier that the paper has discussed as well as the solutions that will enable a company to meet its goals. The teams are a great of resource for a company in its effort to meet its goals. Varied examples have been provided that have successfully applied this method. The future looks promising if the method is applied in the best manner leading to effective global networks.

Self-assessment

Use the following scales to indicate how often and effectively you have used each of the behaviours listed in the framework
Rating A       Frequency of use		Rating B      Effectiveness
5	All occasions when it was needed	4	Always effective
4	Most occasions when it was needed	3	Usually effective
3	Very few occasions when it was needed	2	Occasionally effective
2	Never, even though situations needed it	1	Never used effectively
1	No opportunity to observe	n/a	Cannot say

1.  WORKING WITH PEOPLE

Managing Relationships

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	builds relationships internally within the team	4	3
L2	builds relationships externally	3	3
L3	maintains networks	1	1

Team working

		Rating	Rating b
L1	Is a team member	5	4
L2	Supports team members	5	4
L3	Provides direction for the team	2	3

Influencing

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Projects a positive image	4	3
L2	Influences thinking of others	4	3
L3	Changes opinions of others	3	2

2.  WORKING WITH INFORMATION

Gathering and analysing information

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Gathers and maintains information	4	3
L2	Checks and analyses information	3	3
L3	Uses information to analyse the business	4	3

Decision-making

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Day to day decisions	4	4
L2	Ensures decisions are made	4	3
L3	High-level decision-making	3	3

3. DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS

Developing self and others

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Develops self	4	3
L2	Develops others	2	2
L3	Develops a culture for learning	2	2

Generating and building on ideas

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Participates in the generation of ideas	4	3
L2	Develops ideas into solutions	4	3
L3	Encourages an environment for developing ideas	3	2

4. ACHIEVING RESULTS

Planning

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Prioritises day to day workload	4	3
L1	Plans to meet departmental objectives	3	3
L2	Converts organisational plans into departmental plans	3	2
L3	Contributes to the development of organisational plans	3	3

Deadline management

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Takes responsibility for tasks	5	3
L2	Manages resources effectively	4	3
L3	Sets and monitors deadlines and targets	4	3

Objective setting

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Contributes to setting individual objectives	4	3
L2	Sets responsibilities and objectives	4	3
L3	Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals	3	3

Peer Assessment 1

1.  WORKING WITH PEOPLE

Managing Relationships

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	builds relationships internally within the team	4	3
L2	builds relationships externally	3	2
L3	maintains networks	1	n/a

Team working

		Rating	Rating b
L1	Is a team member	5	3
L2	Supports team members	4	2
L3	Provides direction for the team	3	2

Influencing

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Projects a positive image	4	3
L2	Influences thinking of others	4	3
L3	Changes opinions of others	3	3

2.  WORKING WITH INFORMATION

Gathering and analysing information

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Gathers and maintains information	4	3
L2	Checks and analyses information	4	2
L3	Uses information to analyse the business	3	2

Decision-making

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Day to day decisions	5	4
L2	Ensures decisions are made	4	4
L3	High-level decision-making	3	3

3. DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS

Developing self and others

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Develops self	4	3
L2	Develops others	3	2
L3	Develops a culture for learning	2	1

Generating and building on ideas

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Participates in the generation of ideas	5	3
L2	Develops ideas into solutions	4	4
L3	Encourages an environment for developing ideas	3	2

4. ACHIEVING RESULTS

Planning

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Prioritises day to day workload	4	3
L1	Plans to meet departmental objectives	4	3
L2	Converts organisational plans into departmental plans	3	2
L3	Contributes to the development of organisational plans	3	2

Deadline management

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Takes responsibility for tasks	5	4
L2	Manages resources effectively	4	3
L3	Sets and monitors deadlines and targets	4	3

Objective setting

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Contributes to setting individual objectives	5	4
L2	Sets responsibilities and objectives	4	3
L3	Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals	3	2

Peer Assessment 2

1. WORKING WITH PEOPLE

Managing Relationships

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	builds relationships internally within the team	4	4
L2	builds relationships externally	3	3
L3	maintains networks	3	2

