Measuring and mapping team interaction

A cross-cultural comparison of US and Spanish MBA teams

The Authors

Tony Lingham, Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Bonnie A. Richley, Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Ricard S. Serlavos, Department of Human Resources, ESADE – Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers and EURAM reviewers for their feedback and to Simon Dolan for his constructive feedback on the paper. We also like to thank the faculty of the Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University and ESADE Business School for their feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is four-fold: to highlight the emerging stream of team interaction in research; to present a methodology to measure and map out team interaction; to compare team interaction between US and Spanish MBA teams so as to identify any differences between the two cultures; and to propose team interaction focused programs in educational institutions and organizations.

Design/methodology/approach – The study used a quantitative research design and administered a survey that captures ten aspects of team interaction in four major dimensions to 32 US MBA teams (n = 176) and 31 Spanish MBA teams (n = 152) engaged in the same group exercise and used ANOVA analysis to compare the two groups.

Findings – The findings show that the US and Spanish teams differ only in the diverging dimension of their actual team interaction (F = 26.42, p < 0.000). A comparative analysis of the ideal team interaction show that both MBA samples desire increased levels of the diverging (F = 37.7, p < 0.000) and recursiveness (F = 23.65, p < 0.000) dimensions.

Practical implications – The study provides a methodology and highlights the significance of employing a team interaction perspective for team learning and development programs in educational and organizational settings.

Originality/value – The paper presents team interaction along four major dimensions – divergent, convergent, status and recursiveness – and provides a brief overview of the theory of Conversational Learning. The approach used in this study contributes to this emerging stream of team research and presents the significance of focusing on the social-emotional aspects of team interaction in educational and organizational team development programs.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Team working; Team learning; Team building; Experiential learning; United States of America; Spain.

Journal:

Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2009

pp:

5-27

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

1352-7606

Introduction

In order to deal with the ever changing and complex work environment, research in the past two decades have stated that organizations are moving to incorporate teams as part of their organizational structure (Katzenbak and Smith, 1993). Teams can offer greater adaptability, productivity and creativity than individuals (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987) and provide more complex, innovative and comprehensive solutions to solve organizational problems (Sundstrom et al., 1990). However, although teams can have a positive impact on organizational outcomes, team experiences vary from great to extremely frustrating. When teams are asked to evaluate or describe their experience of the interaction in their team, main frustrations are not only outcome oriented. Instead, the majority of issues highlighted as difficult to deal with are those that fall under “social-emotional” aspects of team interaction such as working with multiple personalities, different learning styles, “laziness” or non-commitment from team members. Most organizational members find themselves being placed in teams and left to work through their “team issues” as long as they deliver their projects or end products on time and at an acceptable quality. However, when we probe further to ask team members to identify what constitutes great team experiences, again they highlight aspects of team interaction that include trust, relating to others, safety and other social-emotional aspects of team interaction more so than task-oriented interaction and further claiming that the social-emotional aspects affect the team's outcome or quality of the team's end product. Most of these aspects of team interaction are embedded in the lived experience of a team based on the quality of their interaction along the task-relational continuum.

In today's organizational environment, managers and leaders are beginning to find themselves not only working with teams but also that these teams are becoming more cross-cultural, even multicultural – increasing the need for global leaders and managers and training programs to develop the skills that are critical to these roles. Globally, as corporations move toward employing teams across all levels, managers now have to increase their knowledge about the complex nature of team interaction so as to develop the skills required not only to be team members but also to lead, create and support these teams. We posit that both team research and practice are lagging behind the complexities of the actual lived experience of teams. In practice, dealing with the complexity of team members’ experiences is often not a focus in numerous team building or training programs. Only recently, team researchers are beginning to converge on the importance of understanding team interaction (Hare, 2003). In this paper, we put forward that it is critical to understand the experience of team interaction in organizational life. Further, in today's global business environment, it is vital to provide leaders and managers – who are themselves, team members or team leaders – with the knowledge, language and skills to identify and manage the subtle differences in teams in cross-functional and cross-cultural settings.

