The process of team communication in multi-cultural contexts: An empirical study using Bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA)

Abstract The main goal of the present study was to empirically investigate the manner in which cultural diversity and communication mode affect team communication process. Two independent variables were manipulated in the study: (1) cultural diversity (homogeneous versus heterogeneous); and (2) communication mode (face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication). Team members’ communication exchanges were measured by using Bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA) that divides the function (as opposed to the topical content) of communication during group discussion into either task-related or socio-emotional contributions at two-levels: communication profile and functional area. Results of this study indicated homogeneous teams used more showing agreement, giving opinions, and showing tension communication patterns compared to heterogeneous teams. Additionally, when considering the higher-level functional areas, teams using face-to-face (FTF) communication strategies were characterized by greater positive socio-emotional communication, more attempted answers, more questions, and more frequent negative socio-emotional communications. The results of the present study also suggested that the impact of communication mode on team communication varies by the level of diversity within the team. The outcomes of this research should have a broad impact on the management of a multi-cultural team, a task-oriented team consisting of people with different national cultures. Relevance to industry: Results of the present study should provide valuable insights into the ways in which cultural diversity and communication mode influence the communication mechanisms which take place among members during team interaction.

[1]  Charles C. Snow,et al.  When Groups Consist of Multiple Nationalities: Towards a New Understanding of the Implications , 1998 .

[2]  Bonnie F. Daily,et al.  A comparative analysis of reactions from multicultural and culturally homogeneous teams to decision making with and without GDSS technology , 1997, CPRS.

[3]  Karen A. Bantel.  Strategic Planning Openness , 1994 .

[4]  B. Aubert,et al.  Further Understanding of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams , 2003 .

[5]  Marilyn Loden,et al.  Workforce America!: Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource , 1990 .

[6]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[7]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[8]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[9]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[10]  Rob Cross,et al.  Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: the moderating impact of relationship length. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Cultural diversity''s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diver , 1993 .

[12]  Rhona Flin,et al.  Identifying the team skills required by nuclear power plant operations personnel , 2008 .

[13]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[14]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  Introduction to human communication , 1976 .

[15]  Jorge Peña,et al.  An Analysis of Socioemotional and Task Communication in Online Multiplayer Video Games , 2006, Commun. Res..

[16]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  An interactional perspective on group awareness: Alleviating the information-exchange dilemma (for everybody?) , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  J. Oetzel.  Self-Construals, Communication Processes, and Group Outcomes in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups , 2001 .

[18]  Martha Grabowski,et al.  Effects of introducing collaborative technology on communications in a distributed safety-critical system , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[19]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[20]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional DYnamics of Organizational Groups , 1998 .

[21]  J. Richard Hackman,et al.  Why teams don't work: Why Teams Don't Work , 1998 .

[22]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Work Groups and Teams in Organizations , 2003 .

[23]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Technology, Group Process, and Group Outcomes: Testing the Connections in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Andrew May,et al.  A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry , 2001 .

[25]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .

[26]  R. Bales,et al.  Symlog, A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups , 1979 .

[27]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Top Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication , 1994 .

[28]  Cristina B. Gibson,et al.  “Exporting” teams: enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of work teams in global affiliates , 2001 .

[29]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[31]  P. McLeod,et al.  Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups , 1996 .

[32]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  Devil's Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry Effects on Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1995 .

[33]  Charles M. Slem,et al.  Team work in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams , 1995 .

[34]  H. Triandis.  Culture and Social Behavior , 2019, Cross-Cultural Explorations.

[35]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[36]  Daantje Derks,et al.  The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[37]  Erland Hjelmquist,et al.  Group processes in solving two problems: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[38]  D. Harrison,et al.  Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion , 1998 .

[39]  J. Hackman.  Why Teams Don’t Work , 1998 .

[40]  J. Ruhe,et al.  Effects of Racial Composition On Small Work Groups , 1977 .

[41]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A Typology of Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[42]  Stephen W. Littlejohn.  Theories of Human Communication , 1978 .

[43]  T. Kline,et al.  A review of the groupware literature: Theories, methodologies, and a research agenda. , 1999 .

[44]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community , 2005, TCHI.

[45]  Lynne Wainfan,et al.  Challenges in Virtual Collaboration: Videoconferencing Audioconferencing and Computer--Mediated Communications , 2005 .

[46]  D. Staples,et al.  The Effects of Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams , 2006 .

[47]  R. Fisch,et al.  Argumentation and Emotional Processes in Group Decision-Making: Illustration of a Multilevel Interaction Process Analysis Approach , 2000 .

[48]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[49]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[50]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999 .

[51]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .

[52]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups , 1996 .

[53]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[54]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[55]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others , 1988 .

[56]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Information technology: a study of performance and the role of human and organizational factors , 1997 .

[57]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[58]  E. Salas,et al.  Shared mental models in expert team decision making. , 1993 .