Abstract
The paper examines team building in multicultural and multiethnic work environments – particularly in NGOs – by linking classic accounts of effective teams with sociolinguistic and socio-emotional perspectives. It conceptualises workplace teams as speech communities in which members share, negotiate, and sometimes contest linguistic norms, expectations, and emotional display rules. Drawing on management and organisational studies, the text outlines key structural conditions for effective teams, including clear goals, appropriate leadership, resource allocation, and mechanisms for accountability and cooperation. These insights are then integrated with research on emotions, culture, and communication, which highlights the role of emotional attachment, trust, and creative problem-solving in sustaining team cohesion. The paper argues that effective team building in such contexts requires not only formal structures but also deliberate cultivation of shared communicative practices and affective climates that support participation, innovation, and mutual understanding across cultural and linguistic differences.
References
- Adriansyah M.A., Prastika N.D., Muhliansyah M. (2023), We are Team: Effectiveness of Team Building Training to Improve Cohesiveness, “International Journal of Professional Business Review”, vol. 8(5), https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.1898 [Google Scholar]
- Bednarek A. (2016), Reinvention: a Functional-Pragmatic Approach to Achieving a Cultural Discursive Effect in Website Translation, “Dyskursy o Kulturze”, nr 5, pp. 39–47. [Google Scholar]
- Bednarek A. (2017), Multilingual Families: A Sociolinguistic Model for Retaining Language Ability and Cultural Heritage, “Journal of Intercultural Management”, vol. 9(4), pp. 5–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joim-2017-0017 [Google Scholar]
- Fapohunda T.M. (2013), Towards Effective Team Building in the Workplace, “International Journal of Education and Research”, vol 1, pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Ganotice F.A., Chan L., Shen X., Lam A.H.Y., Wong G.H.Y., Liu R.K.W., Tipoe G.L. (2022), Team cohesiveness and collective efficacy explain outcomes in interprofessional education, “BMC Medical Education”, vol. 22(1), pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Katzenbach J.R., Smith D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams, McKinsey &Company, New York. [Google Scholar]
- Niedenthal P.M., Barsalou L.W., Winkielman P., Krauth-Gruber S., Ric F. (2005), “Embodiment in Attitudes, Social Perception and Emotion, “Personality and Social Psychology Review”, vol. 9, pp. 184–221. [Google Scholar]
- Norman D.A. (2004), Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, New York. [Google Scholar]
- Picard R.W. (2000), Toward Agents that Recognize Emotion, “Vivek”, vol. 13, no.1, pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- Riisla K., Wendt H., Babalola M.T., Euwema M. (2021), Building cohesive teams – the role of leaders’ bottom-line mentality and behavior, “Sustainability (Switzerland)”, vol. 13(14), article 8047, https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.1898 [Google Scholar]
- Scherer K.R. (2001), Appraisal Considered as Process of Multi-Level Sequential Checking, [in:] T. Johnstone, K.R. Scherer, A. Schorr, Appraisal Process in Emotion: Theory Methods, Research, New York and Oxford. [Google Scholar]
- Schrauf R.W., Sanchez J. (2004), The preponderance of negative emotion words in the emotion lexicon: A cross-generational and cross-linguistic study, “Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development”, vol. 25(2–3), pp. 266–284. [Google Scholar]
- Stubbs M. (1983), Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language, Oxford and Chicago, pp. 221–241. [Google Scholar]
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
