This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 17 August 2014, At: 09:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Power distance and group dynamics ofan international project team: a casestudyTrena M. Paulus , Barbara Bichelmeyer , Larissa Malopinsky ,Maura Pereira & Polly Rastogia Indiana University , USAPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Trena M. Paulus , Barbara Bichelmeyer , Larissa Malopinsky , Maura Pereira &Polly Rastogi (2005) Power distance and group dynamics of an international project team: a casestudy, Teaching in Higher Education, 10:1, 43-55, DOI: 10.1080/1356251052000305525

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251052000305525

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Power distance and group dynamics of

an international project team: a case

study

Trena M. Paulus*, Barbara Bichelmeyer, LarissaMalopinsky, Maura Pereira and Polly RastogiIndiana University, USA

Project-based team activities are commonly used in higher education. Teams comprised of

members from different national cultures can be faced with unique challenges during the creative

process. Hofstede’s (1991) cultural dimension of power distance was used to examine one such

design team’s intra- and inter-group interactions in a graduate-level educational technology course

in the United States. This case study analysis utilized data from observations, participant

interviews and a questionnaire to determine what impact power distance had on team process.

Low power distance was one factor that enabled Team Alpha to avoid potential conflicts, conflicts

they were not able to avoid with their partner team. Rather than viewing themselves as a group of

four individuals from different cultures, Team Alpha members developed their own culture, one

specifically in opposition to that of predominantly American student teams. A power distance

stance was one component of this opposition.

Introduction

Project-based learning activities that are completed by groups of students are

common in higher education environments, particularly in fields where teamwork is

a part of the professional culture, such as software design. Fostering effective

teamwork can be a challenge to instructors and students alike, particularly when the

groups are heterogeneous. In our graduate program teamwork is the norm, and a

majority of our students come from outside of the United States. Cultural differences

are one factor that can contribute to the miscommunication and conflict that can

derail team process. In designing this case study our goal was to explore the

challenges faced by a graduate design team comprised of international students, and

to determine whether and how one component of culture, power distance, could

provide insight into group dynamics.

One rationale for assigning group projects is the belief that together a group of

people can accomplish more than an individual alone and that we benefit from being

*Corresponding author: University of Tennessee, A515 Claxton Complex, Knoxville, TN 37996-

3452, US. Email: tpaulus@utk.edu

ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/05/010043-13

# 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1356251052000305525

Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2005

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

exposed to multiple perspectives. In most teams, members must coordinate their

various skills, resources, and motivations so that the team can make decisions,

generate a product, or achieve a victory (Forsyth, 1999). The discipline of group

dynamics is concerned with studying the ways in which teams and individuals act and

react to changing circumstances and complex social processes within teams (Back,

1992; White, 1992). Elements studied within the discipline of group dynamics

include the relationships between individuals and teams, the distribution of roles and

responsibilities among team members, team performance, influence and power, and

inter-group relationships.

Individuals that have different cultural backgrounds bring unique perspectives to a

team. The term ‘culture’ is used to describe those habits, actions, and assumptions

that members of a group or society have learned in common and have set as values

(Rosman & Rubel, 1995, as cited in Maitland, 1998). Trompenaars (1998) and

Schein (1992) consider culture to be that aspect of a society that provides implicit

structures and rules about the way people get along, work together, and solve

problems as they deal with issues of change, either through the integration of new

elements into existing social structures or by adapting social structures to fit with new

elements in the environment.

Hofstede (1991) used the term ‘cultural dimensions’ to refer to the common

elements of a culture or the key issues of a culture that can be studied and analyzed in

meaningful ways. Kelly (1996) outlined these cultural dimensions as: power distance :

the extent to which individuals at lower levels of a cultural hierarchy accept their lack

of autonomy and authority versus power shared throughout a hierarchy; individu-

alism : an emphasis on self and immediate family versus an emphasis on the greater

collective; masculinity : the extent to which traditionally male goals of wealth and

recognition are valued; uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which risk and ambiguity

are acceptable conditions; and long-term orientation : an emphasis on fostering virtues

that are oriented toward future rewards versus emphasis on immediate gratification.

