‘The team is great; I love to work with different people.’ International students’ perceptions of multinational teams and strategies for effective collaboration

Abstract

Students often perceive working in multinational teams as challenging, and differences in cultures, language proficiency and working styles may affect their collaboration. Therefore, what can students do to make their teams work? The article describes students’ perceptions and reflections over a semester and examines their strategies to foster effective collaboration across cultures. The data shows that students enjoyed working in their multinational teams and perceived differences as a learning opportunity. To create and maintain their collaboration, they used six strategies: they 1) mapped cultural differences and similarities and clarified their expectations, 2) engaged in socialisation activities, 3) did the required work, 4) ensured participation from everyone, 5) provided and integrated feedback, and 6) implemented other communication channels. The findings of this case study offer practical tools for students to work effectively in multinational teams, not only in the classroom but also in the workplace and provide recommendations for instructors to support and facilitate the process along the way.

Full text

Intercultural Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceji20
‘The team is great; I love to work with different
people.’ International students’ perceptions of
multinational teams and strategies for effective
collaboration
Annelise Ly
To cite this article: Annelise Ly (12 Dec 2024): ‘The team is great; I love to work with different
people.’ International students’ perceptions of multinational teams and strategies for effective
collaboration, Intercultural Education, DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2024.2440267
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2024.2440267
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 12 Dec 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceji20

‘The team is great; I love to work with dierent people.’
International students’ perceptions of multinational
teams and strategies for eective collaboration
Annelise Ly
Department of Professional and Intercultural Communication, NHH Norwegian School of Economics,
Bergen, Norway
ABSTRACT
Students often perceive working in multinational teams as
challenging, and dierences in cultures, language prociency
and working styles may aect their collaboration. Therefore,
what can students do to make their teams work? The article
describes students’ perceptions and reections over
a semester and examines their strategies to foster eective
collaboration across cultures. The data shows that students
enjoyed working in their multinational teams and perceived
dierences as a learning opportunity. To create and maintain
their collaboration, they used six strategies: they 1) mapped
cultural dierences and similarities and claried their expec-
tations, 2) engaged in socialisation activities, 3) did the
required work, 4) ensured participation from everyone, 5)
provided and integrated feedback, and 6) implemented
other communication channels. The ndings of this case
study oer practical tools for students to work eectively in
multinational teams, not only in the classroom but also in the
workplace and provide recommendations for instructors to
support and facilitate the process along the way.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 May 2022
Accepted 3 December 2024
KEYWORDS
Multinational teams;
teamwork; strategies;
instructor’s role; pedagogy
1. Introduction
The ability to collaborate and communicate eectively across cultures are skills
employers highly value when hiring graduates (Busch 2009; Butler and Zander
2008; Ly 2022a, 2022b; Ritter et al. 2018). To develop these skills, some instruc-
tors require students to work on projects involving students of dierent nation-
alities, in multinational teams. However, working in such teams is often
perceived as challenging by students, as dierences in cultures, language
prociency and working styles may aect their collaboration. Therefore, stu-
dents are generally negative towards teamwork (Pfa and Huddleston 2003),
CONTACT Annelise Ly Annelise.Ly@nhh.no
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2024.2440267
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduc-
tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The
terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or
with their consent.

particularly multinational teamwork (Mittelmeier et al. 2018; Spencer-Oatey and
Dauber 2016). Therefore, what can students do to make their multinational
teams work? And how can instructors support the process?
The present article is a case study that explores students’ perceptions of
multinational teamwork and identies strategies used to enhance their team-
work. The case is based on a global leadership course taught in a business
school in Norway in which students worked in multinational teams over
a semester. Based on weekly reection notes and nal reection assignment
papers written by the students, the article will answer two questions:
●How do the students perceive their multinational teams over the semester?
●What strategies did they use to create and maintain eective collaboration?
Understanding these strategies and how they aect perceptions of teamwork
over time is important for several reasons. First, by identifying successful stra-
tegies, instructors can guide and support their students in team projects.
Second, the strategies provide students with practical tools that can enhance
and further develop their collaboration skills. Third, understanding how to foster
successful teamwork in the classroom can also contribute to preparing students
eectively for the workplace that has become increasingly diverse.
In the next section, the author provides an analysis of the benets and
challenges of working in multinational teams in higher education settings and
reviews strategies used by instructors to foster eective teamwork. Second, she
describes the research design and the data used. Following this, the results are
presented. Finally, the author discusses the ndings, reecting on the role
students and instructors play in fostering eective collaboration across cultures.
2. Literature review: working in multinational teams in higher
education settings
2.1. Benets and challenges
Much pedagogical literature from the United States describes teamwork as an
eective way to create engagement and learning among students (e.g. Ainsworth
2021; Biggs and Tang 2011; Sweet and Michaelsen 2012). Inuenced by this view
on teaching and learning, some instructors in higher education implement team-
work activities in their courses, where students work together towards a common
deliverable, such as a task, a project, or an assignment. Not all teams are of the
same nature, and when the team is composed of ‘two or more individuals from
dierent (national) cultural backgrounds’ (Popov et al. 2012, 303), it can be
qualied as multinational. Extensive research, spanning a diverse range of dis-
ciplines from the humanities to business but predominately in English-speaking
countries indicates that some students enjoy working in multinational teams, as
2A. LY

