A CASE STUDY OF LEADERSHIP, TEAM BASED LEARNING AND TEAM

DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT EDUCATION

Natalie S. Mikhaylov

is the ability to influence individual, groups, and organizations from diverse cultural, political and institutional backgrounds (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011).

is situation-dependent as well as depends on the characteristics of a leader and the team (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2007)

Grounded Theory Method (GTM) in a case study format. Started not as a research study, but a teaching and learning

experiment, The data were collected via observation, interviews, and

documents – participant observation of team interactions in class, weekly strategic audits, as well as weekly journal interties submitted by team members and leaders.

The collected data were analyzed, using the constructivist grounded theory method (Charmaz, 2006).

All data were coded they were collected at three increasingly theoretical level and the constant analysis of all codes were performed as well as inductive theory building.

Explanatory matrix - context (or settings), the conditions that influenced actions, process(es) that occurred under the conditions and in the context, and, finally, the outcomes of the process(es) or consequences (Kools et al., 1996).

What? The Project

Where? The Setting

How? The Process

Who? The Participants

Why? The Rational

And then what happened? The Consequences

A strategic evaluation of a large MNE. publicly held so its financial and other information for evaluation

of its performance would be available for analysis. The strategic audit project followed the format and logic suggested

by Hunger and Wheelan (2011).

Conduct parts of the audit weekly and submit drafts and their learning reflections as a group thought Turnitin

At the end of the course, combine and edit their audit in one comprehensive report and presents in class, as well as submit a written report through Turnitin.

Teams of six to seven students with an assigned group leader.

In addition, the students were tested in two examinations (midterm and final) and had to present an individual written case analysis.

Degree granting, accredited university in Istanbul, Turkey

Small private university

Strategic management course conducted among international management students.

The students' learning reflection, course materials, and communication were used to access the learning, team development, and leadership process

Parallel with the course, another strategic management course was offered at the same semester

The team leaders were hired/assigned by the instructor. Leaders formed their teams, selecting members from the

class in competition with each other. Team were in competition with each other. The leaders were responsible for task assignments, team

communication and collaboration, quality control and compiling learning reflections of team members and submitting them with weekly installment of the draft audit to the Turnitin software.

The course followed a flipped classroom learning model The feedback on the draft installments was provided to each

team leader weekly and was discussed in teams during the class meetings.

A total of thirty-four (34) students Twenty (20) out of the participants were females and

fourteen (14) males. Twenty-eight (26) local residents and nine (8)

international students, Many of the student participants lived and studied in

other countries. The international students come from Africa, Asia and

Europe (Afghanistan, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Moldova, Nigeria, Philippines, and Senegal).

Even though males and international students were in minority, two of the group leaders were international students and only one of the group leaders was a female.

Serious free-riding problems The group members who worked on projects were not the most academically

advanced students in a group, rather it seemed to be students with less status and social capital

Serious problems with academic integrity, Lack of skills in research and documentation Lenient punishment In a group situation difficult to establish responsibility

While different cultural backgrounds, High power distance, high collectivism and medium to high uncertainty avoidance

indexes Tended to take low confrontation approach, strive for consensus, shield group

members from responsibilities, and request detailed guides on how to proceed.

Group leaders had an authority to divide the work evenly, to insist on academic standards, and to monitor group members’ performance

The group leaders were competing with other groups and only the best group would get full points on the audit

The group leaders would be rewarded or penalized based on the group performance

The changes in the usual group dynamic appeared at the very beginning of group forming. The most academically advanced students were called

first

Several students were not called at all, and deals had to be negotiated as taking unwanted team members if another, more academically advance, would be ´traded´with them.

Diligence and academic integrity were taken into consideration

Mild shaming experience could be motivational in highly collectivistic cultures

•Strategic Management focus

•Responsibility for Team Selection

Context

•Completive Teamwork

•Higher Stakes in the Outcome

•Flexibility in the Team Management

Conditions•Higher Task Orientation

•Conflict Resolution and Influence

•Contingency Approach

•Professional Identity Development

Process

•Leadership Development

•Ethical and Personal Responsibility Global Mindset development

•Higher Involvement

•Followers Task Skills Development

Consequences

The team leaders and team members took responsibility for academic ethics and integrity issues the work of the team members was reviewed and if needed corrected by either a

leader or an assigned member.