According to Van Hook (2000), Hofstede cited power distance and uncertainty

avoidance as two of the cultural dimensions most problematic for effective group

performance. Power distance is defined as ‘the extent to which the less powerful

members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that

power is distributed unequally’ (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98) and uncertainty avoidance

‘the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or

unknown situations’ (Hofstede, 1991, p. 113). The cultural dimension of power

distance was the primary focus of this study. In low power distance groups,

individuals generally believe that inequalities between levels of the hierarchy should

be minimized, that subordinates in the hierarchy should be consulted by those at

higher levels, and that the ideal leader believes power resides in the people. In

contrast, in high power distance groups, inequalities between hierarchy levels are

expected and even desired, subordinates expect to be told what to do, and the ideal

leader has absolute undisputed authority yet uses it for the good of the people.

Hofstede (1991, 2001) emphasized power distance as an important factor that

impacts team relationships. Participating effectively in autonomous project-based

44 T. Paulus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

teams may be more challenging for students with high power distance orientations.

Decision-making processes and approaches to conflict resolution are likely to be

influenced by the group’s power distance level. Conflict management in teams with a

low power distance factor is based on principles of negotiation and cooperation,

while in high power distance teams conflict is resolved primarily by the power holder

(Deutsch, 1973). Milgram’s (1974) classic research on power and authority

illustrated that when individuals perceive they are agents of a remote higher authority

(i.e., when an individual becomes part of a group that has high power distance), the

individual may well come to believe that he or she no longer has control of his or her

own actions. This state of affairs would not be conducive to productive teamwork.

Hofstede’s (1991) power distance indicators can be used to analyze power distance

in the context of international educational teams. These indicators include high/low

dependence needs, the acceptance or minimization of inequality, the need for

hierarchy, accessibility of superiors, equal rights vs. privileged power holders, and

change processes (see Table 1).

Students from different countries may face unique challenges in working together,

in part due to cultural dimensions such as power distance. A greater understanding

of power distance in educational contexts can provide guidance for instructors when

designing and assigning team projects. In this case study the following research

questions were addressed:

1. What challenges does an international project team face?

2. Do team members exhibit high or low power distance in their interactions?

3. What impact, if any, does power distance have on the team’s processes?

Method

A case study approach was utilized (Stake, 1995). Observation, interview and

questionnaire data were collected and analyzed to explore emergent themes related

to the research questions. One project team in an elective course on interface design

offered through an educational technology graduate program at a large Midwestern

university in the United States was studied. Twenty-seven international students and

23 American students were enrolled in the course, taught by Dr Smith (all names are

pseudonyms) and three graduate mentors. Three required design projects were

completed by students working in teams. Students had the option of forming their

own team or being assigned to a team. Each team was required to include a computer

science student and an international student.

The third project, the focus of this study, entailed the design of a scheduling

program for a personal digital assistant device. A written report, design sketches and

a class presentation were included in the task. While teams worked independently on

the first two course projects, two teams collaborated to complete the third project,

simulating a corporate design environment. One member was chosen by each team

to be the team’s facilitator, and the facilitators for each team were responsible for

Power distance and group dynamics 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

inter-team communication. Students received a group grade from the instructor and

completed peer evaluations of their team members (which also were graded).

Team Alpha was the focus of this study because each student was from a different

country (Belarus, Korea, Japan and Turkey). The instructor assigned the students to

Team Alpha because they had not joined any other team by the deadline. Team

Alpha included two females, Mikyoung and Cari, and two males, Toru and Alex.

Their ages ranged from 23 to 30 years (see Table 2).