Team interaction as an emerging focus in team research

Early and current team research (Bion, 1959; Cartwright and Zander, 1968; McGrath, 1991; Seers and Woodruff, 1997; Hare, 2003) and leadership studies (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Fiedler, 1967; Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973; Hersey and Blanchard, 1969) established that interactions between team members and between leaders and followers exist along a task-relational continuum. Although many researchers and practitioners have acknowledged this task-social emotional continuum in teams quite a few studies are moving toward understanding the complex nature of team interaction (Pavitt, 1994; Hare, 2003; Wittenbaum, et al., 2004; Bradley et al., 2003; Crouch and Yetton, 1988; Krayer, 1998; Morgan et al., 1993; Wekselberg et al., 1997; Seers and Woodruff, 1997; Burmingham and West, 1995), whereas others identify that team interaction should be studied as “emergent states” (Colquitt et al., 2002; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Janz et al., 1997; LePine et al., 1997; Simons et al., 1999; Marks et al., 2001; Simons and Peterson, 2000; Stewart and Barrick, 2000; Witt et al., 2001). This emerging trend in team research is especially significant as organizations are already immersed and dealing with the inherent complexity of team interaction as their workforce becomes more diverse and global.

In this paper, we argue that in order to help managers develop the skill and knowledge necessary to work in (and with) teams that involve cross-cultural interaction, a method that would meet this need is one that provides them with the knowledge and language to understand the diverse aspects of team interaction based on the actual experiences of team members and the ideal experiences they would like to have so as to help teams function more efficiently and effectively.

In a recent review on team research, Cohen and Bailey (1997) focused on 54 studies that were done between 1990 and 1996. In this review, the authors presented four types of teams (i.e. work, parallel, project and management) that have been studied to surface the factors that contribute to team effectiveness. Such empirical studies, however, have been bifurcated. On the one hand, researchers argue that team life is complex and can best be understood by zooming in on specific aspects. This approach resulted in generating vast amounts of knowledge on teams such as decision-making (Wageman, 1995; Brown et al., 1998), psychosocial traits (Gully et al., 1995; Wech et al., 1998), T-groups (Lewin, 1951), team learning (Brooks, 1994; Edmondson, 1996, 1999; Kasl et al., 1997), the effect of time on teams (Gersick, 1989), group dynamics (Zander, 1982); leadership in teams (Hackman, 1990, 2002), team development (Tuckman, 1965), group emotional intelligence (Druskat and Wolf, 2001) and group design (Steiner, 1972; Hackman, 1987; Campion et al., 1993).

On the other hand, researchers have also presented the importance of understanding teams as a whole. Such integrative perspectives, though less popular since the 1950s, have been steadily growing in recent years. Some examples are McGrath's (1991) time, interaction and performance model; Bales’ (1949) interaction process analysis and his System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups (1979); change processes in groups (Gemmill and Wynkoop, 1991) and group communication (Salazar, 1995). Other integrative models have included cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects (Wheelan, 1994; Thompson and Fine, 1999), but not the temporal facet as proposed by McGrath (1991) or the effect of time on teams (Gersick, 1989).

In looking for a viable theory and measure that focuses on team interaction for this study, we decided that the theory of Conversational Learning (Baker et al., 2002) was the most appropriate theoretical framework as it posits that conversations (i.e. interactions of team members) are fundamental to experience and therefore, the conversational spaces in teams generated by interaction of team members represents an integrative approach to understanding teams from the perspective of their lived experience in organizations. Also, this theory was empirically tested and a reliable and robust measure was developed (Lingham, 2004), which could be utilized to measure and map out the diverse aspects of a team's actual and ideal interaction.

Conversation as a framework to understand the experience of team interaction

Although research and theories that focus on the importance of interaction – framed as conversations – in everyday life (Harkins, 1999; Harrison and Thomas, 1991; Sawyer, 2001; Shotter, 1993); its significance in specific contexts such as relationships (Patterson et al., 2002; Scott, 2002; Kahn, 1995) and groups (McNiff, 2003; Hazelwood, 1998) is becoming more prevalent, the experiences of interactions at the dyadic, team and organizational levels is still relatively scant in comparison to the vast body of existing team research. From an organizational perspective, effort to understand the increasing uncertainty and complexity in today's organizational environment has resulted in researchers defining organizations themselves as conversations (Ford, 1999). Numerous researchers have positioned conversations as an important aspect of organizational change efforts (Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992; Beer et al., 1990; Ford and Backoff, 1988) with the power to create organizational culture (Ford and Ford, 1995) and construct people's realities (Giddens, 1984; Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Whitehead, 1941; Winograd and Flores, 1987; Maturana and Varela, 1987). Conversations have also been identified as critical to management education (Shaw and Weber, 1991; Ford and Ford, 1995), and learning (Newman and Holzman, 1997; Baker et al., 2002).