the experience allows them to meet people from dierent cultures and be
exposed to dierent views (see, e.g. Poort, Jansen, and Hofman 2019 in the
Netherlands; Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2016 in the UK). The heterogeneous
setting also creates dynamics and tensions that can be explored constructively to
raise awareness, which is critical for transforming students’ attitudes and beliefs
(Acquah and Commins 2018) and for acquiring intercultural competence.
These studies, however, also highlight the challenges of working in multi-
national teams. First, language prociency and perceptions of other group
members’ language prociency can be a hindrance, as the team must commu-
nicate in a lingua franca or common language, which is often English. Studies
conducted in English-speaking countries like the UK and Australia show that
international students struggle to understand accents or feel insecure about
speaking, while students from the local area have trouble understanding inter-
national students (Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2016; Volet and Ang 2012). Based
on the ndings of a New Zealand study, local students may believe their English
prociency equates to being academically superior and that working with
international students brings their grades down (Strauss, U-Mackey, and
Crothers 2014). Second, students may have dierent learning preferences and
styles, depending on their cultural backgrounds (Eaves 2009). Therefore, to
collaborate eectively, international students may need to exert more eort
to determine how to approach the task, which comes at the expense of the time
that one can spend on the actual task (Poort, Jansen, and Hofman 2019).
Working under these conditions while also trying to navigate everything else
that is novel, may create increased stress and anxiety (Poort, Jansen, and
Hofman 2019; Strauss, U, and Young 2011). Third, social ties among team
members tend to be weak (De Paola, Gioia, and Scoppa 2019). Because of the
dierences in cultural and linguistic backgrounds, students may feel less com-
mitted to the team. Some may work less, while others may completely withdraw
from their teams. The issue of free-riding, or social loang, dened as ‘a decrease
in individual eort due to the social presence of the other persons’ (Latane,
Williams, and Harkins 1979, 823) is reported to be more common in multi-
national teams (Popov et al. 2012; Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2016) than in
teams with members from the same country. Thus, students generally prefer
working with ‘their own’ because they feel a cultural-emotional connectedness
with peers (De Paola, Gioia, and Scoppa 2019; Volet and Ang 2012). They think
along the same lines, share similar communication styles and assume that the
culture and system they grew up with is the ‘right’ way to do things.
2.2. Strategies to enhance multinational teamwork
Instructors can design activities where students experience teamwork in class
and learn from the process. This is in line with active learning (Biggs and Tang
2011) and experiential learning (Kolb 1984) theories, developed in the United
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 3

States, in which students learn eectively by practising a skill in addition to
being lectured about it. Setting up teams and requiring students to work
together on dierent tasks is an opportunity for them to practise their colla-
boration skills (Ritter et al. 2018). However, exposing students to multinational
teams without adequately preparing them or supporting them may have little
eect on attitudes or behaviours (Burdett 2014; Ferreira-Lopes, Elexpuru-
Albizuri, and Bezanilla 2021; Ritter et al. 2018). The experience might not
enhance students’ intercultural understanding or empathy as expected.
Without proper preparation and guidance to ensure they can navigate these
environments eectively and learn from the experience, students may hold
onto their existing biases or prejudices if their attitudes and views are not
thoroughly discussed. This could happen if they encounter situations that
they misunderstand or if their misconceptions about dierent cultures or
nationalities are not addressed and corrected (Liang and Schartner 2022;
Trede, Bowles, and Bridges 2013). As summed up by Burdett (2014, 25), ‘To
meet the challenges of intercultural group work, students must be equipped
with appropriate knowledge and skills, particularly language, competence, and
an understanding of dierences, real and perceived’.
Team collaborations, therefore, need to be carefully guided and supported
by an instructor who can use dierent methods to facilitate the process. Konrad,
Wiek, and Barth (2021) developed students’ interpersonal competence through
four learning processes: receiving input on teamwork; experiencing teamwork;
reecting on teamwork; and experimenting through trial and error with team-
mates in their project teams. Ferreira-Lopes, Elexpuru-Albizuri, and Bezanilla
(2021), on the other hand, introduced four task sequences to develop their
students’ intercultural competencies: ice-breaker activity (task 1), a comparison
and analysis of cultural dierences and similarities among team members
(task 2), a group contract (task 3) and a nal collaborative assignment (task 4).
Likewise, Logemann (2021) required students to prepare by reading about
multinational teams, analyse and dene cultural proles of the team members
and create a common set of best practices. Furthermore, to eectively develop
skills, students must reect on their experiences which can be accomplished by
taking regular reection notes as the collaborative eort proceeds (Aronson
et al. 2010; Matthews 2020; Trede, Bowles, and Bridges 2013).
The present review shows that studies on multinational teamwork in
higher education have been conducted across a diverse range of majors,
predominantly within Anglophone countries. The topic has been mainly
addressed from two perspectives: the students’ perceptions and the instruc-
tor’s interventions. Further, except for Liang and Schartner (2022), previous
studies on students’ perceptions collect their data at one specic point in
time: at the end of a course (Popov et al. 2012) or at a specic point in the
curriculum (Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2016). Yet, perceptions vary over the
semester, depending on the tasks and the evolution of the relationships
4A. LY

