Pablo-Alejandro Quinones
Susan R. Fussell
ABSTRACT
The engineering and construction sectors have experienced a large surge in global projects. A common complaint is that American engineers are not ready to work globally because of their insensitivity to cultural differences. In this paper, we report two case studies of undergraduate engineering students in the U.S. collaborating with fellow students in Brazil, Israel or Turkey. We used survey, interview and observational methods to understand how cultural differences affected the quality of team interaction. We focus specifically on how culturally based differences in mental models of the work process (e.g., team structure, task processes, social conventions, knowledge/expertise) can account for problems that arise during engineering collaborations. The results can be used to design training software and materials to better prepare engineering students to work in a global context.
- Arciszewski, T. (2006). Civil Engineering Crisis. Leadership and Management in Engineering. 6, 26.Google Scholar
- Argote, L & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A basis for Competitive Advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, pp 150--169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bradner, E. & Mark G. (2002) Why Distance Matter: Effects on cooperation, persuasion, and deception. CSCW Proceedings '02, 226--235. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brislin, R. (2000) Understanding Culture's Influence on Behavior (2ed). Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
- Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), (pp. 221--246). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
- Cannon_Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. (1998). Making Decision Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training, APA Press, pp 17--38.Google Scholar
- Cheah, C. Y. J., Chen Po--Han, & Kiong T. S. (2005). Globalization Challenges, Legacies, and Civil Engineering Curriculum Reform. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131(2), 105--110.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Crosthwaite, D., Connaughton, J., (2006). World Construction 2005-2006. Davis Langdon Management Consulting, London, 2006Google Scholar
- Cramton, CD (2001) the mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 346--371. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. (2006). Local Culture, Learning and Adaptation in Internationally Distributed Work Teams. Talk presented at Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
- Cramton, CD, Orvis, KL, & Wilson, JM. (2007) Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed collaborations. Journal of management, 525--546.Google Scholar
- Cushner, K., Brislin, R.W. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Diamant, E. I., Fussell, S. R. & Lo, F-L. (in press). "Where did we turn wrong?" Unpacking the effects of culture and technology on attributions of team performance. Proceedings of CSCW 2008. NY: ACM Google ScholarDigital Library
- Earley, P.C. (1993). East meets Mideast: Further Explorations of Collectivistic and Individualistic work groups. The Academy of Management Journal, pp 319--348.Google Scholar
- Espinosa, J.A., Slaughter, S.A., Herbsleb, J.D., Kraut, R.E., Lerch, J.F., Mockus, A. (2002). Shared Mental Models, Familiarity, and Coordination: A Multi-Method Study od Distributes Software Teams. International Conference on Information Systems, 425--433.Google Scholar
- Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations (pp. 309--336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Fruchter, R. & Townsend, A. (2003). Multi-cultural dimensions and multi-modal communication in distributed cross-disciplinary teamwork. International Journal of Engineering Education. IJEE 19, 53--61.Google Scholar
- Geletkanycz, M.A. The Salience of Culture's Consequences: The Effects of Cultural Values on Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo. Strategic Management Journal, (1997), 615--634.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hall, E. (1976/1981). Beyond culture. NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Harrison, J.K. (1992). Individual and Combined Effects of Behavior Modeling and the Cultural Assimilator in Cross-Cultural Management Training. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp 952--962.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.) (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hofstede, G. J. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Huff, L. & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of Organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organizational Science, pp 81--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kayan, S., Fussell, S. R., & Setlock, L. D. (in press). Cultural differences in the use of instant messaging in Asia and North America. Proc. CSCW 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- KPMG. (2005). Global Construction Survey 2005: Risk Taker, Profit Maker? http://www.kpmg.com/Industries/IGH/Other/GCSurvey2005.htmGoogle Scholar
- Litrell, L.N. & Salas, E. (2005). A Review of Cross-Cultural Training: Best Practices, Guidelines, and Research Needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4,3, pp 305--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Litrell, L.N., Salas, E, Hess, K.P., Paley. M., Riedel, S. (2006) Expatriate preparation: A Critical Analysis of 25 Years of Cross-Cultural Training Research. Human Resource Development Review, pp 355--388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marr, W. A. (2006). On globalization. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 6, 31.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mitchell, T.R., Dossett, D.L., Fiedler, F.E. & Triandis, H.C. (1972). Culture Training: Validation Evidence for the Culture Assimilator. International Journal of Psychology, pp 97--104.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammed, S & Dumville, B.C. (2001). Team mental model in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, pp 89--106.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olson, G.M. & Olson, J.S. (2000) Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, pp 139--178. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Park, S.H. & Ungson, G.R. The effect of national culture, organizational complementarity, and economic motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, (1997), pp 279--307.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E.M. & Steinfatt, T.M. (1998). Intercultural Communication. Waveland Press.Google Scholar
- of audio vs. video conferencing on Chinese and American dyads. Proceedings of HICSS 2007.Google Scholar
- Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview PresGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Bridging the gap: discovering mental models in globally collaborative contexts
Recommendations
Culture and collaborative technologies
CHI EA '07: CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis workshop will explore interactions among culture, features of collaborative technologies, and group processes and outcomes. The workshop will address several key challenges to this area of research, including identifying important dimensions of ...
Explorations in an activity-centric collaboration environment
CHI EA '04: CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis demonstration presents a new hybrid collaboration technology that partakes of selected qualities of informal, ad hoc, easy-to-initiate collaborative tools, and more formal, structured, and disciplined collaborative applications. Our approach ...
Reviews
Bernice T. Glenn
As world economies continue to develop into internationally entwined entities, projects extending across cultures and datelines are becoming increasingly widespread. Businesses worldwide commonly outsource some of their work as multinational teams become a norm. The result often entails challenges based on a variety of languages and time zones, different cultural and geographic backgrounds, and even diverse money standards. Quinones et al. contend that cross-cultural teams who share mental models and have shared representations of the world are better able to perform as a group and as individuals. The model elements on which they focus include how communication should take place, how much effort each person should make, how tasks should be assigned, power and status hierarchies, and what elements make for a successful undertaking. Participants were undergraduate engineering students from the US, collaborating with students from Brazil, Israel, or Turkey. Students were given actual projects to work on, in which they had access to original design documents and specifications. Tasks included developing plans for bids, cost analysis, and project organization. Each group met once a week to work with its remote partners. Collaboration tools included the Internet, Webcams, NetMeeting for sharing laptop information, Skype for video conferencing and voice meetings, and an electronic whiteboard when needed. Course information was available through Blackboard. Observations showed that when there was disagreement among team members regarding their work structures, collaboration problems emerged. For example, the American/Brazilian team took several weeks to reach a compromise on team structure. In this team, the Americans' preference was for a hierarchical structure, while the Brazilians preferred an egalitarian one. In the Israeli/American team, the Israeli team members discouraged social chat and were very business-like and work focused. The American/Turkish group started its meeting with social chitchat, resulting in a stronger team-building model. Results of the studies show that team members did, in fact, display mental models of how their work group should be structured-how roles and role responsibilities should be assigned. Social conventions regarding time were also an issue. When disagreements arose in any of these areas, collaboration problems arose. The authors acknowledge that, although their survey suffered from a small sample size, it could be a source of insight into cross-cultural mental models and how they affect team collaboration. They do not mention the ages of team members, but they are undergraduates; their relative youth may also be a factor. Quinones et al. expect that efforts in this field of research will help to develop engineers who are better prepared to work in the global market. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments