Influence of national and engineering culture on team role selection

Influence of national and engineering culture on teamrole selection

Ibn-e-Hassan • Noraini Abu Talib • Amjad Riaz •

Muhammad Jawad Iqbal

Published online: 14 May 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Engineering education is an emerging field of research. Due to its applied nature,

recent theoretical developments have been followed by empirical evidence and interdisci-

plinary research. The present study attempted to describe the team roles assumed by

members of project teams composed of young engineering students. The study was con-

ducted in Pakistan by using the Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory. It was found

that young Pakistani engineers assumed the roles of implementer, coordinator, shaper and

team worker. This study attempts to understand role choices through the framework of

national cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede and engineering education culture

offered by Godfrey and Parker. The study strongly recommends that engineering curriculum

should incorporate activities which could foster creativity among engineers. Moreover,

engineering students should be motivated to innovate through collaboration in a problem and

project based environment, which is seriously lacking in engineering education of Pakistan.

Keywords Engineering education � Belbin team roles � Engineering culture � Problem

based learning

Ibn-e-Hassan (&) � N. A. Talib � M. J. IqbalFaculty of Management and Human Resource Development, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysiae-mail: [email protected]

A. RiazProcess Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysiae-mail: [email protected]

A. RiazDepartment of Chemical Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore,Pakistan

123

Int J Technol Des Educ (2014) 24:91–105DOI 10.1007/s10798-013-9242-z

Introduction

Engineering Education is relatively new as a field of research. However, in the last 5 years

engineering education has made significant progress by initiating recruitment and retention

programs from K-16 into graduate school (NSF-GSE 2010), the development of engi-

neering pedagogies (Smith et al. 2005), curriculum resources (Flattau et al. 2009), faculty

improvement and teaching workshops (Felder et al. 2011), instruments and frameworks

development for conceptualizing and predicting student success and engagement (Chen

et al. 2008; Ohland et al. 2008; Seidman 2005). Although the field is continuing to advance

as a research-based discipline (Streveler and Smith 2006) yet, researchers see a dearth of

theory-informed research and practice needed for the development of the field (Kemnitzer

2008). Johri (2010) suggested that one way of developing engineering education theory is

to engage in collaboration with other disciplines like educational psychology, social

psychology, science and technology studies, human computer interaction, organization

science, learning sciences and information sciences. This collaboration should facilitate the

achievement of our goals as engineering education researchers, of moving away from

prescription to particular problems to the development of broader frameworks that could

help solve classes of problems.

Johri and Olds (2011) cited the opinion referred to in the guest editorial of JEE issued in

2005, intending to ‘‘review the current state of scholarship in key areas of engineering

education’’, and argued that in the era of the 1960s to the 1980s ‘‘engineering education

journals and conferences remained focused on the mechanics of classroom instruction with

little regard for the science of education and little evidence of rigorous scholarship’’ (p. 9).

However, in the period of the 1980s and 1990s, ‘‘scholarship in engineering education

began to move toward a new level of maturity and sophistication’’. In the review it was

recommended that future engineering education will require ‘‘research guided by theories

grounded in cognitive science and educational psychology and subjected to the same

rigorous assessment and evaluation that characterize first-rate disciplinary research’’ (p. 9).

The review further suggested collaboration among psychologists, social scientists, and

engineering academia to reflect on the trend of future development and recommend

measures about the future of engineering education.

Johri (2010) suggested that one possible way to advance engineering education theory

development is by identifying and developing specific research areas. Complying with the

suggestion for the current study the influence of engineering education culture on the team

role choice in the project teams of engineering students, was studied. In the engineering

educational context, culture had been studied in various forms like culture as gendered

(Cronin and Roger 1999; Lewis et al. 1998), culture as a cause of student attrition (Courter

et al. 1998), student collaboration and enculturation (Lattuca et al. 2006), the development of

engineering identity (Stevens et al. 2008; Tonso 2006), faculty cultures in academic insti-

tutions (McKenna et al. 2008), academic campus cultures (Tonso 2006), sub-disciplinary

cultures (Gilbert 2008; Godfrey 2007), seminal work on national cultures and engineering

education (Downey and Lucena 2005), assessment cultures (Borrego 2008), institutional

culture’s role affecting change (Kelly and Murphy 2007), and measuring cultural change

(Fromm and McGourty 2001; Lattuca et al. 2006). Each of these studies is a piece of the

mosaic and therefore, offers a partial view of the culture of engineering education.