In the field of team research, the internal context of a team generated by interaction among team members is emerging as a need (Small Group Conference, 2002) and acknowledged as critical by researchers on team learning (Brooks, 1994). Conversational Learning theory (Baker et al., 2002) frames this internal context as a team's “conversational space” to understand the lived experience of a team. The authors propose that a good conversational space is one that provides a safe supportive environment, embracing and respecting differences, developing strong trusting relationships, generating learning and getting tasks done effectively. Yet, such spaces also involve how time is experienced: either as linear (agenda driven time) or cyclic (interest driven – where individuals are allowed to voice their opinions freely). In this study, we compare conversational spaces of MBA students in similar programs across two countries – America and Spain – using the measure developed and validated by Lingham (2004) as an integrative group level construct based on the theoretical framework of Conversational Learning.

A brief overview of conversational learning

The importance of creating the right psychological space based on team members’ interactions has been presented by team researchers as critical to a team's existence (Frey, 2002), and performance (Hackman, 2002) and as a part of the team learning process (Edmondson, 1996; Dixon, 1994). The theory of Conversational Learning (Baker et al., 2002) presents a viable theoretical framework that bridges group dynamics and team learning.

Grounded in the theory and practice of Experiential Learning, Conversational Learning is a process whereby individuals construct meaning and transform experiences into knowledge conversations (Kolb et al., 2002). As a construct, the authors define Conversational Learning as one that occurs in a space bounded by ten dimensions while also offering it as a way to understand group interaction and that such a space would serve to emphasize the interpersonal experience among group members and weave multiple voices into an interconnected whole.

The roots of the research in Conversational Learning go back to the works of Dewey (1938, 1964), Lewin (1951), Piaget (1965), James (1977), Vygotsky (1978) and Freire (1992) (Baker et al., 2002). Conversational Learning incorporates Experiential Learning dimensions at the team level but also other aspects (Lingham, 2008). Baker et al. (2002) mention that the precursors to Conversational Learning were drawn largely from the literature in group research – especially research on group dynamics (Lewin, 1951; Bales, 1949, 1979; Bion, 1959; Schutz, 1966); group growth and development (Mills, 1967; Schein, 1993; Star, 1989; Engentrom and Middleton, 1996); acceptance and trust (Rogers, 1970); and as communities of practice to create or generate knowledge (Brown and Duguid, 1991, 2000; Nonaka, 1994; Wenger, 1998). Philosophical works such as Habermas’ (1984) emancipation through ideas speech situations, and Gadamer's (1994) ontological definition of conversation as a process of coming to an understanding, were instrumental in the development of this theoretical framework.

The model employed for this study is a space where the meaning making process occurs along ten dimensions. These ten dimensions circumscribing the phenomenon “conversational spaces” are: apprehension (APP), comprehension (COM), intension (INT), extension (EXT), individuality (IND), relationality (REL), status (STA), solidarity (SOL), discursive (DIS) and recursive (REC). Figure 1 shows the mapping of these ten dimensions along the four major spaces as proposed by Lingham (2004): divergent (APP, INT, IND, REL, SOL), convergent (COM, EXT, DIS), status (STA) and recursive (REC). As we discuss these ten dimensions in more detail later, we also indicate aspects of cross-cultural research that is represented in some of these dimensions and its relevance to cross-cultural team management. This measurement and mapping system was used in this study to compare team interaction between US and Spanish MBA teams after engaging in a similar team task as part of a leadership assessment and development course.