Team working

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Is a team member	5	4
L2	Supports team members	4	3
L3	Provides direction for the team	3	3

Influencing

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Projects a positive image	4	4
L2	Influences thinking of others	4	3
L3	Changes opinions of others	4	3

2. WORKING WITH INFORMATION

Gathering and analysing information

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Gathers and maintains information	4	3
L2	Checks and analyses information	4	3
L3	Uses information to analyse the business	3	2

Decision-making

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Day to day decisions	4	3
L2	Ensures decisions are made	4	2
L3	High-level decision-making	4	3

3. DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS

Developing self and others

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Develops self	4	3
L2	Develops others	3	3
L3	Develops a culture for learning	2	2

Generating and building on ideas

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Participates in the generation of ideas	4	3
L2	Develops ideas into solutions	4	3
L3	Encourages an environment for developing ideas	4	3

4. ACHIEVING RESULTS

Planning

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Prioritises day to day workload	4	3
L1	Plans to meet departmental objectives	4	3
L2	Converts organisational plans into departmental plans	3	3
L3	Contributes to the development of organisational plans	4	3

Deadline management

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Takes responsibility for tasks	5	3
L2	Manages resources effectively	4	3
L3	Sets and monitors deadlines and targets	4	2

Objective setting

		Rating A	Rating B
L1	Contributes to setting individual objectives	4	3
L2	Sets responsibilities and objectives	4	3
L3	Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals	3	2

Peer Assessment 3

1.  WORKING WITH PEOPLE

Managing Relationships

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	builds relationships internally within the team	4	2
L2	builds relationships externally	3	2
L3	maintains networks	3	2

Team working

		Rating	Rating b
L1	Is a team member	4	2
L2	Supports team members	3	2
L3	Provides direction for the team	2	2

Influencing

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Projects a positive image	3	3
L2	Influences thinking of others	4	2
L3	Changes opinions of others	3	3

2.  WORKING WITH INFORMATION

Gathering and analysing information

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Gathers and maintains information	4	3
L2	Checks and analyses information	3	3
L3	Uses information to analyse the business	3	3

Decision-making

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Day to day decisions	5	3
L2	Ensures decisions are made	3	3
L3	High-level decision-making	3	3

3. DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS

Developing self and others

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Develops self	3	3
L2	Develops others	3	2
L3	Develops a culture for learning	3	2

Generating and building on ideas

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Participates in the generation of ideas	3	3
L2	Develops ideas into solutions	3	3
L3	Encourages an environment for developing ideas	2	1

4. ACHIEVING RESULTS

Planning

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Prioritises day to day workload	4	3
L1	Plans to meet departmental objectives	4	3
L2	Converts organisational plans into departmental plans	4	3
L3	Contributes to the development of organisational plans	3	2

Deadline management

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Takes responsibility for tasks	3	3
L2	Manages resources effectively	3	3
L3	Sets and monitors deadlines and targets	3	3

Objective setting

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Contributes to setting individual objectives	3	3
L2	Sets responsibilities and objectives	3	3
L3	Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals	2	2

Peer Assessment 4

1.  WORKING WITH PEOPLE

Managing Relationships

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	builds relationships internally within the team	3	3
L2	builds relationships externally	4	3
L3	maintains networks	3	3

Team working

		Rating	Rating b
L1	Is a team member	4	3
L2	Supports team members	3	3
L3	Provides direction for the team	4	3

Influencing

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Projects a positive image	4	3
L2	Influences thinking of others	3	2
L3	Changes opinions of others	3	2

2.  WORKING WITH INFORMATION

Gathering and analysing information

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Gathers and maintains information	4	3
L2	Checks and analyses information	3	3
L3	Uses information to analyse the business	3	3

Decision-making

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Day to day decisions	3	3
L2	Ensures decisions are made	4	3
L3	High-level decision-making	3	2

3. DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS

Developing self and others

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Develops self	3	2
L2	Develops others	2	2
L3	Develops a culture for learning	2	1

