The purpose of this study was to understand how shared norms are developed in the early phase of multicultural team (MCT) formation. The development of shared norms is recognized as critical to MCTs' contributions to organizations, and they are a result of the cognitive adjustment of the team members in recognition of their differences (Brandl & Neyer, 2009; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). Unfortunately, despite seeding the study team with members scoring high on a validated intercultural sensitivity instrument to maximize the potential for shared norm development, the data collected and analyzed for this study suggested that the team was not able to move through the important process of shared norm formation. Instead, the team created rather typical team norms that masked deep differences and diminished the team's ability to leverage its diversity. Consequently, the purpose of the study was amended during the data collection phase (when it became obvious that shared norms were not being developed) to focus on how team norms were being developed in the MCT during the study. It is important to understand how MCTs develop norms because multicultural teams have been found to contribute a variety of benefits to organizations (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Stahl, Maznevski, Voight, & Jonsen, 2010). At the same time, research has indicated that MCTs typically struggle to establish the type of norms necessary to manage their cultural differences. (Begley & Boyd, 2003; Canney Davison & Ekelund, 2004; Earley & Gibson, 2002; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Maznevski & DiStefano, 2000). To discern between the two types of norms--those that enhance cultural diversity and those that mask or diminish it--the study uses the phrase "shared norms" to represent the types of norms needed to manage cultural diversity, and uses the phrase "team norms" to represent the types of norms typically developed (as will be illustrated below) that mask or diminish cultural diversity. Previous research has attempted to understand the challenges facing these teams as they begin to establish the types of norms that enhance performance and leverage the team's cultural diversity (e.g., shared norms). For example, research findings suggest the struggle to establish shared norms may be the result of time and performance pressures (Kelly & McGrath, 1985: Massey, Montoya-Weiss & Hung, 2003). Other research has found that team members from dominant cultures may impose their preferences on others (Begley & Boyd, 2003; Smolicz, 1984), or that team members possess a lack of training and skill in working across cultures (Brandl & Neyer, 2009). However, there is insufficient research on how MCTs develop norms to test these theories (Taggar & Ellis, 2007). To address this gap, the study was designed to expand our understanding of MCTs by describing the development of norms during early team formation. In order to maximize the possibility that the team in the study could create the type of shared norms required to manage cultural differences (as identified by the meta-analysis of Stahl, Maznevski, Voight, & Jonsen, 2010) team members were selected purposively, based on previous research on norm development and divergent thinking enablers (see chapters 1 and 2 for details). Despite the failure of the MCT to form shared norms, the study illuminates the intricate details of the norm development process of this MCT. Observations and interviews document the dominant influence of one team member on the norm development process, as well as illuminate the adaptation of the other team members to the preferences of the dominant member. The rich description and analysis of the norm development process contributes to our theoretical understanding of MCT norm formation in two ways. First, study findings suggest three categories of scripts influence team member actions during norm development. Second, the study generated an innovative norm development model that combines a temporal sequence and patterns of member actions and reactions during the norm development process. The findings of this study also suggest areas for further research. Can a taxonomy of script categories be created? Can the overlaps between team and norm development research fill gaps in our understanding of both? Finally, the conceptual framework used to guide the study suggests possible moderators of shared norm formation for future studies on MCT norm development. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]