The impact of culture (individualism and collectivism) on

ss

Abstract

This paper aims to measure the kinds of challenges faced by multicultural student

groups and the influence of culture (individualism and collectivism) on student's

perception of importance on each of the challenges discovered. A 19-item questionnaire

was completed by students (N = 234) from different faculties including natural and

social sciences at Linnaeus University, students were from 47 countries. Challenges in

multicultural groups were measured using a Likert scale (from 1 to 5) that assessed

member participation, communication, group processes and group member composition

and analysed by exploratory factor analysis. To examine the differences in perception of

importance of the challenges discovered between individualists and collectivists based

on Hofstede's culture framework, t-tests and Mann-Whitney test were conducted. The

results suggested three main kinds of challenges: culture related challenges, generic

group work challenges and membership resemblance. Membership resemblance was the

only kind of challenge that significantly differed between individualists and collectivists.

Further discussions explaining the results and implementation of this study were

presented.

Keywords: Multicultural group work, challenges, individualism, collectivism, cultural

diversity, teams

Thanks

We would like to thank Abdul Kadir H. Mohammed our supervisor, family and friends

for their continued support and encouragement.

Stellah would like to specially thank the Swedish Institute: this thesis has been

presented during my scholarship period at Linnaeus University thanks to Swedish

Institute Study Scholarship.

THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON MULTICULTURAL GROUP WORK CHALLENGES 1

As organizations are turning into teams to improve productivity and innovation and

the world opening up and becoming more culturally inclusive, the need for graduates who are

skilled in working in culturally diverse teams is increasing. According to the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2013), around 4.3 million students

worldwide are enrolled for university studies outside their home countries and even more

participate in exchange programs. Students venture into studies abroad for various reasons,

usually to expand on their knowledge about what they consider important like quality of

education, language or society. Similarly, over the past decades, the workplace has been

evolving becoming more team oriented. Group based approaches like product development

teams, management teams, autonomous work teams are now more common with companies

(Ahles & Bosworth, 2004). Teams seem to be the future of organizing work and tasks in the

workplace. Dunne and Rawlins (2000) noted that there is an increasing need across the world

for college graduates who are not only prepared for employment but also skilled in team

work.

The modern university environment provides international interaction opportunities

and class group work activities which could be a valuable breeding ground for cultivating

multicultural group work perspectives and skills. However, most internationalization

programs in universities focus on infusing international materials through the course syllabi.

International learning is not only about acquiring knowledge cognitively, it also entails active

participation to improve teamwork skills and understand the dynamics of multicultural group

work (Carroll & Ryan, 2007). According to management literature, teamwork skills are one

of the employability skills that are most attractive to the current employer. Employability

skills refer to the nontechnical skills that are not job specific but important across industries

and job levels (Ahles & Bosworth, 2004).

Multicultural team work experience has been linked to additional benefits over

monoculture teams where they require applying multiple skills and judgements (Earley &

Mosakowski 2000). Current studies on multicultural teamwork have been however on both

ends of the continuum with some scholars arguing on the benefits and richness of cultural

diversity in international organizations (Stahl, Mäkelä, Zander & Maznevski, 2010; Shachaf,

2008) like creativity and decision making; while other studies, viewing cultural diversity

more of a liability than an asset (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Leung and Wang, 2015) by

focusing on problems resulting from cultural diversity like communication. Studies on


multicultural group work are relevant and important to be able to manage teams effectively.

As noted by Behfa, Kern and Brett (2006) challenges experienced by multicultural teams are

more complex and resulted in more serious challenges compared to same culture group

challenges. However, few studies seem to focus on discovering and attending to the specific

challenges. Literature is somehow more fixated on analysing the effects of culture diversity

either as problems or as assets.

In this study, we seek to move away from the continuum and provide an alternative

viewpoint by proposing that multicultural teams can well reap the benefits of effectiveness

and productivity by becoming aware of the challenges that they face and the importance of

culture in these challenges. What makes culture unique to some respect from other sources of

diversity is that culture differentiation is not only below the levels of consciousness, but also

strongly influences thinking and behaviour as defined by values and beliefs (Stahl,

Maznevski, Voigt & Jonsen, 2010). If multicultural teams can identify the challenges they

face as a result of culture, these issues are brought to the surface and can be managed,

improving the group work environment. Consequently, this creates a group work

environment where the strengths of multicultural teams are not confounded by culture related

weakness.

Following the work of Popov et al., (2012) who proposed a theoretical multicultural

framework which reviewed organizational and management research in examining the

challenges inherent in multicultural student teams, we reviewed multicultural group work

challenges literature focusing on cross cultural studies and student group work.

Consequently, our study expands on the scope of participants and has two purposes:

identifying the kind of challenges faced in multicultural group work, and examining the

influence of culture on the importance of the challenges. In what follows, we introduce the

framework based on past literature, on which group level challenges seem to affect

multicultural student group work and further examine in greater detail the impact of culture

diversity on group work. Next, results of this study are presented and discussed. The last part

of the paper presents the limitations, recommendations and implementation of the results.

Theoretical framework

Multicultural student group work will be defined as “a collaboration of two or more

individuals from different (national) cultural backgrounds, who have been assigned

interdependent tasks and are jointly responsible for the final results… in an academic


environment” (Popov et al., 2012). In this paper, the terms “group work” and “team-work”

are used interchangeably. National culture will be defined as “collective programming of the

mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another”

(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001, p. 9). This means that people from a specific nation share

certain characteristics that have been acquired over their lifespan. These characteristics

become evident when people from different countries interact bringing out the diversity as a

result of national cultures.

Diversity in the workplace provides important benefits by bringing in different

perspectives from the different identities, despite this positive outcome the ability to

capitalize on these benefits has been meet with mixed success (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). It is

important therefore for students to be able to work with people who they differ not only in

age, gender, social and educational background but also in cultural backgrounds to prepare

them for the modern work environment. Sweeney, Weaven and Herington (2008) suggested

that when students work in teams they learn better and are more attached to their ideas and

work since they are creating their own experiences. However, this comes with some anxieties

and worries from students. These uncertainties can be minimized if students are aware of the

challenges that multicultural group work might encounter.

Literature reviewed on different aspects of challenges that multicultural groups face

has been summarized into four groups: member participation, communication, group work

processes and member composition (see table 1).

