Although previous research has theorized about team interaction differences between the German and U.S. cultures, actual behavioral observations of such differences are sparse. This study explores team meetings as a context for examining intercultural differences. We analyzed a total of 5,188 meeting behaviors in German and U.S. student teams. All teams discussed the same task to consensus. Results from behavioral process analyses showed that German teams focused significantly more on problem analysis, whereas U.S. teams focused more on solution production. Moreover, U.S. teams showed significantly more positive socioemotional meeting behavior than German teams. Finally, German teams showed significantly more counteractive behavior such as complaining than U.S. teams. We discuss theoretical and pragmatic implications for understanding these observable differences and for improving interaction in intercultural teams.
BainP.ParkJ.KwokC.HaslamN. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 789–805. doi:10.1177/1368430209340415
2.
BakemanR.GottmanJ. M. (1986). Observing interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BakemanR.GottmanJ. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BakemanR.QueraV. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BakemanR.QueraV. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BalesR. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BarkerV.AbramsJ.TiyaamornwongV.SeiboldD.DugganA.ParkH.SebastianM. (2000). New contexts for relational communication in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 470–503. doi:10.1177/104649640003100405
8.
BenesK. M.GutkinT. B.KramerJ. J. (1995). Lag sequential analysis: Taking consultation communication research methodology to the movies. School Psychology Review, 24, 694–709.
9.
ChangM. M.ZhangZ.ChiuC. (2010). Adherence to perceived norms across cultural boundaries: The role of need for cognitive closure and ingroup identification. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 69–89. doi:10.1177/1368430209343115
10.
CohenJ. A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
11.
CookeR. A.SzumalJ. L. (1994). The impact of group interaction styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 415–437. doi:10.1177/0021886394304005
12.
DentlerP. (1977). Zum Problemlöseverhalten von Gruppen in komplexen Problembereichen [On problem-solving behavior of groups in complex problems]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kiel, Germany.
13.
Elsayed-ElkhoulyS.LazarusH. (1995). Business meetings in North America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. American Journal of Management Development, 4, 15–23. doi:10.1108/02621719710190185
14.
FutoranG. C.KellyJ. R.McGrathJ. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2
15.
GrafA. (2004). Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: Evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies. The International Journal of Human Resource and Management, 15, 1124–1148. doi:10.1080/09585190410001677340
16.
GudykunstW. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
HallM. R.HallE. T. (1983). Hidden differences—Studies in international communication: How to communicate with the Germans. Hamburg, Germany: Gruner & Jahr.
18.
HeblM. J.PedersonJ. R.HillR.MeyersR. A.KauffeldS.Lehmann-WillenbrockN. (2009, November). Exploring the sequential nature of humor in task groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
19.
HirokawaR. Y.MiyaharaA. (1986). A comparison of influence strategies utilized by managers in American and Japanese organizations. Communication Quarterly, 34, 250–265. doi:10.1080/01463378609369639
20.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
22.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
HouseR.JavidanM.HangesP.DorfmanP. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: Aan introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 27, 3–10. doi:10.1016/S1090–9516(01)00069–4
24.
HsuC. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of communication orientations between Americans and Taiwanese. Communication Quarterly, 55, 359–374. doi:10.1080/01463370701497831
25.
HuangM. (2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affective relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40, 323–346. doi:10.1177/1046496409332441
26.
KatrielT.PhilipsenG. (1981). “What we need is communication”: “Communication” as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 301–317. doi:10.1080/03637758109376064
KauffeldS.Lehmann-WillenbrockN. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of work group communication on organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 128–156. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599
29.
KauffeldS.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.HenschelA.NeiningerA. (2009, July). Empirical discussion types: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Paper presented at the 4th Annual INGRoup Conference, Colorado Springs.
30.
KauffeldS.MeyersR. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented cycles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209
31.
KimM.SharkeyW. F. (1995). Independent and interdependent construals of self: Explaining cultural patterns of interpersonal communication in multi-cultural organizational settings. Communication Quarterly, 43, 20–38. doi:10.1080/01463379509369953
32.
