Cross cultural group projects in higher education and its effects on business school students : A mixed method study of students and young professionals in the business field

Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

Cross cultural group projects in

higher education and its

effects on business school

students

A mixed method study of students and young

professionals in the business field

Supervisor: Aliaksei Kazlou

Jacob Crow

Kim Jaeglin

Preface

This thesis was written by two students as part of the Atlantis program at Linköping University, in Sweden. It has been completed during the Spring semester of 2020 in order to complete a bachelor’s in business administration.

This study has been carried out thanks to the support and help of several parties. As such, we would like to give special thanks to:

Aliaksei Kazlou, our supervisor, for his insightful feedback and support to allow us to stay on track to best succeed.

Courtney Recht-Debreuille, the French Director of the Atlantis program and Gunilla Söderberg Andersson, Swedish Director of the program, without whom we would not be able to participate in this triple-degree program.

Olga Yttemyr for the directions provided in the beginning of the semester and the guidelines during the completion of this thesis.

The 30 participants of our quantitative survey who allowed us to gather precious data to conduct our interviews.

The 12 interviewees both students and professionals, for their time, cooperation and insightful feedback who gave us the opportunity to answer our research questions.

Our fellow Atlantis students for the contribution and constant feedback, the proofreading and comments at each seminar which helped us tremendously in pointing out mistakes and room for improvements.

And most importantly, our families for encouraging us and supporting us in this journey throughout the entire year.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to improve the understanding of challenges encountered by students when conducting groupwork and more specifically cross-cultural groupwork; which in turn helps with identifying structural flaws in the way cooperative learning is organized in student groups. More specifically, this study aims at identifying the challenges and opportunities inherent to student group work in order to develop a framework allowing schools and universities to improve the way their structure this exercise. The objective is to find a way for students to experience group work almost as they would in a company in order to teach them key employability skills which are highly valued in the workplace.

This study focuses on students and young professionals who had international experiences since both groups can provide insightful information on the challenges and opportunities related to cross-cultural group work.

Overall, this paper contributes to better understand the challenges inherent to student group works which stem from motivational issues caused by disruptive behaviours. After explaining why these behaviours are specific to a student environment, we identified the structuration of cooperative learning among the studied organisation as being the main cause for these challenges faced by students. Our contribution then was to provide a new framework for student group work based on Smith’s 5 essential elements to properly structure cooperative learning. We also created a comparative table illustrating the main differences between conducting group work in a company and in a school which professional can use to better understand why students do not always know how to be good in group work.

Two frameworks were produced, one is to be used by schools to better structure group work and limit the chances of disruptive behaviour while nurturing skills valuable in the workplace. The second framework provides insights as to why young professionals do not always know how to effectively work in groups even if they experienced it as students.

Table of contents

1

Introduction ... 1

2

Theoretical framework ... 9

2.1.4 Cross-cultural group work ... 9

2.2 Group behaviours stages and group context... 10

2.2.1 Team behaviours stages according to Tuckman’s model ... 10

2.2.2 The FIRO model ... 12

2.3 Culture and diversity related challenges ... 13

2.3.1 Monocultural and multicultural contexts ... 13

2.3.2 Diversity in a monocultural group ... 15

2.3.3 Individualistic VS Collectivistic culture ... 16

2.4 Group-work related challenges ... 16

2.4.1 Communication ... 17

2.4.1.1 Communication profile model ... 18

2.4.1.2 Group rules... 19 2.4.1.3 Disruptive Behavior ... 20 2.4.1.4 Conflict Management ... 20 2.4.1.5 Time Schedule ... 21 2.4.2 Group Composition ... 22 2.4.2.1 Personality types ... 22

2.4.2.1.1 Myers Briggs personality types ... 22

2.4.2.1.2 Group roles ... 25

2.4.2.2 Leadership ... 25

2.4.2.3 Size of the group ... 26

2.4.2.4 Friendship ... 27

2.4.2.5 Group diversity ... 27

2.4.2.6 Gender... 27

2.5 Opportunities and consequences of group work... 28

2.5.1 Opportunities ... 28

2.5.1.1 Tacit knowledge ... 28

2.5.1.2 Key employability skills ... 29

2.5.1.4 Network and mentoring... 29

2.5.2 Short-term consequences of cross-cultural group-projects ... 30

2.5.3 Long-term consequences of cross-cultural group-projects ... 30

3

Methodology ... 33

3.8 Research Validity and Reliability ... 39

3.8.1 Reliability ... 39 3.8.2 Validity... 39 3.8.3 Translations ... 40 3.9 Ethical Considerations ... 40 3.10 Limitations ... 41

4

Findings ... 43

4.2.1.1 Task repartition in any student group work ... 47

4.2.1.2 Time management ... 48

4.2.1.3 Multicultural groups... 49

4.2.2 Group composition ... 50

4.2.3 Motivation ... 51

4.2.4 Conflicts ... 53

4.2.5 Support system and framework ... 53

4.2.6 Opportunities ... 54

4.2.7 Consequences ... 56

4.2.7.1 Short term consequences ... 56

4.2.7.2 Long term consequences ... 56

4.3 Professional’s interviews ... 58 4.3.1 Communication ... 59 4.3.1.1 All groups ... 59 4.3.1.2 Time management ... 59 4.3.1.3 Multicultural groups... 60 4.3.2 Group composition ... 61 4.3.3 Motivation ... 61