The present study used the Belbin Team role self-perception inventory for identifying

the preferred primary roles of project teams composed of engineering course students as

members. The study aimed to examine the choice of team roles in the national and

engineering education cultural context. Hofstede’s (1991) four cultural dimensions and

92 Ibn-e-Hassan et al.

123

Godfrey and Parker (2010) six engineering education culture dimension were used as a

broader framework for understanding the cultural effects on the team role choice.

Belbin’s team roles

Belbin’s (1981) team role model was developed after 9 years of study on team building

and team effectiveness at Henley Management College. Based on the six factors; Per-

sonality, referring to psycho-physiological state of the member; Mental abilities, referring

to the thinking and innovative ability of the member; Current values and motivations;

Environment in which the task is being performed; Field constraints, referring to the task

environment; Experience and Role learning, Belbin proposed eight (later Nine) team roles

(Shi and Tang 1997).

In order to assess the primary role of a team member, two instruments were introduced

by Belbin. The first tool, the Self-Perception Inventory (SPI) is used to measure the role

scores. The SPI is a questionnaire comprised seven sections and eight items in each

section. For self-assessment, the subjects give scores to their behavioural state according to

these propositions (Furnham et al. 1993). The second instrument used was the Observer

Assessment Sheet (OA) which is filled and administered by the independent observer who

assesses the role of each person while engaged in the activity.

According to Belbin (1981) each team member has their strengths which will be

reflected in their choice as a primary role along with a secondary role (Back up team role)

which they might take up if some other member in the team is unable to perform that role.

The two lowest scored roles are the weaknesses of the member. Belbin advised that

members should avoid altering their weaknesses into strengths but rather should enhance

their strengths. In an ideal team, there should be a balance of team roles, which means that

each of the eight roles are naturally present and complement each other. However, the over

emphasis on a few roles in the team may create disaster. Table 1 below, briefly describes

the Belbin team roles.

On the basis of their practical experience, Belbin and Associates suggested a classification

of role pairings in which Resource Investigator and Team Worker are seen as negotiators,

Implementer and Completer-Finisher are seen as managers/workers, Monitor Evaluator and

Plant as intellectuals, and Coordinators and Shapers as leaders (Fisher et al. 1998).

There are mixed opinions about the validity and usefulness of the Belbin team roles. In the

light of the above literature there are some areas where the Belbin model is seriously criti-

cized. The Self Perception Inventory (SPI) which is an ipsative questionnaire used by Belbin

to determine natural role, is criticized to by Furnham et al. (1993a, b). These researchers have

shown clearly that internal consistency and reliability of the self-perception inventory is

weak. However, Fisher et al. (2001) found that there is a relationship between the team role

and the exercise of control and thus validated the construct of this role theory. Broucek and

Randall (1996) observed that both OA and SPI lacked psychometric support. They also placed

a question mark on the Belbin role theory itself. Nevertheless, Balderson and Broderick

(1996) concluded that ‘‘… the very high face validity and acceptability of the measures …suggest that the … team roles proposed do have some validity even if aspects of their

measurement may benefit from further scrutiny’’. Researchers like Arroba and Wedgwood-

Oppenheim (1994); Balderson and Broderick (1996); Shi and Tang (1997) criticized the use

of the SPI as a tool for natural role identification.

Despite the criticism, enough empirical work has tested this theory and generated

valuable results. The Belbin model is a well-recognized project management tool for

Influence of national and engineering culture 93

123

human resource selection in Europe and is being used in Financial Times Stock Exchange

(FTSE) companies, large multinational companies, public sector organizations and con-

sultants and has been translated in 16 different languages (Aritzeta et al. 2007).

Study method

A Judgmental sampling method was used to select the Universities and Courses. Those

universities were selected which were accessible to the researchers. Only those courses

were selected where students frequently worked in teams on different academic projects.