Team Alpha met twice a week for four weeks for approximately two hours per

meeting. Team Alpha was assigned to collaborate with Team Beta on this final

Table 1. Indicators of power distance for educational groups (Hofstede, 1991)

High power distance indicators Low power distance indicators

High dependence needs: Low dependence need:

Teacher-centered education. The guru who

transfers personal wisdom. Teacher is expected to

initiate communication. Less powerful people

should be dependent on the more powerful.

Educational process is student-centered.

Students take initiative. Teachers are experts

that stress impersonal truth, which can in

principle be obtained from any competent

person. Interdependence between less and

more powerful people.

Inequality accepted: Inequality minimized:

Whoever holds power is right and good. One

is never publicly criticized. Latent conflict

between powerful�powerless. No criticism

made or expression of disagreement. Teachers

are treated with respect and have authority

both inside and outside the class.

Use of power should be legitimate and is

subject to criteria of good and evil. Latent

harmony in a group. Learning is related to

sharing disagreement and using two-way

communication. Teachers are treated as equals

both inside and outside the class.

Hierarchy needed: Hierarchy for convenience:

Inequality between those in power and

subordinates. Centralization of decision-making

is an accepted norm.

Based on formal position, expertise, reward and

ability to give rewards. Decentralization of

decision-making is an accepted norm.

Superiors often inaccessible: Superiors accessible:

Like a benevolent autocrat. Inaccessible to their

subordinates. Subordinates are told what to do.

Like a resourceful democrat. A person that is

resourceful and accessible to their subordinates.

Subordinates are consulted in the decision

making process.

Power holders have privileges: All have equal rights:

Skills, wealth of knowledge, and power determine

status. Status symbols are expected.

Skills, wealth of knowledge, and power are not

necessarily indicators of status. Powerful person

tries to look less powerful than they are.

Change by revolution: Change by evolution:

Change occurs through power struggle. Change occurs through voting and power

sharing.

46 T. Paulus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

project of the course. Team Beta had three American and two international students.

Team Beta had chosen three of their team members, and the instructor later added a

computer science student and an international student to the team.

Three team meetings, one at the beginning, middle, and end of the project, were

observed and tape-recorded during the one-month project period. We used an

observation protocol which was then expanded with our overall impressions,

including which power distance indicators seemed to be evident. After the second

observation, team members were asked to complete a five-item written power

distance questionnaire (adapted from Hofstede, 1991). When the project was

completed, Team Alpha members and the instructor were interviewed using a funnel

sequence approach (Schmidt & Conaway, 1999). Interview questions were based on

findings from the observations. We individually identified the most important

emergent themes in the data and used an affinity diagram technique to organize

the themes into categories until agreement was reached (Brassard, 1989).

Credibility and trustworthiness are the relevant standards to be used with

qualitative data in case studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 1986). We ensured

credibility by focusing our observations, interviews and questionnaire on the cultural

dimension of power distance. Trustworthiness was established by triangulating

findings from the various data sources and debriefing with each other (LeCompte &

Goetz, 1982).

Findings and discussion

It would not have been surprising if this team faced challenges simply by virtue of the

fact that they did not choose to work together. However, the team was able to

complete the project task by coordinating their efforts in an effective way. Team

Alpha’s observed interactions were extremely task-oriented. They took no breaks

during their two-hour biweekly meetings. There was little social interaction among

the team members, possibly because they did not know each other well. The general

format of the meetings was that first each member reported on work completed,

other members then asked questions, decisions were made, and plans for what to do

next were outlined.

Several findings emerged from the analysis and are discussed in the following

sections. Low power distance scores of individuals were consistent with evidence of

Table 2. Participant demographics

Student Gender Age Nationality Program Power distance score

(1�/low, 6�/high)

Mikyoung Female 30 Korean Journalism 2.4

Toru Male 27 Japan Language Education 2.2

Cari Female 23 Turkey Educational Technology 2.4

Alex Male 24 Belarus Computer Science 2.0

Power distance and group dynamics 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

low power distance during team interactions. Low power distance was one factor that

enabled Team Alpha to avoid potential conflicts due to miscommunication, conflicts

they were not able to avoid with their partner team, Team Beta. Rather than viewing

themselves as a group of four individuals from different national cultures, Team

Alpha members developed their own culture, a culture specifically in opposition to

that of predominantly American student teams. A difference in power distance was

one component of this opposition. In fact, a high power distance between Team

Alpha and Team Beta resulted in conflict that was unable to be resolved.