The measure we used was empirically tested and validated with a reliability of α= 0.92 (Lingham (2004) for details of the psychometrics that include nomological validity and criteria used to establish conversational spaces as a group level construct). This measure contains 35 robust items that capture the ten aspects[1] of Conversational Learning theory in four major dimensions: the diverging dimension (in which the aspects of APP, INT, IND, REL and SOL are subsumed); the converging dimension (in which the aspects of COM, EXT and DIS are subsumed); the STA dimension; and the REC dimension. The 35 items indicating the four major dimensions and the team interaction aspects subsumed in the diverging and converging dimensions are shown below.

Diverging dimension
- Items for apprehension:
  1. In our conversations, members are open to new experiences.
  2. During our conversation, members are receptive and open minded.
  3. During our conversation, members feel personally involved in things or issues.
- Items for intension:
  1. In our conversations, members listen carefully to each other.
  2. During our conversation, members consider all sides of an issue before acting on it.
  3. In our conversations, members take their time to listen before talking.
- Items for individuality:
  1. During our conversation, members are able to share their own unique life experiences.
  2. In our conversations, members are able to share their own unique viewpoints.
  3. In our conversations, members emphasize that each person in the team is unique.
- Items for relationality:
  1. During our conversation, members try to connect with others through common experiences.
  2. In our conversations, members care for, and are concerned about each other.
  3. In our conversations, members emphasize that everyone is part of the group.
- Items for solidarity:
  1. In our conversations, all members are treated as peers.
  2. In our conversations, leadership is shared.
  3. In our conversations, members learn from one another.
  4. During our conversation, we decide collectively as a team.
Converging dimension
- Items for comprehension:
  1. In our conversations, members are focused on ideas and logic.
  2. In our conversations, we employ logic and reason things out.
  3. During our conversation, members analyze ideas and break them down into smaller parts to work with.
  4. During our conversation, members are focused on developing logical theories.
- Items for extension:
  1. During our conversation, members want to get things done.
  2. In our conversations, members are focused on being practical.
  3. In our conversations, members are focused on seeing results from our work.
- Items for discursive:
  1. The conversation is focused on achieving goals.
  2. Our conversations are focused on moving forward with the task.
  3. In our conversations, members are focused on completing the task efficiently.
Status dimension
- Items for status:
  1. In our conversations, someone takes the role of team leader.
  2. In our conversations, there is a clear status hierarchy in the team.
  3. During our conversation, the team looks for guidance from one team member.
  4. During our conversation, one member makes final decisions for the team.
Recursiveness dimension
- Items for recursive:
  1. During our conversation, members return to previously discussed issues that are important to them.
  2. Our conversations are focused on discussing issues that are important to individual members.
  3. Our conversations are shaped by issues that concern team members.
  4. In our conversations, we revisit earlier issues that are important to individual team members.
  5. In our conversations, we make time for issues that are important to team members.

Briefly, in the conversational space of a team, APP is experienced as the dealing with feelings, reactions and being open and receptive to new experiences. Grasping knowledge through apprehension can be experienced as members being personally involved in issues raised in the conversation. COM is experienced as the rationalizing and evaluating of ideas or issues that are raised in the conversation. There is a tendency to analyze and break down issues into their component parts and to conceptualize or theorize about issues in the conversation. INT is experienced as the pondering before enactment. Members tend to be in a more contemplative space where the behavior is that of observation, listening and caution. Members tend to take the time to look at all sides of an issue before acting on it. EXT is experienced as the desire to get things done or to try things out as experimenting on issues rather than to contemplate on them. Members would tend to be results-oriented and practical. IND is experienced as the freedom for members to be unique individuals in the team with the ability to act independently and share their own unique life experiences. REL is experienced as the desire to be connected to other team members through the acting and agreeing on issues in relationships with team members. Simply, members tend to try to fit into the group. An extreme of relationality is where members conform to the group when under social pressure with the group members feeling that the majority is right (Levine, 1999; Asch, 1951) or causing Groupthink (Janis, 1972) to happen.