among team members (Poort, Jansen, and Hofman 2019; Volet and Ang
2012). The present study contributes to the literature rst by oering
a longitudinal analysis of students’ perceptions over a whole semester,
illustrating the evolution of relationships over time. It also underscores the
value of instructors’ interventions in facilitating eective multinational team
process. Third, by exploring student-initiated strategies for improving multi-
national teamwork, it provides practical tools for students to enhance their
collaborative skills.
3. Research design
The study centres on a single case, a course taught in a business school in
Norway. The author, serving not only as the instructor but also course coordi-
nator, was responsible for crafting the learning outcomes, teaching activities
and assessment forms. Parts of the learning outcomes focused on working in
multinational teams and the teaching activities and assessment forms (respec-
tively the weekly reection notes and the nal reection paper) align with these
goals. Gaining access to these notes throughout the semester provides a rich
source of data that allows one to capture the experience of working in multi-
national teams. To answer the two research questions, the author adopts an
exploratory and qualitative approach. Such an approach allows for the explora-
tion of participants’ subjective experiences (Silverman 2020) and sense-making
(Weick 1995) of multinational teamwork.
3.1. Description of the case
The study is based on a global leadership course taught in a business school in
Norway in the spring semester of 2021. It is a mandatory course for students
following an international programme at the master’s level, taught every year.
There are approximately 40 students, aged between 22 and 30 years. The group
is highly international and students who enrol in this programme are interna-
tionally oriented. For instance, one of the admission criteria to this programme
is that they speak at least three languages. During their programme, they also
spend a semester abroad. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, travelling restrictions
were applied in Norway in 2021. This aected the composition of the student
group that year in terms of nationalities, with most students coming from
Europe, except for six from Asia (China, India, Vietnam and Turkey). 37 students
enrolled in the course, from 20 nationalities. The course was planned to take
place on campus. However, adjustments were made following the restrictions
from the local authorities. The course was oered in a hybrid format to account
for students enrolled in the programme but could not travel or were in quar-
antine. Further, some of the sessions were moved online when local authorities
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 5

encouraged students and sta to work from home. The course is taught over
a semester, once a week for four hours over nine weeks.
The Quality Reform of higher education in Norway in 2004 has led to an
increasing focus on active learning and student-centred approaches in
Norwegian higher education institutions (Damşa et al. 2015; Fallan 2006). The
author, with over a decade of teaching experience in Norwegian higher educa-
tion, has been inuenced by this shift and been inspired by active learning
methods developed in the United States, such as Team-based learning (Sweet
and Michaelsen 2012). One of the main learning outcomes was to develop
students’ ability to work in multinational teams. Therefore, the instructor
resorted to Team-based learning in the course.
In the international work environment, individuals can seldom choose their
collaborative partners. Reecting this reality, the instructor strategically created
heterogeneous teams before the commencement of the course. This was done
by considering a variety of factors including the students’ gender, nationality-
(ies), academic exchange and professional experiences, language prociencies,
and past participation in intercultural/cross-cultural management courses.
Seven teams, each consisting of 5–6 students, were created based on the
gathered information. Each team was composed of at least 4 nationalities
that, where possible, related to dierent cultural clusters identied in the
GLOBE (House et al. 2004) framework. For instance, one of the teams was
composed of students from China, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy and
Russia. Where possible, gender balance was achieved.
The instructor then introduced working in a multinational team to students
as follows:
(1) In an introductory email, she informed them about the course and its
main learning objectives. She explained that, to meet one of the course
objectives, formulated as ‘the ability to work with people from dierent
cultural/language backgrounds’, students would be working in multina-
tional teams throughout the semester, using Team-based learning and
requested them to watch a short video explaining the method.
(2) In the introductory email, she requested them to prepare for the rst
session on the topic ‘Leading and working in global teams’ by reading
a given chapter and by analysing a case on global teams.
(3) During the rst class, she presented the teaching method in more detail
and revealed the composition of the seven teams. She explained that
students would work in their teams throughout the semester and that
this meant that they would have to manage relationships and deal with
conicts if they arose. Then, students had a few minutes to engage in an
ice-breaking activity.
(4) Then, the students completed a graded team test on the reading and
discussed the business case.
6A. LY

(5) After the class, students wrote a reection note and gave individual
feedback to all their team members via an online form. The feedback
was then anonymised and sent to the students by the instructor.
Every session followed the same structure: pre-reading, graded team test, case
discussion, reection note and peer feedback session. A detailed explanation of
the teaching method and its eectiveness can be found in (Ly 2022a). The
assignment for the course is composed of ve elements, each making up 20%
of the nal grade: 1) the average score of the weekly team test, 2) an oral
presentation, 3) a report, 4) an individual reection paper at the end of the
semester and 5) an evaluation of the quality of the peer feedback given. The rst
three elements are team-based and make up 60% of the nal grade. To create
more engagement in the class, the team with the highest team test score at the
end of the semester received a small prize, consisting of a personalised
team mug.
3.2. Data
To understand students’ subjective experiences (Silverman 2020) of working in
a multinational team, the study uses two types of texts produced by the
students: weekly reection notes (WRN) and graded nal reection papers
(FRP). Reection notes are a valuable research tool (Bashan, Holsblat, and
Mark 2017) as they provide an eective way to obtain information about
a person’s feelings and sensemaking (Weick 1995) of situations.
The WRN are notes written by the students after each class. In these, they
share immediate thoughts and feelings related to the topic discussed in class or
the teamwork. To encourage them to elaborate on their reections, they were
prompted to answer questions on their learning during class and on their
teamwork (e.g. What are the main take-home messages of this session for
you? How is the teamwork going so far?). These notes were submitted weekly
on the learning management system platform and read by the instructor but
were personal and ungraded. At the end of the semester, 304 WRNs had been
written by students. These notes provide qualitative evidence of the develop-
ment of the teams, week after week, and of the strategies students employed to
foster good collaboration.
At the end of the semester, students also wrote a reection paper (FRP). The
papers were graded based on their reections on working in a multinational
team and their ability to draw some lessons for their professional journeys. At
the end of the course, 37 FRPs were submitted.
The data for this study was collected at the end of the course, after the FRP
had been handed in. Students received an email from the instructor informing
them about the purpose of the study and asking them whether they would
consent to participate in the study. It was highlighted that participation was
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 7