4.3.4 Conflicts ... 63

4.3.5 Support system and Framework ... 64

4.3.6 Opportunities ... 65 4.3.7 Consequences ... 68 4.3.7.1 Short-term ... 68 4.3.7.2 Long-term ... 68

5

Analysis ... 71

6

Discussion... 88

6.1 Opportunities of cross-cultural group work for students and professionals ... 88

6.2 Challenges of cross-cultural group-work according to students ... 89

6.3 Short- and Long-term Consequences of group work... 91

6.4 School framework ... 93

6.5 Companies versus school ... 96

7

Conclusion ... 102

7.1 Main findings ...102

7.2 Future research ...103

8

References ... 106

9

Appendices ... 117

9.1 Appendix 1: Group-level factors and its related challenge...117

9.2 Appendix 2: Quantitative survey ...118

9.3 Appendix 3: Information Sheet ...122

9.4 Appendix 4: Message to our young professionals’ interviewees ...123

9.5 Appendix 5: Interview questionnaire for students ...124

9.6 Appendix 6: Interview questionnaire for professionals ...128

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Businesses are increasingly using group projects as a way to deliver value to their customers. In fact, from 2000 to 2014 the amount of companies having a project management office went from 47% to 80% and 90% for larger firms (The state of the project management office, 2014). This shows that the project management office has become the central organizational structure for standardizing the practices of companies in the delivery of their projects. Due to this change in structure, students especially in business administration are increasingly likely to work in groups during their professional lives. In addition, many societies are now multicultural due to immigration which has become a prominent and presumably permanent feature of many countries (van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). Therefore, most schools are composed of a variety of different cultures. During the school year, students are going to take parts in group projects within which different culture are going to be represented. More specifically, a large number of today's students will work in international groups as part of their future professions. Therefore, the ability to work effectively in culturally heterogeneous groups should be an integral part of a student's competence (Vitaliy, P. & Dine, B., 2011)

Students not only study abroad more but they also have a larger number of foreign students in their home university. In fact, according to the organization “Campus France”, the number of students in international mobility throughout the world went from 4 600 000 in 2018 to 5 100 000 in 2019. More specifically, France is the 4th most chosen destination for foreign students after The United-States (1st),

The United-Kingdom (2nd) and Australia (3rd). Furthermore, according to Statista and the French

immigration office, French business schools have 17.8% of its student population who are foreigners. In light of these numbers, it is more than likely to have different cultures within a team that have to conduct a group project.

In recent years, team compositions within organizations have become more diverse and team diversity is likely to increase further in years to come (Woods, Barker, & Hibbins, 2010). Therefore, the ability to work effectively in a multicultural group is becoming an essential skill set for students. This being said, group work in a company is very different from group work as a student if not structured properly (Smith, 1996). In a company, group members face the same challenges as students would regarding communication styles, behavioral patterns and intercultural competences. The difference is that group members in a company have the possibility to allocate time for the project as they decide and are held accountable for the part they are in charge of. They also have a project manager or line manager who provides direction and makes sure that the project follows its course while providing support if internal conflict between team members occurs. Student group projects usually have none of these. For instance, it is almost always to complete at home with no previously assigned part as the project

group members are usually studying the same subject, which can be compared to intra-functional teamwork within a company (Bredin, 2011). Additionally, the only person who provides direction are the teachers who assigned the project and they aren’t constantly around making sure it runs smoothly. Consequently, student group projects have to be managed by students themselves from the tasks repartition to the conflict gestion and time management. Individuals whom others in the group come to view as leaders exert significant influence over the other members (Kolb, 1998). Many surveys and research have been conducted on how to effectively manage a project group or an international team in a company (Kolb, 1998), but very few have been conducted among students which is surprising as students have to work in groups for many tasks during their studies in a French Business school. What is interesting is that if students learn how to work in an international or in any group project setting before being employed, then these are skills they won’t need to learn which is a gain of money and time for companies.

In other words, while consequent research has been conducted on challenges inherent to project management within a company, knowledge of challenges inherent to student cross cultural project management or group work and it’s short/long-term effect on student is still lacking. Some studies have been conducted regarding the consequences of group work on students in terms of group leadership and issues of diversity (Banach et al., 2019). Other studies also investigated the influence of team cohesiveness on students’ perceived learning, satisfaction with teamwork, and expected quality of outcome (Bravo et al., 2018). But no study really focused on the long-term skills and on the impact group work has on students short and long term.

Considering that well-developed interpersonal skills which are developed through group work were listed by employers among the top 10 skills sought after in university graduates (Graduate Outlook Survey, 2010) and that 49 percent of organizations have a project management training program in place (The state of the PMO, 2014), this thesis aims to explore the challenges which students face when working in a multicultural group as opposed to the challenges met by professionals in the same context and what consequences it has on them. What we are aiming at through this study, is to acquire a better understanding of the different challenges face by students during group work in order to explain why students when entering the workplace still need to go through project management training when they should be experienced in that field, we also seek to better understand if group work has any kind of influence on students.

1.2 Problem statement

In the working place, 57 percent of projects fail due to breakdown in communications (IT Cortex, 2016) and yet, 49% of organizations have a project management training program in place (The state of the PMO, 2014). This goes to show that working in groups to complete a project in no menial task, it is proven to be very difficult even with abundant resources. In fact, students are not born knowing how to function as a group; it is a skill that can be both taught and learned (Smith, 1996).

Students that are involved in project-based group work have to design and plan a number of complex activities (Šeric & Praničević, 2018). Additionally, students will have to work on mostly short or very short projects (1 week to a month) with people you don’t necessarily agree with and who use different working methods. The person responsible for the project, will most likely not keep an eye on the individual groups within the project at all times. Therefore, the group members will have to figure out a way to work efficiently and effectively together.

A group of students work on projects the same way companies work on projects. The difference is the intensity level the project has on the group. In fact, the five elements (Positive interdependence, Face-to-face concerns interactions, Individual accountability and personal responsibility, Teamwork skills, Group processing) needed to properly structure student group works are nearly identical to those of teams in the professional world (Smith, 2016). A number of group work benefits emerged in the educational management literature, such as: improvement of students’ management and communication skills, development of a clear vision of the group culture, understanding of the different group roles, and increased flexibility on the individual and group level (Šeric & Praničević, 2018). Although, both students and professionals’ groups are expected to deliver what was required of them, they don’t have the same level of support nor do they have the same amount of knowledge when it comes to working in groups. In some of the projects, there are people who are lazy and there are some who are relatively weak in certain areas of work. The free-rider effect, where some members do not put in their share of the group work because they assume that other team members will compensate for their lack of contribution and thus causes the sucker effect, where the other fully performing members lower their efforts in response to the free-riders’ attitude (Lin, 2018). Supervisors have the ability and responsibility to emphasize and heighten awareness of these issues among their subordinates (Majors et al., 2007). They sometimes pass through the cracks because the teacher or manager has a difficult time to monitor each group and its individuals. It is the responsibility of managers and supervisors to interpret the vision as well as to implement and to execute these strategies and policies (Major et al., 2007). This is more prominently in a school environment because the project is mostly completed outside of a classroom setting and because there is rarely a clear dividing of skills among the group members. We mean that most school related group projects are within one field of study and concern members of approximately equal level of knowledge.