In cross-cultural research, the individualism–collectivism is argued as the single most important dimension of cultural difference in social behavior (Triandis, 1995) and that it is most robust across cultures (Schwartz, 1994). The inclusion of this dimension (individuality–relationality) in conversational spaces makes this necessary when comparing differences in team interaction across cultures. Hofstede (1980) describes individualism along a continuum from “low” to “high” and that the level of this dimension in a society could affect organization membership and leadership within organizations, suggesting a correlation between individualism and power distance. A similar argument is presented in Kluckhohn's (1962) relational orientation. Kluckhohn articulates that this dimension includes relation to authority. Koltko-Riveria (2004), however, argues that this is confusing and that the power or authority should be separate. The combination of individuality and relationality in conversational spaces takes this difference into account as it distinguishes these two aspects from status and solidarity which is discussed next.

STA is experienced as having the need for a single strong leader in the team to guide, decide and help others learn. There is a clear status hierarchy in the team. A healthy interaction, according to Wilber (1995) involves components of hierarchy (status) and heterarchy (solidarity). A similar position is articulated by Miller (1986) where inequality can be temporary or permanent. Such a space is based on respect and understanding toward one another. This is articulated in cross-cultural studies such as Hofstede's (1980) “Power Distance” dimension. Measured from “small” to “large,” this dimension is particularly relevant to people's willingness to engage in self-managing behavior and decision-making (Rafferty and Tapsell, 2001). SOL is experienced as the desire to be equals or peers, where leadership is shared. Members learn from one another, decide as a team and have strong personal relationships with each other.

DIS is experienced as the desire for members to move on based on agendas and time constraints either imposed by members of the team or given to them by members outside the team. Such a conversation would be focused on the completion of the task at hand. REC is experienced as the tendency to return to previously discussed issues (or to stay with issues) that captures the attention of team members. This ontological and epistemological dialectic is also presented in cross-cultural research, particularly Kluckhohn and Strodbeck's (1961) “Activity Orientation” which is that of “being” vs “doing.”

As organizational researchers are gravitating toward understanding teams in organizations, the measurement system used in this study (Lingham, 2004) could also be used to understand the experience of teams in organizations as it is both a descriptive and predictive tool. The inherent trend in the twenty-first century of organizations relying on teams makes it crucial to understand and use an integrative model that captures learning, team dynamics and interest-agenda driven aspects of individuals’ experience in teams especially across cultures.

Method

In this study, our intent was to compare the results of the measurement and mapping of team interaction in US and Spanish MBA teams that represent two of the dominant global cultures. The survey (Lingham, 2004) was administered to 184 MBA students (176 valid responses) in a Midwestern US university and166 MBA students (152 valid responses) in a Spanish university that participated in a similar 45min group decision-making exercise (GDME) as part of a leadership assessment and development course. Our objective was to show the visual mappings of team interaction for these two samples of MBA teams and to run comparative ANOVA analysis to determine if there are any cross-cultural differences between the US and Spanish MBA teams.

Sample

The demographics of these two sets of teams are shown in Table I. In the US sample, the average team size was 6.2 members (4.2 males and 1.9 females) with 18 full-time and 14 part-time MBA teams. The Spanish sample had an average team size of 6.36 members (5.03 males and 1.32 females) with 14 full-time (eight teams had attended the program in Spanish and six in English) and 17 part-time (13 teams attended the program in Spanish and four in English) MBA teams. Members in the Spanish teams that were not comfortable in responding to the English version of the instrument completed the Spanish version. The Spanish version was translated maintaining face validity of the items and then back translated by another person to ensure that the translation was accurate. One hundred and seventy six responses from the US and 152 from the Spanish samples were valid and used in this study. Invalid cases that were removed from the dataset were either incomplete responses or cases that were outliers after checking for normality. The full-time MBA sample in Spain consists also of students from Europe and Latin America but only a handful from America and Asia. The part time MBA sample from Spain comprised only of Spanish students. Therefore, these teams represent a microcosm of cross-cultural teams with an emphasis on Spanish culture. On the other hand, the full time MBA sample from America also consisted of student from Europe, Latin America and Asia but most students were Americans. In this sample, it also represents a microcosm of cross-cultural teams with an emphasis on US culture. This dual microcosm of cross-cultural teams with separate emphases from each of the two dominant global cultures makes this study relevant and representative of teams in organizational life within these two countries.