The problem of free-riding was eliminated The leaders had adopted contingency approach to the team management.

Leaders with less academically advanced members spent time in class and outside coaching and providing emotional support and encouragement to their members.

Leaders with more proficient students were focused on the task and delegated most of the work, providing only coordination.

The process was characterized with both higher task orientation and conflict resolutions and problem-solving, focusing on the individual problems, communication among members and development of professional identity among all learners.

Based on the codes work, job, project, task, boss, employee, goals, and other work-related terms significantly more often than academic /educational terms (homework, assignment, test, paper and so on).

The change of identity showed that the leaders viewed themselves as managers, not students, and the students viewed themselves as employees

The instructor was used as a resource and advisor,

The problem of team management and performance were freely shared

Leaders made decision themselves and demonstrate high responsibility to the task and integrity.

The difference in the leadership styles was based on team members’ abilities and motivation, not on their own preferences from laisse affair to collaborative approach.

Applicable to other cultures and HEIs?

Duplicated in Latin America

Showed similar preferences for leadership and group dynamics when the stakes are high

Switch to job related roles and terms

Any other suggestions on completion of the project?

An assigned authority role and responsibilities promote better team development and leadership skill in cultures that have a large power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and collectivist orientation

Recommendations: follow the model of leadership and project management

that are consistent with local management practices, including cultural and organizational preferences,

allow more flexibility as well as reflectivity and feedback to the team and the leaders on their performance and approaches.

G. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1980

G Yukl, “Contingency theories of effective leadership”. The SAGE handbook of leadership, vol 24 no. 1, pp 286-298. 2011.

B. E. Winston, & K. Patterson, K. “An integrative definition of leadership” . International journal of leadership studies, vol. 1 no 2, pp. 6-66. 2006.

M. Javidan, & M. B. Teagarden. ‘’Conceptualizing and measuring global mindset”. In Advances in global leadership pp. 13-39. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2011

P. Tynjälä. ” Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university”. International journal of educational research, vol 31 no. 5, pp. 357-442. 1999.

A. Cathcart, D Greer & L. Neale. ” Learner-focused evaluation cycles: Facilitating learning using feedforward, concurrent and feedback evaluation”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol 39 no. 7, pp. 790-802, 2014.

J. J. Summers, A. Waigandt & T. A. Whittaker. ” A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class”. Innovative Higher Education, vol 29 no. 3, pp. 233-250, 2005.

H. Mintzberg: Managers not MBAs, San Francisco, 2005

R. Khurana. From Higher Aims to Hired Hands – The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession, Princeton, 2007

A. Rasche, & M. Escudero. ” Leading change: the role of the principles for responsible management education”. Zeitschrift fürWirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, vol 10 no. 2, pp. 244-250, 2009.

H. S. Becker. (Ed.). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Transaction publishers, 2002.

D. A. Van Seters & , R. H. Field. ” The evolution of leadership theory”. Journal of organizational change management, vol. 3 no 3, pp. 29-45, 1990.

P. Hersey, K. H. Blanchard & D. E. Johnson. Management of organizational behavior (Vol. 9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

D. E. Rast III, M. A. Hogg & S. R. Giessner. ” Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership”. Self and Identity, vol 12 no. 6, pp. 635-649, 2013.

R. J. House & T. R. Mitchell. Path-goal theory of leadership (No. TR-75-67). Washington Univ Seattle Dept Of Psychology, 1975.

R. J. House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications, 2004.

J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, & A. Norenzayan. ”Most people are not WEIRD”. Nature, vol 466(7302), p. 29, 2010.

K. Charmaz. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, 2006.

B. Bowers & L Schatzman. ”Dimensional analysis”. Developing grounded theory: The second generation, pp. 86-126, 2009.

S. Kools, M McCarthy, R. Durham & L. Robrecht. ”Dimensional analysis: Broadening the conception of grounded theory”. Qualitative Health Research, vol 6 no. 3, pp. 312-330, 1996.

J. D. Hunger & T. L. Wheelan. Essentials of strategic management. (5th Ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2011.