The students after completing their studies will most likely feel a certain way towards group work depending on the experiences they had during their studies, hence the importance of having a good experience or at least one you can positively learn from. Especially because students learn more about teamwork from good team experiences than they do from bad ones (Bacon et al., 1999). Results from a survey from Katinka et al. (2005) revealed that students from problem-based learning schools showed better preparation with respect to several of the competencies, especially profession-specific methods, communication skills and group work (Šeric & Praničević, 2018). Whatever their experience was, it will have a certain impact on how they interact within a cross cultural group. They will take the habits they acquired from student group projects and keep it with them when they get their first job. The companies they go into will most likely look at their work ethics within the first group project and see if they will fit well within the company. Despite a growing literature about the use of peer evaluations in business school educations, much less research has been conducted examining student preferences among different evaluation approaches and associated perceptions about outcomes such as due process (Wagar & Carroll, 2012). The point is, the way students experience cross cultural group work in university will strongly influence the skills they have to later work in companies project group. So, understanding how it affects students whether in a positive or negative way is important to understand what can be improved in students project group settings and what employers can expect from the people they bring in.

As students ourselves, we have noticed a lack of literature and knowledge on how to effectively conduct group work in a school environment. While there are many similarities between group work in a professional setting and group work in a school environment, since as stated by Vitaliy, P. and Dine, B. (2011), the majority of studies on group work were conducted in the field of management and organizational research with a focus on the business world despite the fact that multicultural student groups in universities setting function according to their own intrinsic nature and special conditions. Group work in management education has become a familiar design feature of courses, aimed at enhancing collaborative learning and developing student skills for the workplace (Wagar & Carroll, 2012). And while group projects in companies usually receive a lot of support in the shape of a project manager, coaching sessions and courses on cultural differences, students are mainly expected to figure out how to work in groups on their own, with very little experience, no explanation as to why it is valuable and no theoretical knowledge of how it should be done. This leads to a phenomenon called ‘Grouphate’ which has been referred to as the dread and repulsion that many people feel about working in groups or teams (Sorenson, 1981) and can be diminished among group members who have received proper instruction about working in groups (Burke, 2011). Although the use of group work in management education has become common practice, faculty and students struggle with issues relating to working effectively in groups and evaluating fairly student contributions to the work produced (Wagar & Carroll, 2012). As most skills and competences, it is important to first receive theoretical knowledge on the subject and then use it in a practical situation to understand how to use

the theory. But to expect students to handle the practice well when there was no theory provided to begin with is unrealistic. Students with collectivistic cultural values emphasize social community, collective goals and harmony, and self-concept rooted in the collective parallel attributes of high-performing work groups (Sosik & Jung, 2002). This lack of theoretical knowledge among the student population often leads to poor quality work and group management which leaves group members with a bad impression of their co-workers and of group work in general (Bacon et al., 1999). Outlook expectations are the beliefs that group members hold about the likely consequences their group will experience as the result of group performance on tasks (Sosik & Jung, 2002). Every group has people who will be satisfied and unsatisfied with how the group is doing. Group members who prefer to work in teams may be more satisfied and effective in teams than when working alone (Sosik & Jung, 2002). There is a lacking knowledge on how group projects are conducted and managed among students and on the differences between group projects in a company versus in a school/university. In fact, some studies have pointed to the problem of student group ineffectiveness in general (Bacon et al., 1999, Smith & berg, 1997) and yet, research shows that employers want college graduates to possess the ability to work in groups and have developed suitable teamwork skills (Blowers, 2000).

In sum, Insights into students and young professionals’ feelings will help us determine which challenges are prevalent in a student environment and why they are not necessarily part of challenges in the workplace. This will also highlight which sort of short and long-term consequences group work had and will have on their future. This could help universities to improve the conduction of their group projects and help students to gain more knowledge about something they often do not understand while having them better prepared and skilled to answer employer’s demands. Lastly, if we want to better manage multicultural group projects in companies, we need to understand where our workers behavior and attitudes stem from and which skills must be developed and why.

1.3 Research purpose

The purpose of writing this thesis is to provide a framework for students, business schools and companies. Students have to get a better understanding of why cross-cultural group projects are challenging. Even though it is challenging, it is an amazing opportunity to learn. Companies get to understand in parts how some of their workers have been affected by their earlier experiences as students. The employees of companies are very knowledgeable in their field whereas students are not experienced in working in cross cultural groups. And lastly business schools, get insights on their students’ feedback which could lead to developing more efficient frameworks for groupwork.

In order to reach these objectives, this study will be based on exploratory research. Our research purpose here is to identify and explain the different challenges and opportunities stemming from a cross cultural group project and based on a student and young professionals’ point of view. And to

identify which consequences it can have on students' long-term and short-term projects and therefore companies.

This means that we will explore a subject that has only been researched from the point of view of professionals and companies, but not from students’ point of view. This study on its own will not offer final and conclusive solutions or explanations on the subject. Eventual problems linked to the subject will be highlighted in the results that this study provides which means that problems if any stemming for the research questions haven’t been defined yet. This study will allow us to determine the nature of the problem as opposed to providing conclusive evidence. Hopefully, this research will form the basis of more conclusive research with a bigger sample population. In other words, we are simply exploring the research questions which leaves room for further researches as opposed to a conclusive research which is expected to provide definitive findings for the research. As seen by Sandhursen (2000), exploratory studies aim at establishing a number of causes and alternative options for a solution to a specific problem

1.4 Research questions

The study aims to answer the following questions:

• What are the challenges and opportunities of a cross cultural group project when it concerns students in higher education?

• Which consequences can it have on students long-term and short-term projects?

1.5 Scope of Research

As the study aims to examine the influences of cross-cultural group projects on students and young professionals, the study was carried out through interviews and questionnaires. The questionnaire was addressed to a promotion of students in a French business school who are representative of business schools across France as the functioning of the schools is similar.