Member participation. This refers to the individual involvement and personal

investment both passively and actively towards group work. Sweeny et al., (2008) found that

issues such as lack of trust among other group members to complete the task on time, one of

the issues that contributes to social-loafing, was reported as a problem in group work.

Additionally, differing attitudes to group work as a result of prior negative or positive group

work experiences was also a problem. Students with negative experiences saw group work as

a hassle or inefficient, while those with positive experiences were optimistic about the

outcome of the group work.

A common problem in student group work is the level of membership

participation. For example some members fail to contribute to their full potential; some

leaders overstep (domineering) and actively or suggestively discourage participation from

other members. This leads to loafing/ free-riding since some feel their contribution

is insignificant and minimize their responsibilities (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003).

http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lnu.se/science/article/pii/S092575351200077X#b0090


On attitudes and motivation towards the multicultural group, Jiacheng, Lu and

Francesco, (2008) proposed that the cognitive process in terms of norms, attitudes and

commitment on knowledge sharing in multicultural teams will influence knowledge sharing

motivation. If there is a clash on the intention, norms, and different attitudes in knowledge

sharing as a result of culture, then low motivation levels may be experienced.

Table 1. Summary of multicultural group work challenges

Multicultural challenges Description Authors

Member participation Social loafing and free-riding Sweeny et al., (2008)

Domineering leaders and members Pfaff and Huddleston,

(2003)

Different attitude and motivation Jiacheng et al., (2008)

Communication Inadequate linguistic skills Von Glinow et al.,

(2004)

Interpersonal skills Matveev and Nelson

(2004)

Communication styles Ochieng and Price

(2010).

Group process Decision making and problem solving Robinson et al. (2014);

du Plessis (2012);

Ochieng & Price

(2009)

Culturally influenced decision making

style

Güss & Dörner (2011)

Conflict management Marquardt and

Horvath (2001); Von

Glinow et al. (2004);

Leung and Wang

(2015)

Defending group decisions and

complying

Oh (2013)

Group management Ochieng & Price

(2009)

Member composition Heterogenenious group composition Stahl et al. (2010)

Differences in ambitions Behfa et al., 2006

Communication. Communication is such a dynamic and multidimensional concept.

Von Glinow, Shapiro, and Brett (2004) argued that communication while specifically

emphasizing on linguistic related challenges in multicultural teams can lead to emotional

conflict. Cross cultural communication in terms of ability to deal with misunderstandings,

ability to discuss and solve problems and team effectiveness are some of the things Matveev

and Nelson (2004) consider important when working multiculturally. Lack of these abilities

may lead to communication challenges within multicultural teams. Additionally, they argue


that high interpersonal skills allow for better communication and competency in multicultural

teams. Behfar, Kern and Brett (2006) also proposed that interpersonal tensions and ego

clashes between team members were some of the issues that let to communication problems.

The problematic context of communication from interpersonal interaction in terms of

language barrier and communication style arise because sometimes culture constraints the

conditions which define the operations, sentiments echoed by Ochieng and Price (2010).

Group processes. Like all other teams, multicultural groups are faced with diverse

problems during the group work process. These refer to operational issues that interfere with

normal group activities and may result to group ineffectiveness. Over the last decade,

scholars have suggested that in multicultural groups, these challenges could be magnified

because of the multiple cultural backgrounds (e.g. Robinson, Hogg & Higgins, 2014; du

Plessis, 2012; Ochieng & Price, 2009).

Marquardt and Horvath (2001) noted cross cultural conflicts and cultural differences as the

most common challenges in multicultural teams. Personal and emotional conflicts are

conflicts that multicultural teams might be prone to; this is due to higher levels of mistrust

and low group cohesion (Von Glinow et al., 2004; Leung & Wang, 2015). Mistrust and low

cohesion may also make it difficult for members to defend team decisions and act as a unit,

whilst not in agreement with the decisions. Oh (2013) found that cultural diversity influenced

group members’ attitudes towards defending decisions and compliance.

Diverse teams like multicultural teams have previously been argued to be good at

problem solving as a result of diverging way of looking at a problem. However, Leung and

Wang (2015) propose that negative social processes resulting from cultural diversity might

interfere with information and decision making processes which facilitate multicultural teams

problem-solving. Previous research also presented that decision making style differences do

exist at country level. For example, Güss and Dörner (2011) showed that decision making

styles are different among German, US participants and Indian, Filipino, and Brazilian

participants.

People usually hold negative attitudes towards what they feel unfamiliar to at first

sight, therefore, apart from the problems stated above, multicultural groups also need to

manage cultural suspicions, cultural trust and cooperation rules (Schmitt, Currie & Delbosc,

2013; Ochieng & Price, 2009). Ochieng and Price (2009) noted that multicultural group

management was important and difficult.


Group member composition. Even in multicultural teams there are potential

benefits of demographic heterogeneity with the availability of multiple perspectives and skill

sets. However, heterogeneity also makes it more difficult for teams multicultural or not to

establish effective group processes (Stahl et al., 2010). This means that although the

theoretical benefits of a diverse group member composition both in demographics and in

skills can be forwarded, it takes more effort to achieve and maintain in practice. Moreover,

members may also have different priorities about the task, both on procedural matters and on

the outcome. These differing ambitions in members of the group may result to challenges

(Behfa et al., 2006). In general, group member composition influences effective multicultural

teamwork. For example, Cheng, Chua, Morris and Le (2012) in their study investigated the

importance of group member composition in self- managing multicultural teams and found it

is a key determinant of cohesiveness and relationships within the group.

After review of literature, multicultural group work challenges presented seem rather

stable while considering both teams in the business world as reviewed by organizational

research and management studies (Popov et. al., 2012) and in cross cultural studies and

student group work as we have presented.

Culture background

Culture impact on students’ perception of multicultural group challenges is a key

process for better understanding multicultural cooperation and facilitating management. In

culture studies, many researchers have provided valuable cultural framework (Hofstede,

2010; Trompennars & Hampden-Turner, 1998), however, it showed great freedom in

researchers’ personal understanding of culture in multicultural studies. Cultural dimension

selection in this study was based on the most productive cultural dimensions in previous

multicultural studies and the relevance of the culture dimensions with group work.

Through examination, individualism and collectivism was a common cultural

dimension and had the strongest impact in multicultural studies compared to other

dimensions (Marcus & Huy, 2013; Schimmack; Oishi & Diener, 2005). In the field of cross-

cultural group work studies, it showed that the differences between individualism and

collectivism mainly presented on group work attitude and behaviours (Paul, Samarah,

Seetharaman & Mykytyn, 2004; Lai, Lam & Lam, 2013). For example, Smith et al., (2011)

suggested that individualistic societies emphasise more on goal achievement and task


fulfilment, in contrast, collectivistic societies emphasise on personal relationship in group

work.