anonymous and voluntary, and that their choice would not aect students’
grades. The project was reported to and approved by the Norwegian Social
Science Data Services and the process followed the ethical guidelines of volun-
tary participation and guarantee of anonymity. To gain a holistic understanding
of the team dynamics in the course, all the 304 WRNs and 37 FRPs are used in
the analysis. However, the examples cited in this article come from WRNs and
FRPs written by students who have explicitly agreed to participate in the
research project. For the sake of the study, each student is anonymised and
referred to by a number (e.g. S5). When quoting the nal reection notes, the
acronym FRP is used. For WRN, no acronym is used and the week is indicated in
parenthesis when ambiguous (e.g. W1).
3.3. Method of analysis
The data collected was analysed using thematic analysis. The author closely read
the students’ notes to identify common themes. Some categories were pre-
determined, such as ‘free-riding’ and, ‘group conicts’ based on the previous
literature on multinational teams (see, e.g. Popov et al. 2012; Spencer-Oatey and
Dauber 2016). However, there were no entries for these categories. Neutral
categories were thus created to capture students’ experiences, such as ‘percep-
tion of multinational teams’. Other categories emerged through a close reading
of the data, such as ‘strategies’, ‘grades’ and ‘learning’ which were then orga-
nised thematically.
4. Results
4.1. How do the students perceive their multinational teams during the
semester?
Working in a multinational team was a new experience for some, while for
others, it was not. In both cases, their past experiences shaped their expecta-
tions, as these two examples show:
To be honest, I didn’t know what to expect as it was my rst experience of such an
international team (. . .). I was, honestly, sceptical (. . .) to group work as I usually only
work with (people from the same nationality) and I know how we work as we have the
same standards, same structure and same culture. So I was thrilled to see how we could
manage to work together during this semester. (FRP, S18)
I have previously cooperated with representatives of all nationalities (in my group).
Obviously, before the rst meeting, I had some expectations towards my teammates
based on my prior experiences with these nationalities as well as stereotypes. (FRP,
S29)
The students were mostly positive after the rst session (week 1) and described
their teams in their reection notes in following terms: ‘So far, the teamwork is
8A. LY

doing great’ (S2), ‘Today the teamwork was really good’ (S3) and ‘The team is
great, I love to work with dierent people’ (S6). The use of intensiers, such as
‘really good’, and ‘great’, reinforces this impression. Team members were
described with positive adjectives such as ‘kind and nice’ (S11) and ‘curious
about each other’ (S16). The team composition was also seen as a learning
opportunity: ‘We have a great asset of diversity, which will denitely be helpful’
(S1), ‘I feel lucky to have such a diverse team (. . .) I assume we can learn from
each other and develop our skills’ (S8) and as a ‘beautiful opportunity for the
student to learn a lot on and from other cultures’ (S19).
The coding category gathering the challenges of working in multinational
teams only had two examples, both from week 1: the rst one was related to the
time dierence for one student following the course digitally from an Asian
country and the other to the student’s lack of condence in her English pro-
ciency. These challenges, however, were dealt with by team members prior to
the second session, as explained in the second part.
The teamwork continued to be described positively in the middle of the
semester (weeks 5 and 6), as these examples show: ‘Concerning the teamwork
so far I can say that it is working very well’ (S22) and ‘The teamwork went
smoothly as always’ (S12). The weekly reection notes also provided qualitative
explanations of why teamwork seemed to be going well. Members were well-
prepared for class and engaged in the discussions: ‘I feel like everyone was very
active and well prepared as always’ (S15) and ‘Everybody was so active’ (S2).
Diversity in their experiences and backgrounds sometimes led to ‘heated dis-
cussions’ (S15, W7) and would, for instance, disagree on how a company should
proceed faced with corruption and other ethical issues, but again, these were
framed in a positive way, as in the following example: ‘It was so delightfully
challenging to have dierent opinions in the group’ (S23, W9). Students also
seemed to foster a nice atmosphere in class: ‘It is highly interesting (and fun) to
work together’ (S19, W2) and ‘We laugh a lot’ (WRN, S33, W4).
At the end of the semester (week 9), students did not report any major
challenges in their teams and their ‘dierences did not materialise into
conicts’ (S19). The multinational team oered opportunities to learn: ‘It
was the rst time in my life where I was able to discuss those theories
with people from dierent cultural backgrounds. And this is where I learnt
a lot’ (S13). Students also explained that they had the possibility to develop
professional skills: ‘Working in the multicultural team helps me to become
more adaptable and exible’ (S30) and ‘the main thing I learned throughout
this class is to speak up in group discussions and not be afraid of speaking
freely’ (S31). A student described how the experience made her reect on her
own biases about silent team members:
I believe a few months ago I would have blamed or thought people were lazy and now
I am self-reecting and actually wondering if I take too much space and prevent people
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 9