Further, the questionnaire was only filled by students with common characteristics such as an international experience, completed internships and same promotion which means they followed the same courses, had the same type of group projects and in a similar environment. The second focus group is made out of young professionals (who graduated less than 6 years ago) who are alumni of the same school used to conduct the survey and students Interviews. This allows for a more accurate study as we assume challenges encountered by students now were more or less the same 6 years ago. We also consider that a 6-years period is short enough that the young professionals still remember quite

well their experiences as students. It means we can directly analyze the outcome of these challenges faced by students but 6 years from now. Ideally, our questionnaire will be answered by at least 30 students while interviews will be conducted with 6 of these students who agreed to it after completing the questionnaire. We will interview an equal number of young professionals.

Due to limitation in time and resources, the study is limited to 1 organization that we chose for being representative of many other similar organizations. We also have a limited number of respondents which implies that any analysis drawn cannot and shouldn’t be generalized to the larger crowd. Any observation and conclusion drawn from this study could be applicable to foreign universities as well but only in the field of business. Business communication courses includes a wide range of concept and skills that are specific to the business field (Zhao & Alexander, 2004). It could be applicable in other countries because our analysis is based on students who travelled and had to study in a foreign country. This being said, our result will not be applicable to engineering school for example because even though students also have international experience, it isn’t the same field of study and is therefore not comparable without further research. The results obtained are specific to the chosen school and any contribution made is based on students and alumni’s own experiences within this school framework.

2 Theoretical framework

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a definition of key terms relevant to the subject, we will then proceed to the process of group creation and what it entails. We will talk about cultural diversity within a group and the challenges encountered during group work within the professional world. The challenges encountered are divided into communication and group composition related challenges. Lastly, we will expose the main opportunities and consequences of group-work. Most of the theories and studies used for this chapter have been conducted among groups of professionals and within companies, not in a higher education context except for the opportunities of group work section which includes both.

2.1 Definitions

2.1.1 Culture

To define the notion of culture in this paper, we have chosen to use a definition proposed by Hofstede, (1994); “Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” and completed by a definition of Matsumoto, (1996): “... the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next.”

2.1.2 Diversity

According to Highland, (2020); “Diversity means having distinct or unlike elements. In a workplace, diversity means employing people who may be different from each other and who do not all come from the same background. The differences may be those of national origin, physical appearance, religion, education, age, gender, or sexual orientation.”

2.1.3 Group-work

Group-work as defined by Thomas, (1967) is “a collection of individuals who are interdependent with one another and who share some conception of being a unit distinguishable from other collections of individuals” and according to Brown, (1986); “groupwork provides a context in which individuals help each other; it is a method of helping groups as well as helping individuals; and it can enable individuals

and groups to influence and change personal, group, organizational and community problems.”

2.1.4 Cross-cultural group work

According to Bailey & Cohen, (1997); cross-cultural student group work can be defined as the collaboration of two or more individuals from different cultural backgrounds (namely their nationality), who have been assigned interdependent tasks and are jointly responsible for the final

results, who see themselves and are seen by others as a collective unit embedded in an academic environment and who manage their relationships within a certain educational institution.

2.2

Group behaviours stages and group context

Since any group project requires several people to work together, it is important for the conduction of the project to have these different individuals come together and become a group. As such, individual within the group will go through a process that can be thought of as a continuous change from “I’m not ready to change” to “I have changed and feel comfortable” (Hicks, 2019). In order to do that, two models describing the group creation process during a group project are largely used in the field of project management. In fact, the most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature is the Tuckman’s model (Miller, 2003).

2.2.1 Team behaviours stages according to Tuckman’s model

According to Bruce W. Tuckman, 1965, group behaviors can be divided into four stages which are:

In more details, here are the 4 stages of the group creation process:

Forming: this is the first stage of team development which means the team has just been introduced and

everyone is pleasant and polite to make good impressions. You familiarize yourself with the group members and likely discuss ground rules, individual roles, timeline and project goals. It is important for the group to develop some kind of relationship with each other. This is basically a time for the team to orient themselves and define clear collective and individual objectives.

Storming: this is the second stage of a team behaviors and usually corresponds to power struggles

among the group. This is when people behave like their true selves and personalities can clash. Members can disagree on the best way to complete the task and feel conflicted about members not pulling their weight. This stage also allows for dominating personalities to emerge while less confrontational members stay quiet. These conflicts must be solved before moving on to the next stage.

Norming: the third stage is more about cooperation and integration. Team members start to

acknowledge each other strengths and accept their flaws. The group has every individual contributing and working as a cohesive unit. Group interactions should be easier and more productive while mutual respect is built allowing for easier conflict management if a problem occurs. This is when the group facilitator can step back a little and give more autonomy to the group and its individual members.

Performing: this is the fourth stage of group behaviors and usually results in a synergy of the group.

Members of the team are confident in their work and the one produced by their colleagues while being motivated and sufficiently knowledgeable about the project to need minimal supervision. Everyone is working towards their common goal and when a team reach this phase, they usually succeed. This is the phase all group projects strive to reach and also the reason many projects fail to come to fruition. If the conflicts haven’t been taken care of previously, the group project is very likely to fail.

Limitations

The first limit of this model is that the literature review represented a small sample with therapy-groups being overrepresented which means the model has been generalized beyond its original framework (Bonebright, 2009). According to Cassidy (2007), the “storming” stage is not as clearly defined stage for practitioners outside of therapeutic groups, thus limiting the applicability of Tuckman’s model in experiential education. A significant number of theorists also suggest that development processes are considerably more complex than can be reflected in linear models (Miller, 2003).

2.2.2 The FIRO model

According to the FIRO model, which was created in 1958 by William Schutz, there are several development phases within a group as all groups change over time.

FIRO which stands for “fundamental interpersonal relationship orientation” describes a work group’s development from their first meeting to a mature effective team.

It has 3 core dimensions:

Inclusion: group members gather for the first time and are presented with the task. Team members

need assurance and clarity about what is expected from them and what should be carried out. If the Project manager fails to structure it properly, the team motivation will decrease and affect the final result. During this phase, everyone is polite and want to make a good impression, everyone considers whether or not they want to be a part of the group.

Control: This is the second phase of the group creation process and is characterized by team members

stepping up and raising their voice. Informal leaders are identified and will influence the project whereas the authority of the project manager might be questioned. This is mostly a phase dedicated to conflict resolution and the project manager should act as a team leader and help group members solve their conflicts.

Affection: This is the last phase of the process and arises when team members have overcome all

conflicts and became a team where everyone feels confident in themselves and their colleagues. Everyone depends on each other and participants are secure in their role and ability to complete the tasks they are assigned. After setting up the framework it is time for the project manager to delegate tasks. This will generate motivation for the team members who feel trusted and have new responsibilities. If the project manager controls too much and doesn’t delegate enough, team members will not feel trusted which will lower motivation and ambition. This will affect the end result.

Between those phases, there are resting phases where members can relax. It is also worth mentioning that the process has to start all over again if a new member joins the team and the group might need to go back to the control phase when conflict arise

What is obvious from these the two models presented above is that the group creation process requires a “group facilitator” (Tuckman’s model, 1965) or a “manager” (FIRO model, 1958) who have a very important role in both models, and which is something that student project groups don’t have. Research has shown that leaders’ perceptions of their own strengths and abilities may differ markedly from those of their team members and subordinates, it seems likely that individuals may view themselves as leaders even when the group members do not share that perception (Kolb, 1998).

2.3 Culture and diversity related challenges

2.3.1 Monocultural and multicultural contexts

When working in groups, two types of challenges can arise according to Behfar, Kern, & Brett (2006), those that any kind of group will experience and those which only concern a multicultural group. Indeed, it is important to distinguish challenges inherent to a culturally heterogeneous group and those which are inherent to any type of group whether multicultural or monocultural (group members sharing a similar cultural background). These two group types share challenges related to problem solving and decision making, conflict management, planning and task coordination, respect of deadlines and common ground when it comes to expected group behavior (Behfar et al., 2006). In addition to these challenges, multicultural group members will have to overcome other issues related to the “web of intra-group dynamics” becoming more complex with cultural differences they share (Halverson, 2008). The term intra-group dynamics is defined as “the underlying processes that give rise to a set of norms, roles, relations, and common goals that characterize a particular social group”. These are basically all the steps necessary to form a group and the term “web” similar to a “spider-web” is used here to illustrate the complexity of these intra-group dynamics when it is composed of culturally different members.

Cross-cultural group-work has its own challenges which do not necessarily stem from differing communication styles. Indeed, according to Jeanne Brett, Kristin Behfar & Mary C. Kern, (2006) there are four categories of challenges related to cross-cultural work.

The first one is direct VS indirect communication. Western cultures typically have a low-context culture and a direct communication style. Meaning that people who belong to this cultural group act based on explicit rules and express what they want in a direct manner. They are also characterized by their short-term interpersonal connections; they do not feel the need to create a link of trust with their counterpart and take their decisions based on logic and facts and not on personal relationship with the person they work with (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). It also means that the meaning of their message is on the surface, knowing anything about the speaker or the context of the message isn’t necessary to properly interpret the message. On the other hand, cultures with a high-context culture and an indirect communication style do not use direct messaging but rather less explicit forms of expressions (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). They will use implicit messages to get their point across and are more willing to take their time before taking a decision. They usually provide less written information and often base their professional decisions on personal relationships. This requires a certain understanding and knowledge of the culture with which you are dealing because the meaning of a message is embedded in the way it is presented. It is a problem because a direct communication style can be perceived as

offensive by some whereas the indirect communication style can appear as unproductive and dishonest.

The second challenge is related to accents and fluency in the spoken language. The international language for business is English but while going through cross-cultural group-work, misunderstandings occur due to the lack of fluency of some of its members. This creates issues in understanding each other but also for some members to express themselves (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). The problem is that when members cannot fully express what they want to say or when they do not understand everything and hand back tasks written in a poor English, the perception of status and competence of that member can be altered. Non-fluent group members might be the most knowledgeable on a subject among the group but if they fail to communicate their expertise will not be used, and they might end up feeling frustrated and impatient because of the time wasted due to miscommunication (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). Unfortunately, proficiency in the language is often associated with skills and knowledge of the topic discussed. This can also lead to native speaker under using other team members and foreigners to become less motivated to contribute as they do not feel valued for their actual knowledge of the topic. It can also lead to members talking to each other in their native language as it is easier for them to communicate that way; and means that the rest of the group feel excluded and can even resent it if they perceive it as a way to talk about them without them understanding what is being said (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). No one likes to feel excluded of a conversation especially when it comes to group work. In other words, one language will dominate the group interactions and those who have more difficulties in that language are likely to feel left out while the members who are fluent in the language might perceive the others are less competent and not as involved.

The third challenge relates to the differing attitudes towards hierarchy and authority. One of the main issues especially in student group-work is that teams have a flat structure. This means there is usually no legitimate or recognized figure of authority within the group. In multicultural teamwork, some members are used to have a deferring figure to whom they show respect and who are treated differently due to their place in the hierarchy (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). For cultures used to this system, an egalitarian model such as the flat structure can be uncomfortable as they are all treated equally, and everyone should be having the same weight when it comes to decision-making. For someone who would be more used to be deferred to it might feel disrespectful to be treated as everyone else. These people might also have an issue pulling their weight in as they usually also belong to high-context and indirect communication style (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). Failure to understand the structure of a group and their place and power in it often leads to people under performing as they do not do or participate as much as they are capable of. They might also feel conflicted as to how they should behave and treat other group members.

The fourth challenge is due to conflicting norms for decision making. Indeed, depending on the culture we belong to, we take decisions differently (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). Some cultures are used to quick decision making based on available information whereas other cultures need a longer analysis of the situation and require more preparation and information before taking a decision. For cultures taking quicker decisions, it might be frustrating to wait for the slower response and longer thought process as well as the additional information required by their counterpart (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). In a student group project, when everyone agrees for example on how to handle the assignment, it might be frustrating for both parties as a slower decision maker could require more time before taking a decision and agreeing with what has been discussed, slowing down the group process. On the other hand, a quick decision maker will feel frustrated about the additional time required and might feel like it is a waste of time to go back on what has been agreed on.

2.3.2 Diversity in a monocultural group

As mentioned previously, project groups face challenges related to the multiculturality of the group. But in addition to these challenges, groups also face challenges related to the diversity among the group. Diversity can be defined as the differences among people in term of gender, social class, ethnicity, race, language, abilities and disabilities, religion, sexual orientation, needs, nationality, political ideology, citizenship status, family composition, cultural background, income, occupation, etc. (Lin & Jackson, 2019). That is, some challenges will always appear regardless of whether or not the group is monocultural. A monocultural group is composed of people who have been growing in the same country and more specifically within the same dominating culture. The truth is, people’s economic, social and familial environment shapes them regardless of their nationality which means they are behavioral differences among people who were born and raised in the same country, region and even city. People’s attitude towards deadline or whether or not they are free riding for example is irrelevant of the nationality of that person. “Like the foundation of a house, our childhood experiences are the foundation on which the rest of our lives are built” said Dr Robert Taibbi (2019). And rightfully so, the family climate and role model we had shape us into the being we are now especially in terms of behaviors. People have different personalities, ways to do things, ways to think and to behave due to their upbringing and own experience in life and that is independent of people’s cultural differences. This means that in any group, whether multicultural or not, you will find yourself among people who are very different on many aspects from which stems a multitude of group challenges than any group can encounter. In a few settings, diversity may create hindrances in elaborating information. Deep-level dissimilarities, like education or functional backgrounds, may not only give the opportunity for information elaboration and also create barriers to the group level elaboration (Oad, 2020).

2.3.3 Individualistic VS Collectivistic culture

Another challenge related to cross-cultural group-work is the type of culture. Indeed, depending from an individualistic culture to a collectivist culture, people have differing social norms, values, interests and opinions. People from collectivist cultures see their individual contribution as very important in order to achieve common goals of the group which translates in team members working to the extent of their abilities for the sake of the group success. This also means that free-riding and social loafing behaviors are not accepted in this type of groups. On the other hand, an individualist culture has its members prioritizing their own interests. This leads to team members benefiting themselves first which means they are more likely to adopt a loafing behavior if their individual contribution to the final group project goes unnoticed or if they get no personal reward for their own effort (Earley, 1989). Additionally, collectivist culture tends to avoid open conflict as it might hinder group cohesion and have a negative impact on relationships within the group. Individualistic cultures are more of the opposite and want possible conflict to be talked about in order to avoid having issues with it later on in the project. This means that conflict management must be handled differently depending on which culture team members belong to. These differences also have an impact on hierarchy and on the type of leader needed for the group.

2.4 Group-work related challenges

Many studies have been conducted and more than a hundred models and frameworks can be found in existing literature. While the subject has been studied from various perspectives, all frameworks relate to challenges which can be classified in two main categories corresponding to different level of the group project. The first one is “organizational-level factors” (Offermann & Spiros, 2001; Tata & Prasad, 2004) and the second one is group-level factors (Hackman, 1987; Thomas, 1999; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Although these theories were developed in companies, we believe that they can still be applied in a higher education context as issues are the same and the organization level can be seen as the university as an institution level. Whereas the group level factors remain more or less the same for student groups or professionals, the organizational-level factors between a company and a school are quite different. For this study, we will mainly focus on challenges related to group level factors. In addition, the challenges mentioned below regards all types of group-work and not specifically multicultural group-works since they were discussed in the previous section. (The table with all the challenges can be found in Appendix 1).

2.4.1 Communication

In group work, there are many challenges with communication, regardless of the type of group. Two types of challenges are most frequently encountered, and they concern the communication arena and the medium of communication. The arenas where communication issues can arise are:

• General work-place interaction • Oral presentation

• Formal Meeting • Social Interaction

Incidents representative of such communication issues include appraisal interviews, formal speeches, committee meetings, task assignments, telephone calls, interorganizational correspondence, customer service, and conversations with coworkers (Reinsch & Shelby, 1996).

The medium of communication can be a lot of things, some examples are

• Face to face

• Written information • Telephone

• Any combination of the Face to face, written, and telephone • All Mediums

These mediums are the most frequent ones. In face to face communication, the people are talking to each other, and can see the reactions of the person they are talking to. When having a face to face conversation, they are more likely to say something that can offend the other person. Doing this will most likely make the person react in a bad way. Some challenges that there are going to be in face to face communication is knowing what to say and what not to say and the non-verbal communication. With non-verbal communication, it is based on what the person does, for example, if they don’t make good eye contact while speaking directly to you, it will make the conversation feel weird. Over written communication, there will be challenges in figuring out exactly what somebody is trying to say. Over the telephone, there will be challenges because sometimes people will not fully understand what is asked from them and will not be able to see how the person reacts to what they say. Barriers to communication can result from misunderstanding of information, differences in interpretation and perception, cultural differences among the team, as well as poor listening (Silkes, Gulbro, Shonesy, 2010).

Verbal Communication challenges are heightened when talking about cross cultural groups. Words can mean different things in different cultures, and some words can be missed while speaking.

2.4.1.1 Communication profile model

The communication profile model describes how the teamwork within a group is working. The model consists in different types of human characteristics and includes “open”, “reticent”, “determined” and “compliant” (Tonnquist et al., 2009)

• To be open entails being relationship-oriented, easy to get to know, adapt easily to new situations and like testing new ideas.

• To be determined entails being result-oriented, decisive, competitive, fast and wanting to be center of attention.

• To be reticent entails being task-oriented, detail-focused, a completer and also to be apprehensive in letting new people get close/

• To be compliant entails being diplomatic and able to understand the needs of the group, and to be caring and not promote oneself on other’s expense.

We all have these 4 characteristics, but one is more dominant.

As shown in the figure below, four characters are found, one in each of the four fields in the model. The group’s composition controls the relations and communications. A communicator is more open and determined and brings the ideas whereas a motivator is a combination of determined and reticent and implements the decisions and makes sure the project is on time and budget. An analyzer is both reticent and compliant and makes sure that what has been promised is fulfilled while the friendly character is open and compliant and focuses on teamwork and the sentiments in the group.