Additionally, since this study aimed at the work environment, Hofstede’s culture

framework was chosen. The framework was build up on organizational research and has been

re-examined and showed a continuous robust validity in a large scope of even recent studies

and is closely related with group work (Beugelsdijk, Maseland & van Hoorn 2015; Gelfand,

Erez & Aycan, 2007; Metcalf & Bird, 2004). Apart from Hofstede’s framework being the

most widely used national culture framework in psychological studies, it is also extensive and

robust in terms of national culture samples making it exclusive compared to other

frameworks (Soares, Farhangmehr & Shoham, 2007). In this study, Hofstede’s individualism

and collectivism index will be adopted to measuring the cultural impact on student’s

perceptions.

According to Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010), the differences between

individualism and collectivism in group work are stated as below. Collectivism concerns

power of the group and people from collectivistic societies are more likely to identify

themselves with group, in terms of “we”, and share a value that the group interest overweight

individual’s interest. On the other hand, individualism present values in an opposite way.

People from individualistic societies consider individual interest more valuable and more

likely to identify themselves with “I”.

Research questions

In line with this study’s purpose, two research questions are addressed:

RQ1: What kind of challenges do multicultural student group work face?

RQ2: How do students differ in their perception of importance of each of the challenges

discovered based on culture (Individualism-Collectivism)?

Method

Participants

This research was conducted at Linnaeus University- Växjö campus in courses where

English was the language of instruction. The aim was to attract participants from different

countries. Convenience sampling was used, only participants with previous group-work


experiences were included in this study. The students were from different faculties including

natural and social sciences. They were either enrolled in bachelors or master studies.

Participants in this research (N = 234) comprised of 25.6% Swedish students and

74.4% international students. The international students came from 46 countries with

majority of them from China (11.5%), Germany (9.4%) and Iran (6.4%). Five participants

identified themselves with dual-nationalities. The respondents were 50.9% female with a

mean age of 24.34 (SD = 4.65).

Measurement

Group work: The measurement was adapted from the Multicultural Study Group

Questionnaire - MCSG (Popov et al., 2012). The MCSG is a 19 item self-report questionnaire

that measures group work challenge perceptions. For this study, the MCSG was modified into

statements that could be generalized to measure group work experiences. The modified

MCSG also included demographic questions on nationality, gender and age. The modified

MCSG questionnaire attempted to measure four group level dynamics: member participation

(e.g. I find it challenging to work in groups that one team member imposes his /her own

visions and ideas on others), communication (e.g. I find it challenging to work in group that

team members have insufficient English language skills), group processes (e.g. I find it

challenging to work in groups which have conflict) and group member composition (e.g. it is

important for me to work in groups that team members have similar knowledge

backgrounds). For each item, responses were on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Culture: Hofstede cultural dimension (2010) was used to categorize countries into

individualism and collectivism (see fig 1). The index ranges from 1 (collectivism) to 100

(individualism). Countries with values between 45 and 55 were excluded to contrast

individualism and collectivism. Dual-nationalities did not obtain a value and were therefore

excluded. Countries that did not have a value at the individualism and collectivism dimension

in Hofstede’s cultural index were also excluded.


Fig.1. individualism and collectivism values for countries using Hofstede's Cultural Index

and No. of participants per country

Design & Procedure

An exploratory design was used, comprising of two steps to understand the structure

of group work challenges and to detect cultural influence on group work challenge

perceptions. Participants were given information about the research which was on their

school group work experience. Instructions for participating, and assurances regarding the

confidentiality of all data collected before responding were given. Response time was also

emphasized. Their participation was entirely voluntary.

Statistical Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis. To extract underlying factors, exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) was run and Cronbach's Alpha was computed to examine their internal

reliability.

Before conducting the analysis, suitability for running a factor analysis was checked

and the data was found adequate for analysis. 5-10 participants per variable or above 200

participants has previously been recommended by researchers (Kass & Tinsley, 1979; Field,

2009), therefore, in this research, participants’ adequacy was met. Z -scores (> 3.29) and

Mahalanobis distance by use of critical values were used to detect and delete univariate and

multivariate outliers respectively (Swisher, Beckstead & Bebeau, 2004). Listwise deletion

was specified for Principal Component Analysis in order to exclude incomplete responses


which is typical in EFA (Maxwell, 2014; McPherson, Barbosa-Leiker, Bums, Howell & Roll,

2012).

t-test and Mann-Whitney. In order to compare students' perceptions on each

multicultural group-work challenges discovered based on culture (Individualism-

Collectivism), independent t-tests were conducted and the Mann-Whitney test was used

where the parametric assumptions were not met.

Results

Principal component analysis was conducted on the 19 items from the adopted MCSG

questionnaire. Two items were excluded due to low inter-item correlations which was an

indication of poor relationships (Field, 2009; Tabachinick & Fidell, 2006). Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy, KMO = .76, exceeded the recommended minimum

value of .50. Although the KMO value was good, on examining the anti-image matrices

which detect the KMO values for individual variables, three items did not meet the

recommended matrix value of .50 and were also excluded leaving the analysis with 14 items.

(Field, 2009)

The final, PCA using direct oblimin rotation extracted four factors with eigenvalues

(>1) and examining a scree-plot. The scree-plot although slightly ambiguous, started tailing

off after 4 factors supporting factors obtained from eigenvalues. The combined factors

explained 55.08% of the total variance. On checking the pattern matrix, two items loaded to

more than one factor. The items were retained to the factor in which they had higher loadings.

However, considering the reasons stated below, only the first three factors were retained from

the extraction. First, items in factor 4 did not share any common ‘underlying theme’. Second,

the factor had an extremely low Cronbach Alpha (α = .07), an indication that the items may

not be a reliable measure for Factor 4. Moreover, researchers are not bound to factors

extracted by SPSS, it is upon them to make ‘critical judgements’ (Field, 2009).

The adopted MCSG therefore resulted in three factors showed in Table 2 with the

final loadings of items on each of the factors as well as their Cronbach’s alpha. The three

factors were labelled as Factor 1 (culture related challenges), Factor 2 (generic group work

challenges), and Factor 3 (membership resemblance). Culture related challenges refer to

issues within the group that are as a result of having people from diverse cultural

backgrounds. Generic group work challenges are universal issues that frequently occur across


both heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. Membership resemblance refers to issues that

come up when working with people whom one perceives as significantly different from

them.