from having an input. I feel like I have started this journey of awareness and I am happy
to continue this route because I think it is making me more approachable and
empathetic. (FRP, S32)
No major conicts were mentioned in the 37 FRPs. In these papers, some tried to
interpret or ‘make sense’ (in Weick’s terminology) of why so few challenges
occurred in their teams and concluded that they belong to the same community
of practice: ‘I believe we had more similarities than dierences, through being
international business students with previous experience of multicultural colla-
boration’ (FRP, S9). Some students realised that despite having dierent nation-
alities and rst languages, many shared similar socio-economic backgrounds,
educational journeys, experiences through their international internships and
professional aspirations.
4.2. What strategies did the students implement to create and maintain
good collaboration?
The close reading of the data allowed for capture of six strategies students used
to foster the good team environment.
4.2.1. Students mapped cultural differences and similarities and clarified their
expectations
Two out of the seven teams organised a kick-o meeting between the rst and
the second session to compare their cultural proles:
We managed to do our Kick-O this week on Monday and we started by getting to
know each other (. . .) which was quite interesting because it was based on our
personality rather than the culture of our country, and there were some interesting
results. Overall, it helped us a lot in terms of understanding each other better and I am
convinced it will help us a lot in working together with tolerance and understanding.
(S15, W2)
This meeting enabled students to map dierences and similarities, discuss
preferences in behaviour but also address potential challenges in the team.
One of the students followed the course digitally and noted her concern in her
WRN: ‘The most worrying thing is that I am the only person who is in another
time zone than anyone else’ (S11, W1). This issue, however, seemed to have
been addressed in the team and solved right away: ‘We did discuss time
dierence because one of us is in China (we discussed it last week), and we
were quite open about when to work on our project because of her. Nobody
had a problem with it’ (S26, W2).
4.2.2. Students engaged in socialisation activities
Students knew they would be working in the same team for the rest of the
semester and made an eort to get to know each other, as these examples, all
10 A. LY

from week 2, show: ‘I denitely want to hang out with them and not just discuss
the university related topics’ (S26).
During class, students spent a lot of time in their teams discussing cases.
However, they also used some of this time to socialise: ‘We were quite ecient,
did some social talk instead of answering the rst questions, but it was worth it
to get to know each other better’ (S25) and
When we were done earlier with a task, we did not just go back into the main room but
rather switched to more personal topics which I would regard as a team-building
activity. (S4)
The students also met outside the classroom to socialise: ‘We used some of our
leisure time before in order to get to know each other’ (S22). Two out of the
seven teams mentioned organising a team dinner, where they would cook and
eat together. They also included the team member, who joined the dinner
online.
4.2.3. Students did the required work
Further, the data shows that students did the required pre-work. Every week,
they were asked to prepare for the following session by reading a theory
chapter with key concepts and read and answer questions on a case. Many
comments in the weekly reection notes, week after week, attested to students
being well prepared for class, as these examples show: ‘Everyone is well-
prepared, and the discussions happen smoothly’ (S13, W2); ‘I feel like everyone
was very active and well prepared as always’ (S15, W5).
Good preparation was also corroborated by the team test scores obtained by
every team, week after week as mentioned by several students, such as in these
examples: ‘We had an excellent team performance again today’ (S33, W3) and ‘I
believe we all participate, prepare appropriately and communicate in an eec-
tive manner. This is highlighted by our team being rst in the quiz rankings!’
(S27, W4). Good results, in other words, were seen as a cue for eective
collaboration.
4.2.4. Students ensured participation from everyone
Throughout the semester, students praised the ‘balanced speaking time’ (S4,
W2) among team members: Everyone ‘is respectful and listens to others’ (S10,
W2). One student recalled that her team established clear rules: ‘Already at the
beginning of the course we established group rules that encouraged open
sharing of opinion and proactive participation in discussions’ (FRP, S33).
Prociency in the common language, English, could be perceived as
challenging by some of the students. One student expressed her concern
in week 1: ‘I’m aware that I’m the one contributing less than others, and
I admitted my weakness (both language barriers and lack of condence) to
my group members’ (S12). As the semester went on, however, team
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 11