Procedure

As part of the same Leadership Assessment and Development (LEAD) Program in both USA and Spain, the MBAs were formed into teams that comprised of at least three different learning styles (Kolb, 1984) and a mix of gender where possible. After being together and working for at least a month, the teams go through a 45-minute GDME as a team with a task to make a decision on keeping three of six employees in an organization. After the exercise, we handed out the survey (Lingham, 2004) to team members to respond to their experience of team interaction and the interactions they would like to have. Team members also responded to three validated outcome assessments: team performance (Hackman, 1987), member satisfaction (Oetzel, 2001), psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). As mentioned earlier, the part time Spanish MBA students were given the valid translated version – after verification from back translation).

Results

As both sample groups (US and Spanish) went through the same program and group exercise, we are confident that other confounding variables have been controlled and that the results reported here will show the differences and similarities of the diverse aspects of team interaction in teams within these two dominant cultures. Although the importance of conversations has been of growing interest to researchers and practitioners in organizational life, little has been done to measure or map team interaction based on the experience of team members. This study therefore contributes to this existing gap in research and practice as it provides a methodology to measure and map out the four major dimensions of team interaction and shows the real experiences of team members and the Ideal experiences they would like to have in teams across two dominant global cultures.

The averaged Real and Ideal Conversational Spaces for the US and Spanish MBAs are shown in Figure 2 using the mapping system discussed (Figure 1). Although at a glance, they both seem similar, one distinguishing characteristic differentiates the Real Spaces in both groups – the diverging dimension. In the USA, the mappings show a tendency toward experiencing (Real Space) and wanting (Ideal Space) aspects of team interaction subsumed in the diverging dimension (i.e. APP, INT, IND, REL and SOL). Based on the visual mapping in Figure 2, teams in the US sample also wanted a more aspects of team interaction related to the REC dimension – where individuals are free to voice their interests and concerns in the team. In the Spanish teams, there is a closer match between the real and ideal mappings for all aspects along the diverging dimension. On closer examination, the results show that on average, the Spanish teams desire better interaction along the diverging and converging dimensions but not the STA or REC ones. The latter two dimensions have almost equal ratings for both the Real and Ideal interactions. On the other hand, teams in the US sample, on average desire interaction in the diverging, converging and the REC dimensions. When comparing the ratings of the three outcome variables (psychological safety, performance and member satisfaction) no significant differences across the two samples were noticed.

A distinct similarity in the ideal conversational spaces for both the US and Spanish MBAs is the lesser need for interaction along both the recursiveness and status dimensions (although there is a slightly higher need for the recursiveness dimension in the US sample). Based on the initial study (Lingham, 2004), status negatively affected performance, satisfaction and psychological safety indicating that teams did not like the experience of having a strong leader and being dependent on one. A lower rating on this dimension in this study is appropriate as the program focuses on developing leadership competencies and the participants would prefer leadership to be shared over having to depend on a strong leader. Also, team members are encouraged to facilitate participation from every member.

The similarity of the visual mappings of the real team interaction for both sub samples required further analysis to determine if the interactions are indeed different. We ran ANOVA analysis to compare the real team interaction between these two samples of MBA teams and the results are shown in Table II. As can be seen, only the diverging dimension was statistically significant (F = 26.42, p < 0.000) in distinguishing the US and Spanish MBA teams. Further analysis to compare the diverse aspects within the diverging dimension show that the two samples of MBA teams are different in all aspects with the biggest difference in the Relationality aspect (F = 45.36, p < 0.000). However, all of these aspects were statistically significant at p < 0.000. When taking into account the visual mappings (Figure 2), it can be seen that in the US sample, each aspect within this dimension (i.e. APP, IND, INT, REL and SOL) had a higher rating when compared to the Spanish sample. This distinction could perhaps be indicative of the more relational culture in Spain and the more task orientation in the USA.

The converging, STA and REC dimensions were not significant in both the US and Spanish samples. As the team exercise was exactly the same for the MBA teams in both these countries, the statistically insignificant finding in the ANOVA analysis for the converging dimension is not unexpected and shows that the task-oriented aspects in cross-cultural settings can actually be similar if the task in clear. Furthermore, most MBA teams globally are familiar with the task-focused and even task-emphasized orientation in teamwork assignment across the various disciplines in their MBA programs. Also, the insignificant finding in the STA dimension is expected as the team exercise is part of a leadership assessment and development program that focus on developing leadership skills. As such the focus on seeing team members as peers and not having dependence on a strong leader is reflected in this finding for the status dimension.