In order to investigate differences between cultures on the discovered factors, t-tests

and Mann-Whitney Test were conducted. The Mann-Whitney result showed there was no

significant effect of culture on Generic group-work challenges. Individualists (Mdn = 2.67)

did not differ significantly from collectivists (Mdn = 3.00), U = 4057, p = .29. The

Table 2: Summary of Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Direct Oblimin Rotation for the

adopted MCSG questionnaire (N =234)

Scale

culture related challenges (α =. 74)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

I find it challenging to work in groups that members have

different styles of decision making and problem-solving because

of cultural backgrounds

0.761

I find it challenging to work in groups that members have

different styles of complying with supervisor's guidelines because

of cultural backgrounds

0.858

I find it challenging to work in groups that team members have

different styles of conflict management because of cultural

differences

0.751

Generic group work challenges (α = .69)

I find it challenging to work in groups where some team members

are free-riding (do not contribute to the team work in their full

potential)

-0.705

I find it challenging to work in groups that have conflict

-0.750

I find it challenging to work in groups that one team member

imposes his/her own visions and ideas on the others

-0.520

I find it challenging to work in groups that has ineffective

teamwork management

-0.622

It is important for me to work in groups that members have

similar ambitions (for example, not a group where some members

aim to get 60% when others aim to get 90%)

-0.574

Membership resemblance (α = .54)

It is important for me to work in groups that team members have

similar knowledge backgrounds

0.695

It is important for me to work in groups whose team members are

homogeneous (for example similarities in age, gender, culture)

0.727

It is important for me to work in groups that team members have

similar academic attitudes

0.714

Eigen Values

3.478 1.794 1.382

% of variance

24.841 12.813 9.873

Note1: Only factor loadings over .40 reported


independent t-test on Culture related challenges t (189) = -.99, p = .32 indicated a non-

significant difference between the two cultures. However, on Membership resemblance t (189)

= -2.33, p = .02, r = .17, results indicated there was a statistical significant difference based

on culture. Further analysis showed students from both cultures differed in perceptions of all

identified challenges (see table 3).

Table 3: Summary of means (M) & standard deviations (SD) for identified challenges

CHALLENGES CULTURE M (SD)

Culture related Collectivistic M = 3.20, SD = .86

Individualistic M =3.09, SD = .83

Generic group work Collectivistic M =3.52, SD = .81

Individualistic M =3.69, SD = .70

Membership resemblance* Collectivistic M = 2.93, SD = .86

Individualistic M = 2.61, SD = .79

* p < .05

Discussion

Following the first aim of this study, three main kinds of challenges were identified:

cultural-related group work challenges, generic group-work challenges and membership

resemblance. To fulfill the second aim, a further analysis revealed that students’ cultural

background only had an impact on how students perceive membership resemblance with

collectivistic students viewing it more important in group work than individualistic students

did.

Culture related group work challenges refer to issues that come up with working in a

culturally diverse environment and include aspects of different ways of complying with

guidelines, decision making, problem solving and conflict management. Although group

work challenges do arise even in groups where members have a shared culture, these

difficulties are usually heightened when members have different cultures - sentiments shared

by Strauss and U, (2007). This comes about as culture influences people's attitudes towards

authority as well as norms. Attitudes towards cultural differences have been noted as a

potential barrier to intercultural interactions with some societies emphasizing shared meaning

while others emphasizing more on uniqueness and openness (Nesdale, 2000; Sosik & Jung,

2002). Additionally, values carried by different cultures influence people’s thinking styles

due to different modes of information processing. Societies with analytic thinking styles

mainly focus on important information while, societies with holistic thinking styles spend


time on both important and less crucial information. These two styles of information

processing lead to different decision making styles (Li, Masuda & Russell, 2015; Podrug,

2011; Mann et al., 1998). These culturally inherent attitudes, values and thinking styles result

in different cultures presenting diverse ways of decision making, complying with deadlines,

problem solving and conflict management, which makes culture important or challenging

in multicultural group work.

It is interesting to note that despite aspects such as richness in creative information

processing, decision making and problem-solving, that make researchers argue that diverse

teams outperform homogeneous teams (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004); the

richness that cultural diversity brings also emerges as one of the major challenges facing

multicultural teams. Cultural diversity makes it harder for multicultural teams to make

decisions and increases the possibility of conflicts, making team-work even more tasking

since multicultural groups might be slower at overcoming their divergence and developing

cooperative norms. Similar results were reported by Chatman and Flynn (2010), while Stahl

et al., (2010) in a meta-analysis found a positive relationship between cultural diversity and

task conflict in schools where teams worked towards set goals.

The other side of culture diversity therefore cannot be ignored in the role it plays in

group work. Although studies have shown the importance of diversity, the benefits can only

be met when teams are able to identify and cope with the challenges that culture introduces to

multicultural group work.

Generic group work challenges include common issues that groups usually face like

free-riding, differences in ambition, conflicts, domineering team member and ineffective

team management. Harrison, Price and Bell (1998) found that attitudes and values, core

components of culture, are overall more important than surface level variables like

demographic factors in determining social-functioning in groups. However, the surface level

factors, although not as important, pose as challenges regardless of group member

composition. The factors could include individual differences in personality, ambitions and

drive and are unavoidable in group work. Differing in attitudes and behaviours, members’

personal preferences in group work might deprive the group of healthy task process and

group member relationships (Pelled, 1996; Ely & Thomas, 2001).

Group work is a collaborative working format which means the outcome should be a

collective result of each individual. Generic challenges introduce social and personal

differences further intensifying the challenges faced by multicultural group work. Free riding


is one of the aspects contributing to the generic group work challenges in multicultural group

work. This could be a result of students’ attraction and perception towards group cohesion:

students could either perceive the group as capable without their contribution or could feel

they are inadequate resulting to free riding (Høigaard, Säfvenbom & Tønnessen, 2006). In

agreement with our study, previous studies like Hall and Buzwell (2012) and Burdett (2003),

found unequal distribution of effort like free riding as one of the greatest concern in student

teams across all disciplines.