members ensured that she participated in the discussions, through friendly
encouragements: ‘Our team consistently encouraged her to speak up and
share her opinion’ and ‘I reached out to her personally on WhatsApp’ (FRP,
S28). At the end of the semester, another team member praised how that
team member evolved: ‘I am impressed by the huge development of (name
anonymised) throughout the semester. She shared her opinion more often,
contributed to discussions and even presented our eldwork study at the
end of the class’ (FRP, S4).
4.2.5. Students provided and integrated feedback
Feedback is an important part of their learning processes and a key element
in the Team-based learning teaching method. Students were required to
provide feedback to all members of their teams after each session, The
feedback was then anonymised and sent to each student a couple of days
after class. The examples provided are all from week 2. The feedback gave
them an opportunity to reect on their behaviour: ‘This feedback was spot
on. I do have a tendency to step back whenever a conict arises’ (S4). The
students also devoted time to discussing the feedback received in their
teams: ‘We even briey discussed our feelings about the feedback we had
received last week’ (S33). Several comments further showed that feedback
was integrated by team members: ‘They also listened to the only “negative”
comment I gave them last week (that it would be better if everyone was in
a quiet place, not in a common room) because they all applied it this week’
(S10) and ‘Another point I found interesting was how fast the feedback I gave
last week was incorporated by my team members’ (S4).
4.2.6. Students implemented other communication channels
All teams created a WhatsApp group. According to the reection notes, such
a communication channel had three functions. First, the application was used as
a backup when the main communication channel failed:
I had problems today with Zoom so I couldn’t participate fully in the second discussion
with my team and we needed to use the WhatsApp group to quickly nish our answers
when the breakout rooms stopped before the allowed time for discussion. (S30, W3)
Second, it was used to communicate among team members in class: ‘When we
have comments and are not in the group room, we discuss things through our
WhatsApp channel’ (S16, W3) and ‘we discussed things verbally and then
summarised them in our WhatsApp group chat’ (S17, W2). Last, it was a way
to socialise in class: ‘We even made some jokes on WhatsApp and had a good
time. All of this while also working nicely together’ (S25, W2) or to keep in
contact between classes, as a student explained: ‘I have also attempted to
maintain a steady stream of communication, sharing links and starting
a discussion on the readings’ (S5, W5).
12 A. LY

5. Discussion
5.1. Discussion of the ndings and signicance for students
Multinational teams in the classroom can be an ideal opportunity for students to
be exposed to dierent perspectives and develop their collaboration skills
across cultures (Acquah and Commins 2018; Butler and Zander 2008; Konrad,
Wiek, and Barth 2021; Poort, Jansen, and Hofman 2019; Spencer-Oatey and
Dauber 2016). However, putting students into teams does not automatically
guarantee that they will develop good collaboration skills. This study highlights
the importance of student initiatives and giving them agency (Riebe, Girardi,
and Whitsed 2016) and responsibility for how their teamwork may turn out.
In the present study, students had a notably positive experience working
within multinational teams. A total of six student-initiated strategies were
identied to facilitate eective collaboration. These strategies encompassed
mapping cultural dierences and similarities, engaging in socialising activities,
completing assigned work, ensuring participation from everyone, providing and
integrating feedback, and implementing various communication channels.
Further, the dataset provides a longitudinal perspective that conrms the
positive experience students had throughout the semester. This allows for
correlation between the positive experience and the strategies used, reinforcing
the role of the students in fostering good collaboration.
These ndings bear signicance for students for two primary reasons. Firstly,
by spelling out and raising awareness of these strategies, students can develop
their collaboration skills across cultures and later transfer their learning to
professional contexts. Secondly, these strategies can be used in other contexts
as well, be it multinational or mononational, as dierences in communication,
working styles and personalities among others, impact team collaboration in
general.
5.2. Signicance for instructors
While the study focused on students’ role in fostering good collaboration, it also
emphasises the role of the instructor in designing, facilitating and monitoring
the team process. Given the increasingly global nature of the workplace, the
ability to work eectively across cultures is a skill that employers highly value
and may constitute a competitive advantage for students. Instructors can
enhance learning, engagement and students ‘collaborative skill development
by implementing and monitoring team activities in their courses. Based on the
present and other recent studies presented in the literature review, the author
recommends instructors wishing to implement teamwork to follow these steps:
(1) Design activities that require students to experience teamwork over time
(Ferreira-Lopes, Elexpuru-Albizyri and Bezanilla, 2021; Konrad, Wick and
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 13

Barth, 2021; Logemann 2021). Instead of lecturing about the topic of
multinational teams, allow students to experience teamwork over some
time (a few weeks to a whole semester) to develop their collaborative
skills.
(2) Provide knowledge on the topic (Konrad, Wick and Barth, 2021;
Logemann 2021). Explicitly learning about team dynamics helps students
become familiar with some challenges but also with strategies from
organisational literature they could implement in their own teams.
(3) Allow students to get to know each other. Taking time to get to know
team members fosters trust and psychological safety, which are necessary
for teams to be successful and reduce free riding. This can be done in
three ways. First, students can map dierences and similarities among
team members using for instance Hofstede’s Inside Country Comparison
tool to analyse and compare the national dimensions of the cultures
represented by team members (Ferreira-Lopes, Elexpuru-Albizyri and
Bezanilla, 2021) or discuss the challenges their cultures may pose when
working in multinational teams (Logemann 2021). Second, instructors can
help students engage in socialisation activities in class with ice-breaking
activities such as team sele (Ferreira-Lopes, Elexpuru-Albizyri and
Bezanilla, 2021), exchange of contact information (Logemann 2021) or
encourage students to meet outside of the classroom. Third, instructors
can encourage students to create a parallel communication channel
(WhatsApp group or equivalent) that could be used to share questions
or seek clarications among team members (Ferreira-Lopes, Elexpuru-
Albizyri and Bezanill, 2021; Logemann 2021).
(4) Monitor the quality of the teamwork by implementing regular deliver-
ables. Regular touchpoints help students make sense of their team colla-
boration. As shown in this study, the weekly tests worked as an external
cue for students to conrm and reinforce their good teamwork.
(5) Monitor the quality of the team dynamics by implementing reection
notes. The weekly reection notes made students take a step back and
reect on the team processes. Reading the reection notes allows the
instructor to gauge the team dynamics, understand challenges the stu-
dents face and take corrective action if necessary. (Konrad, Wick and
Barth, 2021; Logemann 2021
5.3. Limitations
The present study provides insights into how students work in multinational
teams and oers some recommendations for instructors who are interested in
multinational teamwork. It is based on a case study (one course), which, by
nature, presents some limitations.
14 A. LY