LeachD. J.RogelbergS. G.WarrP. B.BurnfieldJ. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 65–76. doi:10.1007/s10869–009–9092–6
33.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.KauffeldS. (2010). The downside of communication: Complaining cycles in group discussions. In SchumanS. (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
34.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.MeyersR. A.KauffeldS.NeiningerA.HenschelA. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of planning communication. Small Group Research, 42, 639–668. doi:10.1177/1046496411398397
35.
LeungK.BhagatN.BuchanN.ErezM.GibsonC. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357–378. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400150
36.
LikerJ. (2006). The Toyota way fieldbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
LuoungA.RogelbergS. G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 58–67. doi:10.1037/1089–2699.9.1.58
OkhuysenG. A.EisenhardtK. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups. Organization Science, 13, 370–386. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.370.2947
41.
RoachK. D.Cornett-DevitoM. M.DevitoR. (2005). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and French classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 87–107. doi:10.1080/01463370500056127
42.
RogelbergS. G.AllenJ. A.ShanockL.ScottC.ShufflerM. (2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149–172. doi:10.1002/hrm.20339
43.
RogelbergS. G.LeachD. J.WarrP. B.BurnfieldJ. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being?Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 86–96. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.91.1.83
44.
RogelbergS. G.ScottC.KelloJ. (2007). The science and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48, 18–21.
45.
Rogerson-RevellP. (2007). Humor in business: A double-edged sword. A study of humor and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 4–28. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.09.005
46.
Rogerson-RevellP. (2008). Participation and performance in international business meetings. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 338–360. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.003
47.
SackettG. P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In OsofskyJ. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.
48.
SackettG. P. (1987). Analysis of sequential social interaction data: Some issues, recent developments, and a causal inference model. In OsofskyJ. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 855–878). New York, NY: Wiley.
49.
Schroll-MachlS. (1996). Kulturbedingte Unterschiede im Problemlöseprozess bei deutsch-amerikanischen Arbeitsgruppen [Cultural differences in problem-solving in German/American work groups]. In ThomasA. (Ed.), Psychologie interkulturellen Handelns (pp. 383–409). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
50.
Schroll-MachlS. (2008). Doing business with Germans: Their perception, our perception (3rd ed.). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
51.
SchwartzmanH. B. (1986). The meeting as a neglected social form in organizational studies. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 233–258). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
52.
ScottC. W.AllenJ. A.BonillaD. L.BaranB. EMurphyD. (in press). Ambiguity and freedom of dissent in post-incident discussion. Journal of Business Communication.
53.
SprainL.Boromisza-HabashiD. (2012). Meetings: A cultural perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7, 179–189. doi:10.1080/17447143.2012.685743
54.
StewartE. C.BennettM. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.
55.
TadmorC. T.SatterstromP.JangS.PolzerJ. T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity: The superadditive benefits of multicultural experience for collective creativity in culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 384–392. doi:10.1177/0022022111435259
56.
TerryD. J.PellyR. N.LalondeR. N.SmithJ. R. (2006). Predictors of cultural adjustment: Intergroup status relations and boundary permeability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 249–264. doi:10.1177/1368430206062080
57.
ThomasA.ChangC.AbtH. (2007). Erlebnisse, die verändern. Langzeitwirkungen der Teilnahme an internationalen Jugendbegegnungen [Experiences that change. Long-term effects of participating in international youth meetings]. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
58.
VarnerI.BeamerL. (2011). Intercultural communication in the global workplace (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
59.
WittenbaumG. M.HollingsheadA. B.PaulusP. B.HirokawaR. Y.AnconaD. G.PetersonR. S.YoonK. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17–43. doi:10.1177/1046496403259459
60.
YinJ. (2002). Telling the truth? A cultural comparison of “facilitating discussion” in American talk. Discourse Processes, 33, 235–256. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3303_3
61.
ZhangQ. (2005). Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 109–124. doi:10.1080/01463370500056150