Among the 10 universities only two universities permitted the researchers to conduct this

research. A sample of 102 final year students predominantly from engineering courses

finally participated. Universities were contacted by personally approaching the Director of

studies, who subsequently briefed the chairmen of the departments about the intended

objectives of the research. The chairmen with the consent of the class teachers made the

Table 1 Belbin team roles (Aritzeta et al. 2007)

Team role Descriptors Strengths Allowedweaknesses

Completer-finisher(CF)

Anxious, conscientious, introvert,self-controlled, Self-disciplined,submissive and worrisome

Painstaking, conscientious,searches out errors andomissions, delivers on time

Inclined to worryunduly.Reluctant todelegate

Implementer(IMP)

Conservative, controlled,disciplined, efficient, inflexible,methodical, sincere, stable andsystematic

Disciplined, reliable,conservative and efficient,turns ideas into practicalactions

Somewhatinflexible. Slowto respond tonew possibilities

Team worker(TW)

Extrovert, likeable, loyal, stable,submissive, supportive,unassertive, and uncompetitive

Co-operative, mild, perceptiveand diplomatic, listens,builds, averts friction, calmsthe waters

Indecisive incrunchsituations.

Monitorevaluator(ME)

Dependable, fair-minded,introvert, low drive, open tochange, serious, stable and un-ambitious

Sober, strategic and discerning,sees all options, judgesaccurately

Lacks drive andability to inspireothers

Coordinator(CO)

Dominant, trusting, extrovert,mature, positive, self-controlled,Self-disciplined and stable

Mature, confident, a goodchairperson, clarifies goals,promotes decision making,delegates well

Can be seen asmanipulative.Offloadspersonal work

Plant (PL) Dominant, imaginative, introvert,original, Radical-minded,trustful & uninhibited

Creative, unorthodox, solvesdifficult problems

Too preoccupiedto communicateeffectively

Shaper (SH) Abrasive, anxious, arrogant,competitive, dominant,emotional, extrovert, impatient,impulsive, outgoing and self-confident

Challenging, dynamic, thriveson pressure, has drive andcourage to overcomeobstacles

Prone toprovocation.Offends people’sfeelings

Resourceinvestigator(RI)

Diplomatic, dominant,enthusiastic, extrovert, flexible,inquisitive, optimistic,persuasive, positive, relaxed,social and stable

Extrovert, communicative,explores opportunities,develops contacts

Over-optimistic.Loses interestafter initialenthusiasm


123

classes available to the researchers. The students already had the experience of working

with group assignments. A consultation session was arranged with the students prior to the

activity to explain the underlying concepts of teamwork and SPI. Students were briefed

about the rules of self-assessment for example they were instructed that each individual can

quantify his/her individual team role by distributing 70 points to the statements which are

56 divided into seven sections and eight items in each section. Each item refers to the team

role so a total team role score is made up by the addition of the seven instances of each

team role preference. Each statement describes certain personality behaviors of the indi-

viduals in a team. Respondents are advised to give points to the statement that suits the

respondents’ behavior. A maximum of ten points can be assigned to a statement. Students

were motivated as they were gaining self-insight as the result of this exercise. Figures 1

and 2 display the group dynamics of the engineering teams during the project. Following

the guidelines of Andersen (2001), the Engineer’s core task is product design and the core

of design is six steps: Problem analysis; comprising of what is problem, why is it a

problem, how can the problem be solved and product design specification, the second stage

is conceptual design; followed by embodiment design; next is elements of design then

manufacturing followed by sales and marketing. The students worked in groups, which

were formed by the researchers on a random basis. Each group was composed of 5–8

students who had to design and develop paper aeroplanes. The task assigned in this study

for the first stage is a kind of brainstorming activity where the answers related to the

problem and its solution were discussed. Since the group members the class fellows and

know each other well, therefore they can swiftly pass through the stages of storming,

norming, and performing (Tuckman’s 1965). Consequently, 15 min were considered

enough for this stage. At this stage, the graphic presentation shows the relevant, associated

and categorized features of the alternative product designs. Each team had to explain the

rationale of the features of the design. Key performance indicators for this stage were the

unique features of the design and number of designs produced. In the second stage, groups

had to actually develop a prototype of the best selected design; selection was made by the

customer who was the class teacher. Students were instructed to produce the paper plane

with minimum wastage of Paper (the resource). The purpose of this exercise was to

stimulate the natural group dynamics among the members so that during an interaction

with each other their natural roles were apparent. This activity lasted for 2–3 hours. After

the activity, each respondent self-assessed him/herself according to the aforementioned

rules.