Low power distance and group interactions

Team Alpha members had preferences for and demonstrated mostly low power

distance in their interactions. Power distance questionnaire scores averaged 2.25 with

a range of 2 to 2.4 (1�/low power distance; 6�/high power distance). The team’s

work processes were consistent with elements of low power distance and included:

(1) shared responsibilities based on expertise; (2) consensus-based decision-making;

and (3) shared leadership. These processes can be most clearly correlated with the

power distance indicators of hierarchy for convenience, change by evolution and

minimization of inequality.

Each individual had a specific role within Team Alpha based on expertise and

comfort level with the role’s responsibilities, reflecting a hierarchy for convenience. For

example, Mikyoung had previous instructional design experience in Korea and took

on this responsibility. Similarly Alex, a computer science student, took on the task of

programming the design. Toru conducted usability testing because he felt confident

of his ability in this area. Cari had an interest in designing the screen mockups and

thus took on this role. Alex became the official team facilitator, primarily because of

his ability and confidence with the English language. A hierarchy of convenience,

according to Hofstede (1991) reflects role assignment based in part on expertise, and

decentralized decision-making is the norm.

Indeed, a decentralized decision-making process of consensus was utilized by

Team Alpha. The low power distance indicator of change by evolution rather than by

revolutionary power struggle was evident. The team called their decision-making

process ‘voting,’ but a more accurate term may be ‘negotiating to reach consensus’ as

described by Davis (1969) and Wood (1984). Voting is the most frequently chosen

method for reaching decisions in American and European teams (Castore &

Murnighan, 1978). Voting is a way to make a clear-cut decision on issues that

deeply divide the group. This strength, however, is also a drawback, for ‘losing’

members of the team may feel defeated and become less likely to follow through on

the decision (Castore & Murnighan, 1978). Team Alpha avoided these drawbacks by

relying on consensus to make decisions. Members approved or disapproved of an

idea by showing a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down.’ If one team member voted thumbs

down on a particular feature, the team would not incorporate that feature unless they

discussed it further and the final member agreed. As Mikyoung explained, ‘We

48 T. Paulus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

decided that each of the team members had her/his voice. If three of us decided on

some feature, but one was strongly against this feature, we decided not to accept this

feature, and we discussed why she/he thinks that way.’ According to Toru and Alex,

reading team members’ faces and body language also played a large part in this type

of decision-making process. If one member looked unhappy with a team decision,

they would continue to negotiate until the member was satisfied. In this way the

decision-making process reflected the team’s low power distance.

Overall the team perceived its leadership to be shared, which minimized inequality,

reflected a value of all having equal rights, and low dependence needs. No one leader or

superior was given the power to direct the team’s interactions, though there were

some differences in how members viewed the team’s leadership. Alex, the official

facilitator, emerged in some ways as the team’s de facto leader, speaking more

frequently in meetings and having questions directed toward him. He frequently

presented himself as the subject matter expert in terms of technical understanding

and also had the strongest English language skills. Knowledge, skills and expertise

are often perceived as leader characteristics in instructional contexts (Kaplowitz,

1978; Littlepage & Mueller, 1997). Individuals accept recommendations and

direction from perceived experts most of the time, and often believe that the expert’s

abilities are superior to their own (Schopler & Layton, 1972; Foschi et al. , 1985).