Similar to differences in participation stated above, group members may also have

different goals in what they want from group work. Although earlier studies argued that there

were cultural differences in distinctiveness (Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao & Sinha, 1995),

current research suggests that distinctiveness like having differences in ambition is more of a

universal drive that everyone possesses, but it is expressed differently and given different

weight depending on culture (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). These recent findings resonate with

our results where multicultural teams found different ambitions among them to be a challenge.

Although conflict came up as a cultural related challenge, it is also an issue in

multicultural groups without necessarily being a result of culture. Member differences such

as different ways of thinking, or differing opinions in how to get things done in the group

could also contribute to conflict. Similar results were found by Montgomery (2009) and

Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin (1999) supporting the findings that conflicts within multicultural

groups can be a result of differing directions on the task or even personality differences and

not explicitly a result of national cultures.

Membership resemblance challenges refer to an individual's similarity appraisal

compared to other members in the group and the issues that come up when one perceives

others as being significantly different. Membership resemblance measures the degree of

importance students place on working with members who have similar characteristics. This

could be shared interests, knowledge background, and age. This appraisal is a universal and

necessary process and occurrence that is not necessarily a negative attribute. Membership

categorization based on similarities could act as a self-image reflection that helps building up

positive relations, and also helps people reduce chaos and confusion by creating meaning

(Iles & Hayers, 1997; Earley, 1993).

These innate processes allow for people to discriminate opportunities from threats.

However it might also lead to biases, stereotypes and prejudices, which result in failures of

mutual understanding and cooperation in multicultural group work. Members who appraise


others as being significantly different may hold inadequate or incomplete images that

consciously or unconsciously influence their cognitions and interactions. For instance, they

may adapt their communication styles based on stereotypes or cognitively hold negative

attributes towards multiculturalism, creating tension within the multicultural group. Similar

opinions are shared by Iles and Hayers (1997). Additionally, differences in nationalities

regarding value systems and norms heighten membership resemblance challenges, making it

more likely to become an issue in multicultural group-work.

It is important to note that although literature on membership resemblance issues such

as prejudices and social categorization have been extensively reviewed for example in

Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, and Esses (2010) and Brewer and Gaertner (2004), it appears

current empirical research on the subject matter is limited.

Addressing low Cronbach alpha. Although the factor (membership resemblance

challenges) resulted in a low level Cronbach alpha of (α = .54), further considerations were

given since the items in the factor shared a common and interesting theme. Keeping in mind

that statistical results like the Cronbach alpha based on a single test administration convey

little information about the measurement adequacy (Sijtsma, 2009), a low Cronbach alpha

value alone might not be enough to dismiss the factor. In his paper, Cortina (1993) notes

“...those who make decisions about the adequacy of a scale on the basis of nothing more than

a level of alpha are missing the point.... The level of reliability that is adequate depends on

the decision that is made with the scale. The finer the distinction that needs to be made, the

better the reliability must be” (p.101). Considering there were only three items in this scale, a

low Cronbach alpha value could be expected and a further development of the measurement

by adding more reliable items could improve the internal consistency (Schmitt, 1996).

Moreover, Padilla (2004) argued that in multicultural research, a Cronbach alpha of .50 is

acceptable for outcomes measuring differences between groups without intervention. Based

on these arguments we decided to retain membership resemblance as an important factor in

this study as well as a starting point for future investigations.

The second aim of the study was to find out how students differed in their perception

of importance of each of the challenges discovered based on culture (Individualism-

Collectivism). The results showed there were no significant differences in perception of

culture related challenges and generic group work challenges between students from

individualistic and collectivistic cultures. These results were not consistent with previous


research which suggested that generic challenges were more problematic among students

from individualistic cultures than collectivistic cultures, while cultural related challenges

were perceived more important among collectivists (Popov et al., 2012).

With the world becoming more open and cultural interactions more common than in

the past, the view on working multiculturally, especially among young people has shifted

over the years. Although previous studies noted differences among cultures on challenges

when working in teams (Sosik & Jung, 2002; Popov et al., 2012), this study found that these

differences were not significant within student groups for culture related and generic group

work challenges.

The first reason could be data collection was conducted in the spring semester when

most students had already spent the fall in the multicultural environment. Previous

multicultural experience, including studying in a multicultural school, working in

multicultural groups and growing up in multicultural family, will build up positive attitudes

towards multicultural environment. This is developed by appreciating the value of shared

interests and mutual commitment towards the task which overcomes the cultural differences,

consistent with findings by Volet (2004) and Volet and Ang (2012). However, this does not

mean the generic and culture related group work challenges will be less important in

multicultural group work, it only might diminish the perceptional differences between

cultures. In this study, the participants, regardless of culture, had previous multicultural group

work experience.

Secondly, multicultural studies could be very sensitive to contexts such as time.

Gruenfeld (1996) and Koutrouba, Kariotaki, and Christopoulos (2012) found a positive

relation between familiarity and group work. Data collection in this research was conducted

at the end of a course period, when students had already been exposed to their class study

groups. During this time, students with different culture background, had naturally gotten

more familiar with each other, and more likely to have developed cooperation norms.

Therefore, the cultural differences between collectivism and individualism on the perceptions

of group work challenges could have been minimized. Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen

(1993) also showed that time duration would minimize the influence of culture on group

work.

Thirdly, perspectives held on diversity in group work affects how groups manage the

difficulties that arise when working multiculturally, and how people interpret the meaning of

the differences. This has implications on group work processes. It means recognizing the

strengths and skillsets brought in by different members. Ely and Thomas (2001) found that in


a diverse workforce which focuses on harnessing skills, insights and experiences of members,

provides the rationale for sustained benefits of diversity. The non-significant differences

recorded between the cultures could be because the interpretation of meaning of the

challenges was different, especially due to the international nature of the group and

internationalization as a modern concept.

Montgomery (2009), who did a comparison of how internationalisation had

influenced student group work between 1998 and 2008 found that students’ views on

multicultural teams had changed greatly. Although students were still culturally aware, they

seemed to have developed a positive social perspective towards multicultural teams. Conflict

in groups had shifted from being associated with national culture differences in student

groups to variation and differences in opinions and designs on how to get things done. This

could explain for example why there were no significant differences in culture related

challenges.

Membership resemblance challenge was the only kind of challenge that showed

significant differences. Students from collectivistic cultures scored slightly higher indicating

that this was more likely to be an issue in multicultural group work compared to students

from individualistic cultures.