Generating and building on ideas

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Participates in the generation of ideas	4	2
L2	Develops ideas into solutions	2	2
L3	Encourages an environment for developing ideas	3	2

4. ACHIEVING RESULTS

Planning

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Prioritises day to day workload	4	3
L1	Plans to meet departmental objectives	3	3
L2	Converts organisational plans into departmental plans	4	3
L3	Contributes to the development of organisational plans	3	3

Deadline management

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Takes responsibility for tasks	5	3
L2	Manages resources effectively	4	3
L3	Sets and monitors deadlines and targets	4	3

Objective setting

		Rating a	Rating b
L1	Contributes to setting individual objectives	4	3
L2	Sets responsibilities and objectives	4	3
L3	Ensures objectives meet functional and organisational goals	3	3

Bibliography

Adler, N. J. (1997) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. 3^rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.

Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp. 634-665.

Argote, L. & McGrath, J. E. (1993) Group Processes in Organizations: Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, pp. 333-389.

Ariel, S. (2001) The Effect of Geographical Dispersion on Team Process and Effectiveness. Working Paper. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Baird, L. & Meshoulam, I. (1988) Managing two Fits of Strategic Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 116-128.

Bantel, K. A. & Jackson, S. E. (1989) Top Management and Innovation In banking: Does the       Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10 (Special Issue), pp. 107-124.

Bedeian, A. G. & Mossholder, K. W. (2000) On the Use of the Coefficient Of Variation as a Measure of Diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3, pp. 285-297, p. 209.

Berry, J. W. (1989) Imposed Ethics, Emics, Derived etics: The Operationalization of a Compelling Idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, pp. 721-35.

Berscheid, E. & Walster, H. (1978) Interpersonal Attraction. Reading, MA :Addison-Wesley.

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991) Five Years of Group’s Research: What we have learned and what Needs to be Addressed. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 345-381.

Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E. & Stroh, L. K. (1999) Globalizing People Through International Assignments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bliese, P. D. (2000) Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implication for Data Aggregation and Analysis. In: Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. eds. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, pp. 349-381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brislin, R. W. (1986) The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. In: Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W. eds. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research methods, pp.137-164. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.

Brislin, R. W. (1980) Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Material. In: Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. eds. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, pp. 389-444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerbloom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D., Bosur, M., Boothe, S., Brenk, K., Castel, P., Hartog, D., Donnelly-Cox, G., Gratchev, M., Holmberg, I., Jarmuz, S., Jesusino, J., Jorbenadse, R., Kabasakal, H., Keating, M., Kipiani, G., Konrad, E., Koopman, P., Kurc, A., Leeds, C., Lindell, M., Maczynski, J., Martin, G., O’Connell, J., Papalexandris, A., Papalexandris, N., Prieto, J., Rakitski, B., Reber, G., Sabadin, A., Schramm-Nielsen, J., Schultz, M., Sigfrids, C., Szabo, E., Thierry, H., Vondrysova, M., Weibler, J., Wilderom, C., Witkowski, S., Wunderer, R. (2000) Cultural Variation of Leadership Prototypes across 22 European Countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, pp. 1-29.

Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. G. (1992) Network and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

O’Leary, M. B. & Cummings, J. N. (2002) The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Work Teams. Available from: http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/148_OlearyCummings_GeographicDispersion.pdf

Ohmae, K. (1985) Triad power: The Coming Shape of Global Competition. New York, NY: Free Press.

Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, pp. 384-399, p. 226.

Turner, J. (1982) Toward a Cognitive Definition of the Group. In: Tajfel, H. ed. Social Identity and         Inter-Group Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. & Ferry, D. L. (1980) Measuring and assessing Organizations. New York,       NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Wiener, Y. (1988) Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational Effectiveness and Cultural             Change and Maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 536-551.

Williams, K. Y. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998) Demography and Diversity in Organization: A Review of 40 years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 77-140.

Yates J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structural Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp. 299-326.

Hire Writers For Essays, Research Papers,Custom Written For $8/page. Get A Free Abstract Before Paying!