While Team Alpha agreed that the role of the facilitator was an important one for

the success of the team, there was not uniform agreement that the facilitator was the

team’s ‘leader’ per se . Strong facilitation was encouraged by the instructor because of

the responsibility to coordinate and communicate with the partner team (Team

Beta). Alex felt that as facilitator he needed to lead the team, since prior experience

had taught him that without a leader the team would not function, perhaps indicative

of a higher power distance orientation than other members of Team Alpha. Both Cari

and Alex felt that Mikyoung and Toru were not talkative and that this reflected the

need for a stronger team leader. Cari felt that Alex was the team’s leader because of

his stronger English skills: ‘. . . the members who are good at speaking English should

take responsibility of being a leader, hence facilitator.’ This indicates the high power

distance of high dependence need of the less skilled English speakers for the more

skilled. Yet later in the process, other team members also played leadership roles in

the meetings, reducing the power distance. Cari explained that ‘at first his (Alex’s)

opinions were more precious, then after a while the team members relaxed and

everyone participated and expressed their ideas.’ She felt she ‘was involved in the

discussion, finding opportunities to share ideas, facilitate the discussion and run the

meetings.’

Mikyoung viewed herself as a leader based on her expertise as a designer: ‘Each

member of our team has a specialty. We did our job, each of us. So we were the

leaders in our part because of our specialty. For example, I was leading the graphic

design because I am very good at the design part. Automatically, I was the leader for

that part.’ Toru’s opinion was that everyone was a leader because everyone

participated equally and shared responsibilities. These examples illustrate that

overall the team adopted a low power distance stance through shared leadership.

Power distance and group dynamics 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Low power distance and avoiding potential conflict

Team Alpha had no reported or observed conflicts among its members. The

members did, however, have different communication styles that presented some

challenges. While these challenges had the potential to derail the team process, they

did not. In part the low power distance of the team helped keep the process on track.

Alex and Cari spoke more frequently than the other team members, especially

during the early team meetings. Toru sometimes felt uncomfortable contributing to

the team’s discussion because Cari often interrupted others. Sometimes Toru was so

quiet that it seemed possible he was not even following the team’s discussion.

Mikyoung’s limited spoken English ability was also apparent. However, overall both

Toru and Mikyoung indicated they were able to participate in Team Alpha much

more actively than in other graduate teams they had been on. They did not interpret

their relative silence as a lack of power or influence. Toru explained that he was

usually silent because he preferred to listen to everyone’s opinion and reflect before

sharing his own opinion. ‘Maybe I don’t talk that much, maybe I talk less than the

others. I consider myself a listener, but when I have something to say, I say it,’ he

stated.

Cari and Alex believed that Toru and Mikyoung were quiet because they were shy

and/or had poor English skills, though they were willing to be disproved. Alex mused,

‘Of course, if they spoke English better, the meeting would be more productive.

Maybe.’ These more verbal team members seemed surprised when the quieter

members produced quality work. Cari said, ‘At the first meeting Toru did not seem

to express his ideas and remained silent. He did state that he was in language

education and knew very little about technology. However, he and Mikyoung did an

exceptional job on the usability study, which I did not expect.’ Alex noted that they

completed every task on time and more thoroughly than he himself would have done,

particularly noting how Toru and Mikyoung had created a comprehensive paper

prototype with which to conduct the usability tests. In this situation, Cari and Alex

took a higher power distance stance, assuming that language ability was an element

of power and resulting in a high dependence need , but once Toru and Mikyoung

demonstrated their task-related abilities, Cari’s and Alex’ stance shifted.

Another difference in communication style was the use of feedback. Mikyoung was

unhappy that she did not get positive feedback on her ideas from Alex, but instead

was asked to justify her design decisions. She felt her experience and personal

opinion should have been justification enough. ‘In my case I think that if an idea were

good, I said this is a good idea, OK. I like that and I agree with you. But [one]

member in my team (Alex) wanted to know always why I liked an idea. He wanted

me to explain why I liked any idea and he wanted more details about my opinion.’