Working in a multicultural group, members usually prefer to cooperate with people

who they share similarities with, such as knowledge background, attitudes and so on. This

could help build up interpersonal connections, facilitate group work communication and ease

misunderstandings. Similar results were found in an empirical study conducted by Volet and

Ang (2012).

Collectivist societies emphasize more on harmony and group association therefore

making shared similarities important, while individualistic cultures are more open to

uniqueness and openness, meaning that membership resemblance may not be as important as

it is in multicultural interactions (Kim & Markus, 1999). Additionally, compared to

collectivistic societies who tend to get their identities and sense of belonging from the group,

individualistic societies are marked as more independent on self-identity (Hofstede et al.,

2010). In multicultural group work, the group identity, to some extent, relies on the amount

of shared characteristics. Considering that collectivistic students depend more on group

association, it might be a reason why students from collectivistic societies would perceive

membership resemblance as more important than the individualistic students.


Alternatively, it could be the thinking styles that are influenced by cultural values. Li,

Masuda and Russell (2015) also found that analytical thinking style is more typical in

individualistic societies, while holistic thinking style is more common in collectivistic

societies. This means that, in group tasks, collectivists are also concerned with other elements

of group work apart from the task itself, while individualists are more concern with the task

and satisfying personal goals. Students in both cultures will consider membership

resemblance attributes; however, it may be more important to collectivists who consider a

wider view of the group work process, consistent with Popov et al., (2012).

It should be noted that compared to the other challenges (culture related challenges

and generic group work challenges), membership resemblance was the least important

challenge among the multicultural student challenges. As noted earlier, searching for

resemblance is rather a universal and natural occurrence which carries both positive and

negative attributes. The slight differences between individualists and collectivists might

indicate a minimal impact on students’ group work attitudes and behaviours. Moreover,

participants previous multicultural work experience helps establish positive attitudes towards

multicultural group, and exposure to group members given them a sense of familiarity,

minimizing the effects of membership resemblance as a challenge.

A few limitations in this research are noted. Firstly, there was a procedural flaw.

Although respondents were part of a multicultural class, no clear guideline was given on

which experiences to recall. Respondents could have chosen from worst to best multicultural

experiences. In retrospect, it would have been better to ask participants to think of their latest

multicultural student group work experience when responding to the questionnaire to reduce

bias on the group work experience they choose to recall. Additionally, effects of other

variable not controlled for within the scope of our study, such as time (length of group

interaction), type of the task and group size should be considered in future investigations or

studies. Hofstede cultural dimension also raised a concern. Although data from Hofstede’s

dimensions dates back, change in culture is very slow and relative cultural differences which

are the focus should be very stable. Hofstede argues that cultural changes enough to

invalidate the index scores is not foreseen in the near future - perhaps till 2100 (Sivakumar &

Nakata, 2001; Hofstede 2001). Even so, we acknowledge that there are limitations with

Hofstede's cultural index (see Schimmack, Oishi and Diener, 2005). Internationalisation,

migration and multicultural families are becoming more common, future multicultural studies

could take this into consideration and use alternative cultural frameworks (e.g.,


Hofstede/Triandis’ combined index of individualism-collectivism) when measuring

individualism and collectivism, as suggested by Popov et al. (2012).

Implementation and Future Suggestions. This study identified three kinds of

challenges that multicultural group work could encounter. By identifying the weakness and

challenges in multicultural teams, students can build effective multicultural teams that boost

numerous benefits. These benefits include the competitive advantage students may gain on

having worked in multicultural groups that employers are growing keen to. Teams are

becoming a key part in contemporary organizations and multicultural teams are more

common with global companies and migration. Utilization of a tool measuring multicultural

challenges could assist organizations prepare their multicultural teams better, ripping the

associated benefits like creativity and innovation. Numerous studies have also found and

argued the immense potential and benefits of multicultural group work from more effective

problem solving to novel ways of making decisions in groups (Watson et al., 1993; Fowler,

Gudmundsson & Whicker, 2006). These benefits cannot be realized if multicultural teams are

not even aware of their weaknesses. “Man know thyself” - Socrates.

Universities, as organizations can provide an environment where international

students can experiment with multicultural teams. Universities should therefore play a more

proactive role in packaging multicultural group work experiences as skills students can

acquire. Our results could be valuable for universities to help multicultural teams to identify

their challenges and develop productive measures/skills to deal with their weakness. Such

skills are important future employability skills attractive to most employers. As Carroll and

Ryan (2007) note institutions which are serious in internationalization of higher learning can

create spaces that foster intercultural learning through multi-cultural group work.

Consistent with internationalization, this study also shows that culture although

important is becoming less of an issue when defining student perceptions as a result of

exposure to exchange programs, international student organizations, studying abroad and

multicultural families. When culture becomes the context and not the subject it becomes

easier to identify other issues that multicultural teams might need to focus on. Instead of

attributing multicultural group work challenges to cultural differences, the group can

concentrate on the actual problems and exploit the diverse skills that team members bring.

Recognizing this change could help both managers and future researchers to better manage

multicultural groups.


Our research is a stepping stone on member resemblance challenges, where empirical

research is scarce, when it comes to exploring how similarities and differences impact

multicultural interactions. Future research could explore on resemblance issues and build up a

longer scale to reliably measure its influence on multicultural group work.

Conclusion

Team work as a basic working format, is growing popular among international

companies and organizations. Multicultural group work experience can be an attractive

employability skill for graduates who will work in the international environment. Identifying

the kinds of challenges in multicultural group work can provide a foundation for

understanding group work dynamics and help improve management.

The purpose of this study was to discover the kinds of challenges multicultural

student group work face and the role culture plays in determining the importance of these

challenges. The study highlighted the benefits of identifying kinds of challenges as an

important starting point of building up effective multicultural teams and how

internationalization is changing the culture aspect from subject to context. The role

universities can play to prepare students for the international workplace by providing a

learning platform especially practically was suggested.

The overall findings of this study can be summarized to mean that multicultural

student group work does present challenges including culture related challenges. However,

culture neither appears to be the cause of the most important challenge to student teams nor

an obvious influencer on how students differ in perception of challenges. These findings can

be instrumental to both educators and organizations when managing multicultural teams in

the modern environment. Taking advantage of cultural diversity as a team work resource and

exploring other non-cultural aspects of team work that may pose as challenges to the team

could help build more productive and successful teams.


References

Ahles, C. B., & Bosworth, C. C. (2004). The perception and reality of student and workplace

teams. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59(1), 41-59.