First, the study took place in the cultural context of Norway and Norwegian
higher education. While the class was composed of international students, the
teaching method was Western-centric and promoted student participation and
initiatives, discussions, rather than lectures. There was also a low power distance
between the instructor and the students. To be eectively used in another
cultural context, instructors may need to explain the teaching method carefully,
so that students understand the level of interaction and initiative that is
expected.
Another limitation of the study is the possible bias in the student notes.
These biases can be explained by dierent factors. Students were required to
write these notes after each class and knew the instructor would read them.
They may have embellished their team experience in the hope of getting
a better grade or being liked. It should be noted that the WRNs were not
graded, and students shared quite open (sometimes critical) reections on the
course content for instance. The FRPs were graded, but criteria were put on their
personal reection of working across cultures and their learning as future global
leaders rather than the teamwork itself. Furthermore, the data was collected in
the spring semester 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the students
followed the course digitally and some of the sessions were moved online due
to restrictions at the time. After half a year of isolation, working in a team may
have been a way of counterbalancing the overall situation and, in this context,
be perceived by the students as particularly positive.
Despite these biases, the author has strived to ensure the trustworthiness
and credibility of the data. She has, for instance, taken all the FRPs and WRPs
into account when analysing the data. This provided multiple perspectives on
the teamwork or a specic episode/challenge, as illustrated in 4.2.4 (lack of
participation of a student in a group and its evolution throughout the semester
depicted by several team members). The ndings are also in line with informal
student feedback received by the instructor, as well as conrmed by the high
scores in the team tests that had an average of 98% correct answers across the
teams (max: 100%, min: 95).
While the ndings of this study may not be generalised to all courses in
higher education, the author has strived to detail the course design as described
in 3.1. More research could be undertaken using the same method to see
whether dierent variables (nature of the student group, disciplinary back-
ground, level of freedom in choosing team etc.) may inuence the outcome.
Conclusion
This article explores how students perceived their multinational team over
a semester and the strategies they initiated to enhance their collaboration.
This article contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, it oers
a more nuanced perception of working in multinational teams. While much
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 15

of the previous literature on multinational teams has stressed how challen-
ging such endeavour is, this study also shows that the experience can be
enjoyable and be a learning opportunity. Second, it oers a qualitative
perspective of how students perceive multinational teams. Third, the study
highlights the strategies students and instructors can use to foster eective
collaboration.
The ndings are important as they can provide students with practical tools
they can use when working in teams, be they multinational or not. These
strategies can also be transferred to workplace settings and constitute
a competitive advantage for candidates who can navigate the increasingly
diverse work environment. The ndings also highlight the role of the instructor,
and the article provides recommendations to support and facilitate the team-
work process along the way.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Annelise Ly, PhD, is an Associate Professor in intercultural communication at the Norwegian
School of Economics (NHH). She was awarded the status of Excellent Teacher Practitioner in
2021. Her primary teaching and research interests encompass collaboration and leadership
across cultures, diversity and inclusion, international teamwork and leadership
communication.
ORCID
Annelise Ly http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7250-9063
Data availability statement
Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be
shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.
References
Acquah, E. O., and N. L. Commins. 2018. “International students’ Perspectives of a Diverse
Class on Multiculturalism.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 42 (2): 193–204. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1224328 .
Ainsworth, J. 2021. “Team-Based Learning in Professional Writing Courses for Accounting
Graduates: Positive Impacts on Student Engagement, Accountability and Satisfaction.”
Accounting Education 30 (3): 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1906720 .
16 A. LY

Aronson, K. R., R. Venable, N. Sieveking, and B. Miller. 2010. “Teaching Intercultural Awareness
to First‐Year Medical Students via Experiential Exercises.” Intercultural Education 16 (1):
15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310500061649 .
Bashan, B., R. Holsblat, and B. Mark. 2017. “Reective Journals as a Research Tool: The Case of
Student teachers’ Development of Teamwork.” Cogent Education 4 (1): 1374234. https://
doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1374234 .
Biggs, J. B., and C. S. Tang. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University : What the Student
Does. 4th ed. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill, Society for Research into Higher Education,
Open University Press.
Burdett, J. 2014. “Students Achieving Intercultural Competence Through Group Work:
Realised or Idealised?” Journal of International Education in Business 7 (1): 14–30. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-05-2013-0017 .
Busch, D. 2009. “What Kind of Intercultural Competence Will Contribute to students’ Future
Job Employability?” Intercultural Education 20 (5): 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14675980903371290 .
Butler, C., and L. Zander. 2008. “The Business of Teaching and Learning Through Multicultural
Teams.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 19 (2): 192–218. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08975930802118903 .
Damşa, C., T. de Lange, M. Elken, R. Esterhazy, T. Fossland, N. Frølich, and P. O. Aamodt. 2015.
Quality in Norwegian Higher Education: A Review of Research on Aspects Aecting Student
Learning. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
De Paola, M., F. Gioia, and V. Scoppa. 2019. “Free-Riding and Knowledge Spillovers in Teams:
The Role of Social Ties.” European Economic Review 112:74–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
euroecorev.2018.12.002 .
Eaves, M. 2009. “Learning Styles Technology and Supporting Overseas Learners.” Multicultural
Education and Technology Journal 3 (1): 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17504970910951156 .
Fallan, L. 2006. “Quality Reform: Personality Type, Preferred Learning Style and Majors in
a Business School.” Quality in Higher Education 12 (2): 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13538320600916817 .
Ferreira-Lopes, L., I. Elexpuru-Albizuri, and M. J. Bezanilla. 2021. “Developing Business stu-
dents’ Intercultural Competence Through Intercultural Virtual Collaboration: A Task
Sequence Implementation.” Journal of International Education in Business 14 (2): 338–360.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-06-2020-0055 .
House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, Eds. 2004. Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, California,
USA: Sage publications.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Konrad, T., A. Wiek, and M. Barth. 2021. “Learning Processes for Interpersonal Competence
Development in Project-Based Sustainability Courses–Insights from a Comparative
International Study.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 22 (3):
535–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2020-0231 .
Latane, B., K. Williams, and S. Harkins. 1979. “Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes
and Consequences of Social Loang.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 37 (6):
822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822 .
Liang, Y., and A. Schartner. 2022. “Culturally Mixed Group Work and the Development of
students’ Intercultural Competence.” Journal of Studies in International Education 26 (1):
44–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320963507 .
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 17