In comparing the ideal team interaction for these two MBA samples, both the diverging and recursiveness dimensions were statistically significant with F = 37.70, p < 0.000 and F = 23.65, p < 0.000, respectively (Table III). The differentiating characteristic in the REC dimension between this to MBA samples can be understood when juxtaposed with the visual mapping of the team interaction (Figure 2). The US MBAs’ desire for more recursive interactions than their Spanish counterparts is indicative of the tendency to focus on task in MBA team assignments in the USA. Perhaps the relational cultural norm in Spain creates more of a balance between task and relational aspects of team interaction. Further analysis confirms that all aspects of the diverging dimension were statistically significant at p < 0.000.

When we compare means of the major dimensions of team interaction for the US and Spanish MBA teams, the results show that the two samples desired higher levels of team interaction along the diverging, converging and REC dimensions but almost no desire to have stronger dependence on one leader (i.e. the status dimension). The results are shown in Figure 3. This finding shows that team learning and development programs should not only focus on task or project management skills but also skills to engage with the social-emotional aspects of team interaction.

Discussion and conclusion

Measuring team interaction is relevant, significant and directly applicable to organizational life while also aligned with the emerging trend in team research. This method not only provides a quantitative system to measure and map out team interaction but also provides a language to understand the diverse and complex aspects of team interaction generated by the lived experience of team members. Although Conversational Learning theory (Baker et al., 2002) states that team interaction can be understood along ten dialectic poles, the first quantitative empirical study based on this theory (Lingham, 2004) reveals that these ten aspects are subsumed in four major dimensions. In this study, we show that two of these four dimensions (a team's diverging and recursiveness dimensions) differentiate US and Spanish team interactions. Although at one glance, the results seem similar, the mappings show that the real spaces of both populations are quite distinct: the US sample had higher ratings in each of the aspects in the diverging dimension in both the real and ideal team interactions and that the difference in this dimension is statistically significant at p < 0.000 when compared to the Spanish MBA teams. Furthermore, in comparing the means of the real and ideal dimensions of team interaction for these two samples, the real ratings were lower for all dimensions (except status) indicating that even though the real team interaction may indicate the difference in cultural operating norms (i.e. a more relational culture in Spain and a more task focused culture in the USA), the overall desire to have better team interaction along the diverging, converging and recursiveness dimensions (Figure 3) strongly suggests that team learning and development programs should include skill development along the task and social-emotional dimensions of team interaction.

In recent team research, the diverging and recursiveness dimensions align with the social-emotional aspects of team interaction that impact critical areas of teamwork such as team bonding, interpersonal skill development, team member contribution, relationship management, managing diversity and conflict management (Jehn et al., 1999). Team bonding has also been identified based on meta-analytic evidence as necessary for high levels of team performance (Beal et al., 2003) Keller (2001) found that increased team bonding was positively related to the team's ability to handle stress especially those that one might find in cross-functional teams. We argue that this two dimensions of team interaction is crucial to developing successful teams especially in cross-cultural settings as most of the conflict or issues that arise in such teams center on interpersonal understanding, cultural awareness, relating to others in the team and diversity management – all of which are related to the social-emotional aspects of team interaction. Also, numerous studies show that a team's collective belief that they can be effective (i.e. team potency) directly impacts team member self ratings of effectiveness (Campion et al., 1996); management ratings of team performance (Hyatt and Rudy, 1997); and group performance behaviors (Little and Madigan, 1997). We also suggest that these two dimensions are directly linked to trust in a team as it relates to understanding team member values, attitudes, emotions and past experiences (Jones and George, 1998).