Behfar, K., Kern, M., & Brett, J. (2006). Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams.

Research On Managing Groups & Teams, 9, 233-262. doi:10.1016/S1534-

0856(06)09010-4

Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are Scores on Hofstede's

Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy

Journal, 5(3), 223-240. doi:10.1002/gsj.1098

Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup contact

and social categorization. Self and Social Identity, 298-318.

Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: University students’ perceptions. International

Education Journal, 4(3), 177-191.

Carroll, J., & Ryan, J. (2005). Teaching international students: improving learning for all.

London; Routledge, 2005.

Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the

emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974.

Cheng, C. Y., Chua, R. Y., Morris, M. W., & Lee, L. (2012). Finding the right mix: How the

composition of self‐managing multicultural teams' cultural value orientation

influences performance over time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 389-411.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104

DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global

management. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 45—63.

Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and

discrimination: theoretical and empirical overview. In Y. Laberge (Ed.), The SAGE

Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. (3 - 29). Recherches

Sociologiques: Et Anthropologiques.

du Plessis, Y. (2012). Exploring teamwork paradoxes challenging 21st-century cross-cultural

conflict management in a multicultural organizational context. International Journal Of

Cross Cultural Management, 12(1), 49-71. doi:10.1177/1470595811413108


Dunne, E., & Rawlins, M. (2000). Bridging the gap between industry and higher education:

Training academics to promote student teamwork. Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 37(4), 361-371.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets Mideast: further explorations of collectivistic and

individualistic work groups. Academy Of Management Journal, 36(2), 319-348.

doi:10.2307/256525

Earley, C. P., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of

transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26-49.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity

Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.

Fowler, J. L., Gudmundsson, A. J., & Whicker, L. M. (2006). Groups work! A guide for

working in groups. Bowen Hills, Austraila: Australian Academic Press

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M. & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual

Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559

Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group

Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information

Distribution Affect Process and Performance. Organizational Behavior & Human

Decision Processes, 67(1), 1-15.

Güss, C. D., & Dörner, D. (2011). Cultural differences in dynamic decision-making strategies

in a non-linear, time-delayed task. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(3-4), 365-376.

doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.12.003

Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The Problem of Free-Riding in Group Projects: Looking

beyond Social Loafing as Reason for Non-Contribution. Active Learning In Higher

Education, 14(1), 37-49.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and

the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of

management journal, 41(1), 96-107.

Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values,

behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.


Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations.

[electronic resource]: software of the mind: international cooperation and its

importance for survival. New York; London: McGraw-Hill, c2010.

Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to

belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3),

248-264.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).

Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand

Oaks: SAGE.

Høigaard, R., Säfvenbom, R., & Tønnessen, F. E. (2006). The relationship between group

cohesion, group norms, and perceived social loafing in soccer teams. Small Group

Research, 37(3), 217-232.

Iles, P., & Kaur Hayers, P. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A

tentative model and case study. Journal of managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95-117.

Jiacheng, W., Lu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-organizational

knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Journal of

Information Management, 30(3), 220-230.

Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120-

138.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A

cultural analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(4), 785-800.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785

Koutrouba, K., Kariotaki, M., & Christopoulos, I. (2012). Secondary Education Students'

Preferences Regarding Their Participation in Group Work: The Case of Greece.

Improving Schools, 15(3), 245-259

Lai, J. M., Lam, L. W., & Lam, S. K. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior in work

groups: A team cultural perspective. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 1039-

1056.

Leung, K., & Wang, J. (2015). Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: A

socio‐technical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 1008-1025.

doi:10.1002/job.2021

Li, L. W., Masuda, T., & Russell, M. J. (2015). Culture and decision‐making: Investigating

cultural variations in the East Asian and North American online decision‐making


processes. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 18(3), 183-191.

doi:10.1111/ajsp.12099

Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., & ... Yang, K. (1998).

Cross-cultural Differences in Self-reported Decision-making Style and Confidence.

International Journal Of Psychology, 33(5), 325-335. doi:10.1080/002075998400213

Marcus, J., & Huy, L. (2013). Interactive effects of levels of individualism-collectivism on

cooperation: a meta-analysis. Journal Of Organizational Behaviour, 34(6), 813-834.

doi:10.1002/job.1875

Marquardt, M. J. and Horvath, L. (2001) Global Teams: How Top Multinationals Span

Boundaries and Cultures with High-speed Teamwork. Palo Alto, Calif: Davies-Black

Publishing.

Matveev, A. V., & Nelson, P. E. (2004). Cross cultural communication competence and

multicultural team performance perceptions of American and Russian managers.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,4(2), 253-270.

Maxwell, R. A., (2014). Exploratory Factor Analysis of Body Dysmorphic Disorder

Symptom Clusters. Published Masters Theses. Eastern Illinois University. Paper 1263.

http://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/1263

McPherson, S., Barbosa-Leiker, C., Bums, G., Howell, D., & Roll, J. (20 1 2) .Missing data

in substance abuse treatment research: Current methods and modern approaches.

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20(3), 243-250.

Metcalf, L. & Bird, A. (2004). Integrating the Hofstede Dimensions and twelve aspects of

negotiating behavior: A six country comparison. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester

(Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp.

251–269). Amsterdam: Brill.

Montgomery, C. (2009). A Decade of Internationalisation: Has It Influenced Students' Views

of Cross-Cultural Group Work at University?. Journal Of Studies In International

Education, 13(2), 256-270.

Nesdale, D. (2000). Children’s ethnic prejudice: A comparison of approaches. Transcending

Boundaries: Intergrating People, Processes and Systems, 302-209

Ochieng, E. G. & Price, A. D. (2009). Framework for managing multicultural project teams.

Engineering Construction & Architectural Management (09699988), 16(6), 527-543.

doi:10.1108/09699080911002557

http://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/1263


Ochieng, E. G & Price, A. D (2010). Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural

construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. International Journal Of

Project Management, 28(5), 449-460. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.001.

OECD (2013), “How many students study abroad and where do they go?”, in Education at a

Glance 2013: Highlights, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag_highlights-

2013-12-en

Oh, S. (2013). Do collectivists conform more than individualists? Cross-cultural differences

in compliance and internalization. Social Behavior And Personality, 41(6), 981-994.

doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.6.981

Padilla, A.M. (2004). Quantitative Methods in Multicultural Education Research. In J. A.

Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education

(127-145). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass; Chichester: John Wiley, cop.