Logemann, M. 2021. “Reimagine Your Classroom: Preparing for the Global, Digital Workplace
in a Virtual Teamwork Course.” In Developments in Virtual Learning Environments and the
Global Workplace, edited by S. Swartz, B. Barbosa, I. Crawford and S. Luck, 1–23. Hershey,
USA: IGI Global.
Ly, A. 2022a. “Developing Future Global leaders’ Competencies in a Business School Course:
A Case Study of a Course Design Inspired by Team-Based Learning.” In Advances in Global
Leadership, edited by J. S. Osland, S. Reiche, B. Szkudlarek and M. Mendenhall, 227–245. Vol.
14. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Ly, A. 2022b. “Email in International Business Settings: Classroom Activities for Students to
Practise and Critically Reect on Their Communicative Practices.” In Interculturality in
Higher Education, edited by M. Sommier, A. Roiha and M. Lahti, 115–130. New York, USA:
Routledge.
Matthews, B. 2020. “The Role of Reexive Thought in the Achievement of Intercultural
Competence.” Intercultural Education 31 (3): 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.
2020.1728093 .
Mittelmeier, J., B. Rienties, D. Tempelaar, and D. Whitelock. 2018. “Overcoming Cross-Cultural
Group Work Tensions: Mixed Student Perspectives on the Role of Social Relationships.”
Higher Education 75 (1): 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0131-3 .
Pfa, E., and P. Huddleston. 2003. “Does it Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts Student
Attitudes Toward Teamwork.” Journal of Marketing Education 25 (1): 37–45. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0273475302250571 .
Poort, I., E. Jansen, and A. Hofman. 2019. “Intercultural Group Work in Higher Education: Costs
and Benets from an Expectancy-Value Theory Perspective.” International Journal of
Educational Research 93:218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.010 .
Popov, V., D. Brinkman, H. J. A. Biemans, M. Mulder, A. Kuznetsov, and O. Noroozi. 2012.
“Multicultural Student Group Work in Higher Education: An Explorative Case Study on
Challenges as Perceived by Students.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2):
302–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.09.004 .
Riebe, L., A. Girardi, and C. Whitsed. 2016. “A Systematic Literature Review of Teamwork
Pedagogy in Higher Education.” Small Group Research 47 (6): 619–664. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1046496416665221 .
Ritter, B. A., E. E. Small, J. W. Mortimer, and J. L. Doll. 2018. “Designing Management
Curriculum for Workplace Readiness: Developing students’ Soft Skills.” Journal of
Management Education 42 (1): 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917703679 .
Silverman, D. 2020. Qualitative Research. 5th ed. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Spencer-Oatey, H., and D. Dauber. 2016. “The Gains and Pains of Mixed National Group Work
at University.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38 (3): 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1134549 .
Strauss, P., A. U, and S. Young. 2011. “‘I Know the Type of People I Work Well with’: Student
Anxiety in Multicultural Group Projects.” Studies in Higher Education 36 (7): 815–829.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.488720 .
Strauss, P., A. U-Mackey, and C. Crothers. 2014. “‘They Drag My Marks down!’ – Challenges
Faced by Lecturers in the Allocation of Marks for Multicultural Group Projects.” Intercultural
Education 25 (3): 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.905361 .
Sweet, M., and L. K. Michaelsen. 2012. Team-Based Learning in the Social Sciences and
Humanities: Group Work That Works to Generate Critical Thinking and Engagement. New
York, USA: Stylus Pub.
Trede, F., W. Bowles, and D. Bridges. 2013. “Developing Intercultural Competence and Global
Citizenship Through International Experiences: Academics’ Perceptions.” Intercultural
Education 24 (5): 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.825578 .
18 A. LY

Volet, S. E., and G. Ang. 2012. “Culturally Mixed Groups on International Campuses: An
Opportunity for Inter-Cultural Learning.” Higher Education Research & Development 31 (1):
21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642838 .
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 19