Cultural Accommodation in Virtual Engineering Academic Teams

1. Cultural Accommodation in Virtual Engineering Academic Teams Andras Gordon, Penn State Rick Schuhmann, MIT Richard Devon, Penn State Mike Erdman, Penn State Ahmad Atieh, Taibah University Peter Dietrich, Corvinus University

2. Agenda • Objectives • Drivers • Approach • Constraints • Sample Results • Conclusions • Future

3. Objectives • Course • Introduce students to international/cross-cultural virtual teams solving real-world problems • Multidisciplinary, multi-university, primarily junior/senior year • Real-world projects with remote clients • Study • Assess how students accommodate cultural differences while working on projects • Use results to improve instruction and course content

4. Drivers • Global economy, global business, virtual teaming on the rise • Critical skills for tomorrow’s leaders • Promote mutual understanding across cultures • Limited exposure in standard engineering courses

5. Approach • The course – International Leadership of Engineering & Development • Offered at Penn State (USA), Taibah (KSA), and Corvinus (Hungary) • Project oriented, non-local clients, emphasis on delivery • Virtual teams 2-way and 3-way, typically 4 to 6 members • Students given introductory lessons on cultural accommodation • During semester - working sessions via electronic media: Skype, email, social networks, cloud services, ... • Formal video sessions bi-weekly via Polycom • After the semester: face-to-face meetings in Budapest (finalize report, oral presentation)

6. The Study • Based on G.Hofstede (bi-polar cultural dimensions), E. Hall (communication context), and R. Lewis (cultural interactions) • “pre” survey – measure personal attitudes, preferences, convictions before virtual collaboration • importance of 9 cultural factors in personal life of each student (on Likert scale 1 through 5) • “post” survey – similar questions - measure how student’s experiences (result of virtual collaboration) affected cultural attitudes • importance of 9 cultural factors in virtual collaboration for each student (on Likert scale 1 through 5) • Not a “this vs that”, rather “how important is this factor in your life” - often a dichotomy • Data sorted by university and individual teams • Questions were interpreted into Hungarian and Arabic

7. Study how 9 cultural factors affect students performance in international teams • Power distance • Uncertainty avoidance • Individualism / collectivism • Competition/ cooperation • Indulgence / restraint • Value of trust • Harmony in discussions • Achieve goals / relationships • Time flexible / structured At the end of semester Penn State students reflected on their experiences: • Understanding of projects • Communication • Trust in teams • Project results Bottom line – does this course help students adapt to cultural differences in virtual teams

8. Constraints • Sample size – • 3 universities; culturally diverse • Total of 36 students • Total of 7 teams • 11 weeks of interaction • No face-to-face until after end of semester & post survey

9. Sample Results Q3- Being independent (except in immediate family) or belonging to cohesive and protective in-groups (PSU students) Pre - How important is it in your life? Post - How often did you think about the above during international virtual collaboration? Solid – Pre Dash - Post 1 2 3 4 5 Likert Scale 1-- very low importance 5 – very high importance Student Number

10. Sample Results Q3- Being independent (except in immediate family) or belonging to cohesive and protective in-groups (PSU, TU, CU students) Pre - How important is it in your life? Post - How often did you think about the above during international virtual collaboration? 1 2 3 4 5

11. Sample Results Q3- Being independent (except in immediate family) or belonging to cohesive and protective in-groups Pre - How important is it in your life? Post - How often did you think about the above during international virtual collaboration? 1 2 3 4 5 Averages PSU – pre – 4.23, post – 3.15 TU -- pre – 4.78, post – 3.11 CU -- pre – 3.92, post – 3.55

12. Conclusions • Prior example (Q3 – independent/belonging) • Majority were concerned at the start • Decrease in concern by the end of the semester • Apparently course experience was effective in reducing concern about this dichotomy (independence vs belonging to a group)

13. Sample Results Q4- Being assertive and competitive or more modest, caring and cooperative Pre - How important is it in your life? Post - How often did you think about the above during international virtual collaboration? 1 2 3 4 5 Averages PSU – pre – 4.08, post – 3.38 TU -- pre – 5.00, post – 4.00 CU -- pre – 3.62, post – 3.42

14. Conclusions • Prior example (Q4 - assertive/caring) • TU and PSU were more concerned at start • Decrease in concern by the end of the semester • Apparently course experience was effective in reducing concern about this dichotomy

15. Other ConclusionsBased on survey data, project results & student reflections • The course and experiences affected the teams in a way that, over the semester, normalized their expectations in • Time management and organization/team structure • Being independent or belonging to a group • Expressing their opinions freely • The course and experiences were not as effective as desired in • Avoiding disagreements in discussions to maintain harmony • Being comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity • Shared understanding of project objectives

16. Observations • Clarify course objectives with all university participants • Cross-cultural experience while accomplishing project • Setting high standards for team performance • Multidisciplinary team makeup • Share syllabi, coordinate milestones

17. Future • Based on feedback from surveys, some changes indicated • Develop team contracts at start of semester to assure processes are in place & understood for how teams will communicate and resolve issues • Clearly identify and get agreement on deliverables at start of semester to assure expectations are commonly understood; • Assure students understand that changes in customer expectations do occur, must deal with them • Improve team communications • Have teams work and correspond independent of formal videoconferences • Have formal videoconferences as report to faculty (as if management or customers) • Set expectations to encourage and reward constructive feedback at videoconferences • Continue measurements

18. 1. Stress and anxiety in relation to persons and institutions of authority over you: 1. How often did you think about the above during international virtual collaboration? Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very frequently القلق و التوتر, بالنسبة إلى المؤسسات و الشخصيات ذات السلطة: - مدا الأهمية في حياتك الشخية مهمة جدا مهمة متوسطة الأهمية أهمية قليلة ليست لها أهمية 1. Stresszésszorongásolyanszemélyekkelésintézményekkelszemben, akikhatalommalbírnakönfelett: 1. Mennyiremeghatározóazönéletében? EgyáltalánnemKevéssé meghatározó Közepesen meghatározó MeghatározóKifejezetten meghatározó

19. Other ConclusionsBased on survey data, project results & student reflections • The course and experiences affected the teams in a way that, over the semester, normalized their expectations in • Time management and organization/team structure • Being independent or belonging to a group • Expressing their opinions freely • PSU – pre – 4.08, post – 4.00 • TU -- pre – 4.78, post – 3.78 • CU -- pre – 4.08, post – 3.92 • PSU – pre – 4.23, post – 3.15 • TU -- pre – 4.78, post – 3.11 • CU -- pre – 3.92, post – 3.55 • PSU – pre – 4.00, post – 4.15 • TU -- pre – 4.78, post – 4.22 • CU -- pre – 4.54, post – 4.25