Characters who might conflict are placed diagonally in the figure, which is when they don’t have any characteristic in common. For example, the communicator can easily work with the friendly person since they are both-relationship oriented. As well as the motivator with the analyzer since they are both reticent. But if placed together, the analyzer and the communicator might have issues to work together since they are very different and have no characteristics in common.

A good team should have these four personalities to be balanced.

2.4.1.2 Group rules

Being safe is one of the basic needs humans constantly strive for (Tonnquist, 2009). Individual’s need for assurance has to be respected because people feel safe in the known and in situation they master. This is why some people are secure in certain situations, where others only see chaos.

People feel secure when they know what to expect. Rules and routines create security and if we are aware of them, we can choose to follow them. Some follow the rules perfectly whereas others try to bend and challenge them. Whichever way one chooses to play when the rules are known, they give a sense of security because there is something to relate to (Tonnquist, 2009).

Figure 3: ambiguous VS unambiguous rules (Tonnquist, 2009)

Ambiguous rules create uncertainty and insecurity along with wasting everyone’s time and energy trying to figure out what the rules actually are. In conclusion, it is important for a group of people working together to understand what the rules among the group are so that everyone feels comfortable and secure in what they should do and shouldn’t do and what is expected of them in general. Establishing clear rules that the whole group has to follow is the best way to build a secure relationship as there is a clear right and wrong (Tonnquist, 2009)

2.4.1.3 Disruptive Behavior

Disruptive behavior is defined as “any behavior that shows disrespect for others, or any interpersonal interaction that impedes the work of a group.” (Handler, 2018). There are many types of disruptive behavior. Some examples of this is yelling, talking on the phone when they should be working, having side conversations, arguing, reading books when supposed to be working, listening to music loudly. In the classroom, if someone is speaking while the professor is speaking, then it is disruptive behavior. This distracts the group from being able to complete their task in a timely fashion.

Some of the most disruptive behaviors are described as passive-aggressive behaviors – “Usually seen as procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate and repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks. It is usually a team member with a strong personality who may try to sabotage organizational direction.” One of the most common examples is a behavior called “free-riding” or “social loafing” which based on the definition of Latane et al., (1979) is “a decrease in individual effort due to the social presence of the other persons”. It basically means that in the presence of other team members, some decide to be less productive or participate less as they know that other members will compensate the lack of one individual’s contribution. This is one of the most reported disruptive behavior among students’ group-projects (Latane et al., 1979; Smith, 1996) and often leads to tension in the group and resentment against the member slacking-off.

2.4.1.4 Conflict Management

Conflict is almost certain to occur in work teams due to the fact that they are composed of different people possessing various perceptions, personalities, and behaviors. Although incredibly effective, work teams may stumble upon barriers which must be overcome to allow for growth and continuation towards the common goal of a group (Sikes, Gulbro & Shonesy, 2010). It is how the work teams manage it that causes the conflict to be resolved. Conflict can produce either positive or negative results within work teams. An effective team is one where members are capable of handling conflict and drawing out the knowledge gained from disagreements to arrive at a better decision (Sikes, Gulbro, & Shonesy, 2010). The leader should take the initiative of finding the solution to the conflict. Problem solving takes a lot of effort to do since you have to consider the problem, some challenges that will occur if you do try to solve the problem a certain way, and the outcome of each way you try to solve it, while considering the deadline that is put into place by the project manager. Decisive problem solving is defined as reaching a desired outcome using the appropriate amount of quality information which is transferred to actionable knowledge and plans of action within a reasonable timeframe (Kerns, 2016).

If the conflict can be traced to cultural differences between two or more group members, obtaining cultural synergy may be necessary. Cultural differences should be embraced and used to enhance group performance (Sikes, Gulbro, & Shonesy, 2010). The challenge of finding out the conflict, is trying to figure out the best way to do it without favoring one side of the conflict. There are two possible effects that task routineness can have on the positive association between diversity and task conflict (Pelled, Eisenhardt, Xin, 1999). This could be simple or difficult things. In groups with routine tasks, even if members have diverse backgrounds, there is only minimal room for task conflict based on those backgrounds (Pelled, Eisenhardt, Xin, 1999). Tasks that are straightforward and well-defined don’t need to have opinions exchanged or challenge each other. In groups with nonroutine tasks, there is more room for task conflict, so group members with diverse backgrounds are more likely to exchange opposing opinions and preferences derived from their backgrounds (Pelled, Eisenhardt, Xin, 1999). Taking into consideration everyone’s opinions may cause arguments because of the different ways to solve problems.

2.4.1.5 Time Schedule

In a group, there will be several time schedules that will need to be taken into account when figuring out allocated time for the project. In group assignments, instructors will save time in areas, and add time in other areas to help maintain a good time schedule for group projects (Eberly Center, 2020). As most group project assignments are to be completed out of school hours, group members need to deal with each other’s spare time activities, obligations and own schedule in order to find a common time slot during which they can work on it together. It is very often challenging and often means someone can only be there through video call or will have to be updated on what has been agreed on and which part they are supposed to complete as they couldn’t assist to the face to face meeting. Depending on the size of the team, they’ll need to coordinate different types of employee availability. Smaller companies need to work around the limited availability of a few employees and larger companies need to work around the lack of shifts for the variety of employee schedules (Milligan, 2020). In unique cases such as the one due to the corona virus crisis, some people had to head back to their home countries while still working on group projects. For group members, it means that either one of them will need to wake up early in the morning or stay up late at night. It will be challenging to work on it together and there will be a lack of communication sometimes. This is a major challenge in working with different cultures. Having a set time that is good for every different time zone is the best way to figure out the problem. There will be different deadlines for the different time zones. If one of the members have to have the project finished by 8 a.m., another member might have to have it done by 1 a.m. or 2 p.m. depending on their time zone.

2.4.2 Group Composition

Group communication is an important determinant of project success in community-based projects, and there is an extensive body literature that describes the core-periphery structure in online communities (specifically, peer production communities) (Arazy, Nov, Patterson, Yeo, 2011). There are many factors relating to the group composition of teams. There are two important dimensions of group composition, those being, a group’s central tendencies, and the variability within the group in terms of a specific characteristics (Arazy, Nov, Patterson, Yeo, 2011).

2.4.2.1 Personality types

Personality is a commonly used term with a meaning that most of us readily comprehend, and yet it is an elusive concept to fully describe or quantify (Randall et al., 2017). Personalities within a team are important because it defines us and how we interact with the world. In a working environment specifically, it determines how we approach tasks, make decisions, manage stress, interact with our team members and communicate with the world. In order to be successful, a team needs to be balanced. For example, a good team needs both highly analytical individuals and action-driven individuals. The difficulty then is to combine two different ways of working while avoiding conflict. One of the solutions to build an effective team, is for each member to be self-aware which means understanding their own personality and behavior styles. Understanding yourself and your team members is key as it means that you know how to effectively communicate with them. Conflict is easier to avoid when you understand why your communication style is not always perceived by others the way you intended to. Additionally, it helps with task division as understanding each other’s preferences can help to improve engagement and overall productivity.

2.4.2.1.1 Myers Briggs personality types

Within the group, there will be many personality types that will play in part of every aspect of the group. There are many personality types that are out there. If there are too many introverts in a group, they will most likely not talk to each other and will most likely stick to working on different parts and seeing which is the best. If there are too many extroverts, they will have too many speakers and not enough listeners. This will decide whether the group will work or not. Myers Briggs has a good personality test spectrum that has a lot of different combinations. It is one of the top personality tests because of the magnitude of options that each question perceives.

Figure 4: Myers-Briggs Personality Types (Myers, 1980)

Figure 2 shows the 16 different personality types and the characteristics of each personality type. Within these 16 different personality types, there are 8 letters. Those 8 letters stand for, Extraversion, introversion, Sensing, Intuition, thinking, feeling, perception, and judging. Every person falls somewhere on this chart.

What the letters mean

E – Extraversion – People who tend to focus on the outer world of people and things I – Introversion – People who tend to focus on the inner world of ideas and impressions

S – Sensing – People who tend to focus on the present and the concrete information gained from their senses

N – Intuition – People who tend to focus on the future, with a view toward patterns and possibilities T – Thinking - People who tend to base their decisions on logic and objective analysis of cause and effect

F – Feeling – People who tend to base their decisions primarily on values and on subjective evaluations of person-centered concerns

J – Judgement – People who tend to like a planned and organized approach to life and prefer to have things settled

Personality Types that work well together

ENFP + INFJ – INFJs need to know that what they are doing has meaning and helps people; ENFPs want to work in a creative environment that allows many opportunities to explore and growth with others. Together, this harmonious duo can bring much needed creativity to the workplace.

INFP + ENFJ – In the workplace, INFPs will share their ideas with co-workers, as long as it’s reciprocated by others. ENFJs are natural leaders. They are all about creating an environment where people feel safe to throw in their opinion. The shared open-mindedness of the INFP and ENFJ make for a great team.

INTJ + ESTJ – The INTJ personality type is wildly independent, which would make you think they work best alone, but it’s the ESTJ that can understand the work environment needed for an INTJ while also respected that individualistic nature.

INTP + ENTP – The only difference here is the world in which INTP and ENTP operate in. ENTPs are extroverted and INTPs are introverted. Other than that, they match up pretty nicely, meaning they’ll be able to understand where the other is coming from more often than not.

ISFP + ESFP – Both types value fun. ISFPs are described as charming and genuine, which work great for ESFPs, who value socializing and entertaining.

ISFJ + ISFJ – ISFJ types are unique and value kindness above all else. Finding another ISFJ to work alongside results in total understanding all the personality traits.

ISTJ + ESTP – People with the ISTJ personality type are hardworking employees through and through. ESTP type of people work hard and invest in their duties when they’re a part of a team that pulls its weight.

Limitations

Educators using Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores to provide context for individual and team member behavior may not improve performance or relations within teams (Randall et al., 2017). Additionally, people tend to rely a lot on these tests, but they aren’t flawless, and people if believing those results too much tend to become their team role, strengthening the positive and negative characteristics the role describes. They can get influenced by the test results or even don’t get a promotion or the job they were interested in based on it. This test is just a tool among other that should be use as what it is, an indicator.

2.4.2.1.2 Group roles

Another important aspect of group work is the different roles taken by individuals within the group. A role can be defined as the activities and behaviors expected of a person holding a particular position within a group. A popular way to classify the roles of group members is by dividing them into skills. Indeed, a group must develop the right mix of skills necessary to accomplish the group’s job. Skills requirements fall into three categories (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993):

• Technical or functional expertise. Team must have members skilled in their field as technical knowledge is needed but in addition everyone must possess functional skills in order to communicate with each other and work hand in hand.

• Problem-solving and decision-making skills. Teams must be able to identify the problems and opportunities they face, evaluate the options they have for moving forward, and then make necessary trade-offs and decisions about how to proceed. Most teams need some members with these skills to begin with, although many will develop them best on the job (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

• Interpersonal skills. Common understanding and purpose cannot arise without effective communication and constructive conflict, which in turn depend on interpersonal skills. These include risk taking, helpful criticism, objectivity, active listening, giving the benefit of the doubt, and recognizing the interests and achievements of others (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

2.4.2.2 Leadership

Leadership is defined as “an understanding that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader, emphasizing leader behaviors that focus on follower development and de-emphasizing glorification of the leader” (Shim & Park, 2019).

In other words, a leader is someone who leads the group towards one direction and tries to respect everyone’s best interest.

Often enough, not everyone is going to like the leader of the project. Having people butting heads with the leader or challenging him/her is going to be the biggest challenge. In different cultures, there are different ways to run groups. Each person in the group has different ethics than the rest. Due to these differences, there are going to be a lot of opinions clashing. The leader will have to step up and figure out the best way to get everyone to like the system implemented. Decisive problem solving is integral to effective leadership. This is an important competency for leaders and policy makers to have when facing problematic situations, challenges and issues (Kerns, 2016).