Mikyoung felt that her expertise was being undermined. However, Alex attributed

Mikyoung’s reticence to respond to her lack of facility in English: ‘I know that

(Mikyoung) had experience in the programming industry, and she was a team

leader in her country, but here she felt shy because of her English.’ Mikyoung here

shows a higher power distance indicator of accepting inequality*/her expertise should

50 T. Paulus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

exempt her from critique*/but the stance was not enough to derail the team’s

communication.

Despite these potential communication-related conflicts, Team Alpha overcame

the uncertainty as to member intentions, perhaps because of the overall low power

distance stance of the members. In contrast, the conflict that occurred between Team

Alpha and its predominantly American partner team, Team Beta, can in part be

attributed to the higher power distance between the two teams.

High power distance: inter-group conflict

We selected Team Alpha for analysis because we were particularly interested in

exploring the intragroup dynamics among four individuals from different national

cultures. However, it became clear that Team Alpha did not identify themselves as a

team in this way. Rather, they viewed themselves as a unified team of international

students (i.e. not Americans) working together in a foreign (American) culture. They

positioned Team Alpha as unique because the makeup of Team Beta was such that

American students dominated. Toru explained that Team Alpha had their own

unique culture, describing it as ‘American culture for international students.’ This

culture went beyond their individual national cultures and even positioned Team

Alpha in opposition to other teams, past and present, comprised of American

students.

A low power distance stance was a part of this identity. Every Team Alpha member

expressed their satisfaction that in Team Alpha they could express their opinions and

were more likely to be heard. They reported that this differed markedly from

previous team experiences. This satisfaction with Team Alpha culture helps explain

the inter-group conflict that occurred between Team Alpha and Team Beta, a

predominantly American team. The role of Team Beta is presented solely from the

perspective of Team Alpha to illustrate how team members were further united as

they positioned themselves in opposition to Team Beta.

A major conflict between the two teams occurred as the project deadline

approached. During the final team meeting a female member of Team Beta attended

Team Alpha’s meeting to propose changes to the project design. Nearly every

proposal was strongly rejected by Toru, which was surprising because Toru was

typically a quiet member of the team. Toru was frustrated because Team Beta had

done no usability testing and yet wanted to change the design. During this meeting

Toru and Mikyoung participated more than Alex and Cari because they were

defending their own recommended changes to the design. Team Alpha decided to

postpone final decisions until the two team facilitators could meet and discuss the

issues.

The facilitators did not meet soon enough to resolve the problem. According to the

instructor, Team Beta claimed that Team Alpha’s facilitator, Alex, had not

communicated with Team Beta on a regular basis throughout the project. Team

Beta became frustrated and moved ahead on the project without consulting with

Power distance and group dynamics 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Team Alpha. Although Alex planned to spend the weekend finishing the project,

Team Beta would not wait and insisted on presenting their own design to the class

and submitting it as the final product. Alex felt that even though his team had worked

hard on the project, Team Beta wanted to take all the credit for the success of the

design.

Alex pointed out that Team Beta failed to include Team Alpha member names on

the final report. Team Beta’s American team members took on report-writing

responsibilities solely based on their status as native English speakers. Alex stated, ‘I

felt they wanted to assign the success of the project primarily to themselves. For the

usability study part they did not include the names of our usability guys at all... They

fixed the report and apologized, probably it was a mistake, but I felt the attitude led

toward that.’ This reflects the high power distance indicator of power holders having

privileges.

Cari reported that ‘in the final mockup, Julie (Team Beta member) made changes

without discussing it with me.’ This reflects a high power distance of a necessary

hierarchy that centralizes decision-making without including all members of the

group. Toru expressed feeling ‘like my team did much of the work in the beginning.