Based on these findings, we propose that as part of the graduate business programs, business or management schools should incorporate team courses that promote both the diverging and recursiveness dimensions of team interaction. Although some good project management type courses may already be in place in most schools, we show that students place an emphasis on developing the skills needed to deal with the social-emotional aspects of team interaction. We further believe that the developing of such skills is critical for managerial and leadership development – especially in cross-cultural management. With the business environment spanning the globe, managers and leaders in global settings have to develop sensitivity to cultures, individuals and norms of operation as it is directly related to managing conflict, diversity and the ability to motivate and energize others at the individual and team levels. This study supports and even stresses this need to include course or programs in management education that focus on the diverging and recursiveness dimensions of team interaction.

From a cross-cultural perspective, apart from its learning aspects (APP and INT), the divergent space involves very similar aspects proposed in cross-cultural research. The aspects of individuality and relationality have been framed as individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995; Schwartz, 1994; Kluckhohn, 1962), and solidarity has been framed along acceptance of authority and power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Also, in his initial study, Lingham (2004) shows that the status dimension (which is related to power distance or authority) is a distinct factor from relationality and that relationality and solidarity are part of the divergent space. This distinction aligns with Koltko-Riveria's (2004) assertation that power or authority should be separate from Relationality. In both samples, the team's preferred not to have dependency on a strong single leader in their real and ideal team interactions (Table II and Table III). Although one might argue that since the course promotes peer leadership such a pattern is expected, the instrument has also been tested on T-groups, and teams in organizations (Lingham et al., 2005a, b; Richley and Lingham, 2007) and in these settings, teams also do not express the need or dependence on a strong leader in their ideal spaces. This implies that power distance (Hofstede, 1980) in a team is not helpful regardless of cross-cultural or cultural contexts. Further research using this instrument on other work teams would be needed to confirm this finding.

An important contribution offered in this study that is applicable to cross-cultural team management is the aspects subsumed in the converging dimension of team interaction: “Being” and “Doing” are not similar dimensions as proposed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (1961) “Activity Orientation.” The “Doing” aspects (EXT and DIS aspects that form part of the converging dimension of a team) factored out separately from a team's recursiveness dimension (“Being”) (Lingham, 2004). This distinction is useful when understanding team interaction in a way to distinguish aspects of interaction that fall under the task (i.e. the converging dimension) and the social-emotional continuum (i.e. diverging and REC dimensions).

In today's multicultural organizational environment, the increasing need for global leaders and managers to develop skills to work with and lead teams are becoming exponentially important (Dolan and Lingham, 2007). This paper demonstrated a there is a difference in the diverging dimension of real and ideal team interaction of the MBA teams in the two cultures examined. Furthermore, both MBA samples expressed the need to have a better diverging and REC dimensions in the mapping of the ideal team interaction (Table IV). Finally, we also show that the US and Spanish MBA samples desire higher levels of team interaction related to the task and social-emotional dimensions (Figure 3). We firmly put forward the need for business and management schools to put in place team learning and development courses that also focus on developing facility around the diverging and REC dimensions of team interaction. We believe that this would not only nudge the boundaries of cross-cultural team research, but also provide a way to help teams reach their ideal spaces (which may require more focus on the diverging and REC dimensions). We are, however, confident that this stream of research would provide organizations across the globe with a method to help leaders and managers increase their knowledge about teams and to develop the skills required not only to be team members but also to lead, create and support teams in order for them to function more efficiently and effectively.

Note

We changed the ten dimensions of conversational learning theory to ten “aspects” to distinguish them from the four major dimensions that emerged from the empirical research conducted by Lingham (2004).

Figure 1Team interaction mapping of the ten aspect along four major dimensions

Figure 2Real and ideal mappings of team interaction for US and Spanish MBA teams and their corresponding ratings of outcomes

Figure 3A comparison of the real and ideal interactions along the four major dimensions for Spanish and US MBA teams

Table IComparative sample of US and Spanish MBAs

Table IIANOVA analysis of the four major dimensions in the real team interaction for US and Spanish MBA teams with further analysis of the aspects of the divergent dimension

Table IIIANOVA analysis of the four major dimensions in the ideal team interaction for US and Spanish MBA teams with further analysis of the aspects of the divergent dimension

References

Asch, S.E. (1951), "Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments", in Guetzkow, H. (Eds),Groups, Leadership, and Men, Carnegie, Pittsburgh, pp.177-90.