Paul, S., Samarah, I. M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn Jr., P. P. (2004). An Empirical

Investigation of Collaborative Conflict Management Style in Group Support System-

Based Global Virtual Teams. Journal Of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 185-

222.

Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An

intervening process theory. Organization science, 7(6), 615-631.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis

of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.

Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student

attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37-45.

Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of National Culture on Decision-Making Style. South East

European Journal of Economics & Business (1840118X), 6 (1), 37-44. doi: 10.2478 /

v10033-011-0004-0

Popov, V., Brinkman, D., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., Kuznetsov, A., & Noroozi, O. (2012).

Multicultural student group work in higher education: An explorative case study on

challenges as perceived by students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

36(2), 302-317.

Robinson, L., Hogg, P., & Higgins, R. (2014). An observational study of cross-cultural

communication in short-term diverse professional learning groups. Radiography, 20(4),

356-362 7p. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2014.06.007


Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2005). Individualism: A valid and important

dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 9(1), 17-31.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_2

Schmitt, L., Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2013). Measuring the impact of unfamiliar transit

travel using a university access survey. Transport Policy, 30, 301-307.

doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.003

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4),

350-353. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350

Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology

impacts on global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information & Management,

45(2), 131-142.

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s

alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.

Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede's framework: Avoiding

the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of international business

studies, 555-574.

Smith, P. B., Torres, C. V., Hecker, J., Chua, C. H., Chudzikova, A., Degirmencioglu, S., &

… Yanchuk, V. (2011). Individualism–collectivism and business context as predictors

of behaviors in cross-national work settings: Incidence and outcomes. International

Journal Of Intercultural Relations, 35440-451. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.001

Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede's dimensions of culture in

international marketing studies. Journal of business research, 60(3), 277-284.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.018

Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Work-group characteristics and performance in

collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The Journal of social psychology, 142(1), 5-

23.

Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of

cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups.

Journal Of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690-709. doi:10.1057/jihs.2009.85

Stahl, G. K., Mäkelä, K., Zander, L., & Maznevski, M. L. (2010). A look at the bright side of

multicultural team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4), 439-447.

Strauss, P. & U, A. (2007). Group assessments: dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural

tertiary classrooms. High Education Research & Development, 26(2), 147-161.


Sweeney, A., Weaven, S., & Herington, C. (2008). Multicultural influences on group

learning: A qualitative higher education study. Assessment & evaluation in higher

education, 33(2), 119-132.

Swisher, L. L., Beckstead, J. W., & Bebeau, M. J. (2004). Factor analysis as a tool for survey

analysis using a professional role orientation inventory as an example. Physical

Therapy, 84(9), 784-799.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA : Allyn

and Bacon, 2006.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. M. (1998). Riding the waves of culture:

Understanding cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Triandis, H. C., Chan, D. K. S., Bhawuk, D. P., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. B. (1995). Multimethod

probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Journal of Psychology, 30(4),

461-480.

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work Group Diversity and

Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. Journal Of Applied

Psychology, 89(6), 1008-1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

Volet, S. (2004). Challenges of internationalisation: Enhancing intercultural competence and

skills for critical reflection on the situated and non-neutral nature of knowledge.

Language and academic skills in higher education, 6, 1-10.

Volet, S. E. & Ang. G. (2012) Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: an

opportunity for inter-cultural learning, Higher Education Research & Development,

31:1, 21-37, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.642838

Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Can we talk, and should we?

Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management review,

29(4), 578-592. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.14497611

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on

interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.

Academy Of Management Journal, 36(3), 590-602. doi:10.2307/256593

THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON MULTICULTURAL GROUP WORK CHALLENGES I

Appendix

Instruction for the Questionnaire: Hello, my name is Vera (Shuangjie) and my name is Stellah. We are master students from the organizational psychology department here at Linnaeus University.

Today we would like to ask for your help to fill in this questionnaire for our study.  The purpose of our study is to find out about your experiences at school, especially as international students. The questionnaire is about your experiences in team/group work. It will take you approximately 10mins to complete the both parts of the questionnaire. Your responses will be confidential. You do not need to write your name on the questionnaire. Your participation in this study is voluntary and it will be highly appreciated.

THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON MULTICULTURAL GROUP WORK CHALLENGES II

Introduction Below are statements about your experiences working in groups. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend

too much time on one statement; your responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Please try not to skip any item.

This Questionnaire Approximately takes 10 mins to complete.

Have you ever worked with a person or people from a different country? Yes No

Gender: Female

Male

Age: _____ Nationality: __________________

Listed below are problems or challenges that might happen in your team/group work, to what extent do you agree or disagree? Please rate your answers from

1= strongly disagree; 2= slightly disagree; 3= neutral; 4= slightly agree; 5 = strongly agree;

Questions 1 2 3 4 5

1 I find it challenging to work in groups where some team members are free-riding (do not contribute

to the team work in their full potential)

2 I find it challenging to work in groups which have conflict

3 I find it challenging to work in groups that one team member imposes his/her own visions and

ideas on the others

4 It is important for me to work in groups that team members have similar knowledge backgrounds

5 It is important for me to work in groups whose team members are homogeneous (for example

similarities in age, gender, culture)

6 It is important for me to work in groups that team members have similar academic attitudes

7 I find it challenging to work in groups that team members do not communicate properly with

fellow members and teachers

8 I find it challenging to work in groups that team members have insufficient English language skills

9 I find it easy to work in groups that team members have different attitude towards deadlines (some

students want to complete assignments directly/immediately, others wait for the deadline)

10 I find it challenging to work in groups that has ineffective teamwork management

11 I feel pressure when I need to defend team decisions whilst not agreeing with these decisions

12 It is important for me to work in groups that members have similar ambitions (for example, not a

group where some members aim to get 60% when others aim to get 90%)

13 I find it challenging to work in groups that team members have attitude problems such as dislike,

mistrust and lack of group cohesion

14 I find it challenging to work in groups that have a low level of motivation

15 I find it easy to work in groups that members have different ways of interaction because of cultural

background

16 I find it challenging to work in groups that members have different styles of decision making and

problem-solving because of cultural backgrounds

17 I find it challenging to work in groups that members have different styles of complying with

supervisor's guidelines because of cultural backgrounds

18 It is important for me to work in groups that members come from diverse education majors

19 I find it challenging to work in groups that members have different styles of conflict management

because of cultural differences

Thank YOU

Documents

The impact of culture (individualism and collectivism) on