The other team did not post anything to [their Web-based conferencing area] until

the end of the project.’ Alex added that ‘the other team’s members had pushy

behavior.’ He explained that the other team would simply present their idea for a

feature of the interface and abruptly ask, ‘do you agree?’ Alex went on to say that

sometimes when Team Alpha did not agree with Team Beta ‘the feature was accepted

anyway. They sort of ignored us. But we did not have anything of this kind within our

team.’ Here change is occurring through revolution rather than through consensus

building, and Team Beta was perceived by Team Alpha to accept inequality.

Greater intra-group cohesion of Team Alpha may have been facilitated by an

outgroup bias toward Team Beta which may in part be due to higher power distance

between the two groups and in part due to previous negative experiences working

with American students. Outgroup bias can occur when members of different teams

judge the quality of their team products (Hinkle & Schopler, 1986). When teams

work together, one team may believe that its product is better or that the other team’s

product is inadequate (Brewer & Brown, 1998). Over-generalizations about the

qualities and characteristics of Team Beta may have caused rapid judgments about

people from the opposite team (McCauley et al. , 1980; Miller, 1982). Team Alpha

may have been biased against Team Beta to begin with, based on prior negative

experiences working with American students.

For example, when Toru had been on American teams in the past he indicated that

he participated less because Americans were not patient enough to listen to his

contribution. Cari felt that American team members go through materials very

quickly, making it difficult for her to keep up. She felt Americans in general do not

really understand what international students go through. Alex mentioned that he

had worked with a male American student who was ‘not hard working at all’ in a

previous team. Team Alpha members’ prior experiences were that Americans assume

52 T. Paulus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

leadership and hold decision-making power by default of being American, reflecting

a high power distance approach to teamwork.

Overall, Team Alpha members reported that they enjoyed their team experience

and would work together again. They felt that each member contributed quality work

to the project based on their areas of expertise. Despite these findings, the course

instructor evaluated this group as an unsuccessful team because of its inability to

resolve conflict with Team Beta. Consequently the instructor’s view was that Team

Alpha did not do well in the course.

Conclusions

The purpose of this case study was to identify challenges faced by teams comprised

of individuals from different cultures, particularly through the lens of Hofstede’s

(1991) cultural dimension of power distance. As a case study the findings are not

meant to generalize to the greater population, though educators working in similar

contexts may find applicability. Findings revealed that the members of this team

operated with a low power distance that enabled them to succeed in overcoming

potential conflicts due to miscommunication. It is not surprising that a group of

students whose native languages are different would encounter communication

difficulties. The low power distance taken by the group may have facilitated

development of trust that helped overcome these difficulties. This international

team was able to coordinate their internal processes effectively, and educators may

want to model strategies for team process that incorporate a low power distance

stance. These could include decision-making by consensus, shared leadership and

role responsibilities based on expertise.

Team Alpha created what it called an American culture for international students

where everyone’s voice could be heard. The team members valued the low power

distance of Team Alpha, particularly when contrasted with their past experiences. In

past teams American students adopted a high power distance stance in their

interactions with international students. As had been their past experience, Team

Alpha again perceived high power distance in their interactions with Team Beta

which resulted in conflict they could not effectively resolve. Educators should also be

aware of outgroup bias that can develop between groups based on past experience or

different cultural dimensions and avoid creating an atmosphere where inter-group

conflict may be exacerbated. Unfortunately Team Beta members were not part of

this research study since it was not known that they would be working directly with

Team Alpha until it was too late to obtain Team Beta’s informed consent to

participate in the study. Exploration of Team Beta’s perspective would no doubt have

resulted in additional insights.

Further research should focus more on the communication between team

members in light of how language and communication skills can be indicators of

power. Communication skills, particularly facility with the English language, resulted

in team member power on several levels. Alex was the team facilitator and de facto

Power distance and group dynamics 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

leader of Team Alpha because of his English ability. Team Beta had control of the

final written report by virtue of their native English speakers. Communication

difficulties represented not only the primary challenge within Team Alpha but also

between Team Alpha and Beta. Another limitation of this study is that we did not

have the opportunity to observe informal or email communication of Team Alpha,

which could have provided more insight in this area.

The power distance framework is a useful one for understanding the development

of team process and how the power relationship impacts communication. Hofstede’s

(1991, 2001) other cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, individualism/

collectivism, and masculinity/femininity could also be used as a framework for

further exploration of intra- and inter-team dynamics. Distributions of various types

of power in a team, such as reward power, expert power, and referent power could

also be explored.

References

Back, K. W. (1992) This business of topology, Journal of Social Issues , 48(2), 51�66.

Brassard, M. (1989) The memory jogger plus (Metheun, MA, Goal/QPC).

Brewer, M. B. & Brown, R. J. (1998) Intergroup relations, in: D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G.

Lindzey (Eds) The handbook of social psychology (New York, McGraw-Hill).

Castore, C. H. & Murnighan, J. K. (1978) Determinants of support for group decisions,

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 75�92.

Davis, J. H. (1969) Group performance (Reading, MA, Addison-Wessley).

Deutsch, M. (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes (New Haven, CT,

Yale University Press).

Foschi, M., Warriner, G. K. & Hart, S. D. (1985) Standards, expectations, and interpersonal

influence, Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 108�117.

Forsyth, D. (1999) Group dynamics (Belmont, CA, Wardsworth Publishing Company).

Hinkle, S. & Schopler, J. (1986) Bias in the evaluation of in-group and out-group performance, in:

S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds) Psychology of intergroup relations (Chicago, IL, Nelson-

Hall).

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind (London, McGraw-Hill).

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values (2nd edn)

(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

Kaplowitz, S. A. (1978) Towards a systematic theory of power attribution, Social Psychology, 41,

131�148.

Kelly, S. (1996) Rethinking American management strategies . Available online at: http://www.

relojournal.com/may96/manage.htm (accessed 19 March 2002).

LeCompte, M. & Goetz, J. P. (1982) Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research,

Review of Educational Research , 52, 31�60.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications).

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. G. (1986) But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in

naturalistic evaluation, in: D. D. Williams (Ed.) Naturalistic evaluation (San Francisco, CA,

Jossey Bass).

Littlepage, G. E. & Mueller, A. L. (1997) Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-

solving groups: expert characteristics on group performance, Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin , 17, 449�456.

54 T. Paulus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Maitland, C. (1998) Global diffusion of interactive networks: the impact of culture, in: C. Ess & F.

Sudweeks (Eds) Proceedings cultural attitudes towards communication and technology ’98

(University of Sydney, Australia).

McCauley, C. C., Stitt, L. & Segal, M. (1980) Stereotyping: from prejudice to prediction,

Psychological Bulletin , 87, 195�208.

Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to authority (New York, Harper & Row).

Miller, A. G. (1982) Historical and contemporary perspectives on stereotyping, in: A. G. Miller

(Ed.) In the eye of the beholder: contemporary issues in stereotyping (New York, Praeger).

Schein, E. (1992) Organizational culture and leadership (San-Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publish-

ers).

Schmidt, W. & Conaway, R. (1999) Results-oriented interviewing: principles, practices and procedures

(Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon).

Schopler, J. & Layton, B. D. (1972) Attributions of interpersonal influence and power (Morristown,

NJ, General Learning Press).

Stake, R. E. (1995) The art of case study research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

Trompenaars, F. (1998) Riding the waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in global business

(New York, NY, McGraw-Hill).

Van Hook, S. (2000) Cross-cultural variances in team effectiveness: the eastern European experience.

Available online at: http://www.west.net/�/wwmr/teams.htm (accessed 19 March 2002).

White, R. K. (1992) A personal assessment of Lewin’s major contributions, Journal of Social Issues ,

48(2), 45�50.

Wood, J. T. (1984) Alternative methods of group decision making: a comparative examination of

consensus, negotiation, and voting, in: G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds) Emergent issues in

human decision making (Carbondale, IL, Southern Illinois University Press).

Power distance and group dynamics 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 09:

40 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

4