Belbin developed a table of ‘‘norms’’ to indicate low (0–33 percent), average (33–66

percent), high (66–85 percent) and very high (85–100 percent) preference in order to show

the strength of the role as compared to the other roles existent in the individual. Roles with

70 percent-score criterion or higher are called ‘‘naturally’’ present, roles for the participant.

The highest scoring role of a participant is perceived as the primary role, the next one as a

secondary role and the next as a tertiary role. A team is considered a balanced team if each

role appears in at least one team member’s profile as a high-scoring role. Each student was

given a brief report of his dominant role mentioning strengths and weaknesses.

During this study, following the line of reasoning of Belbin, in order to overcome the

bias of social desirability and wishful thinking in the SPI, an Observer Assessment Sheet

(OAS) was used to capture the assessments of observers who know the respondent well

(Belbin 1981). This is a peer-rater checklist containing 72 adjectives assigned to the

individuals which are known by the observer. A minimum four observers is needed to fill

out this sheet for external observation. The OAS was withdrawn as the study assigned only

one observer per team. Furthermore the literature highlights that SPI and OAS may


123

disagree sharply. As van Dierendonck and Groen (2011) noted that SPI and observer scores

may vary due to different perspectives and insights. Similarly, Senior and Swailes (1998)

stated, ‘‘until further investigations are carried out to separate the effects of the short-

comings of the SPI and OBS instruments from any reasonable expectations that self- and

observer and inter-observer ratings will be different, final conclusion cannot be reached’’.

Therefore, in this preliminary study which is principally designed to gauge the cultural

influence on the natural roles, OAS is ignored in order to avoid the complication.

The activity had two stages, in the first stage teams had to work on the drawings of the

design, in 15 min. Key performance indicators for this stage were the unique features of

the design and number of designs produced. In the second stage, groups had to actually

develop a prototype of the best selected design. The selection was made by the customer

Fig. 1 Engineers at work

Fig. 2 Team dynamics


123

who is normally the class teacher. Students were instructed to produce the paper plane

with minimum wastage of Paper (the resource). The purpose of this exercise was to

stimulate the natural group dynamics among the members so that during an interaction

with each other their natural roles emerged. After this exercise, students had to complete

the Belbin self-perception inventory questionnaire. The observers allocated to each team

noticed the group behavior of each member and allocated the appropriate Belbin role to

members.

Results and discussion

The result of this study indicates that out of eight roles the numerous primary roles are

that of Implementer (27 % with a mean score of 12.35), Coordinator (18 % with a mean

score of 11.22), Shaper (18 % with a mean score of 11.53) followed by team workers

(13 % with a mean score of 10.13) and Completer Finishers (7 % with a mean score of

10.65). The three least preferred roles were that of Plant (6 % with a mean score of

7.92), Resource Investigator (7 % with a mean score of 8.63) and Monitor Evaluator

(6 % with a mean score of 7.74). In order to restrict the students to only one primary and

secondary role they were asked to choose only one preferred role in cases when the

scores were equal. Since the roles were explained in detail before the exercise started,

the preference became easy. Table 2 shows the basic statistical analysis of role choice by

team members.

These results can be compared to the study by Fisher et al. (1998) who, by using

Belbin’s SPI, discovered that a considerable number of managers in the UK, preferred

team roles of coordinators and resource investigators. In the present study, it was found

that resource investigator was at least a preferred role and the roles of implementer,

coordinator and shaper are the most preferred roles. The role of coordinator, however, was

preferred in both of these studies. Comparison of the scores of our sample with Belbin’s

norms indicates that in case of most of the roles the score range is almost similar. However,

the scores of plant and shaper are found to be different. The values of Plant and Shaper role

are far less than the corresponding scores, particularly in the category of very high norms

(85–100 %). Our study reported the range of shaper as in very high category 16–23 while

the corresponding range of Belbin norms is 18–36, similarly the range of plant in the

category lies between 12 and 19 in our case while the norms show the range of 13–29. This

indicates that the strength of the primary role in the role of shaper and plant is weak in our

case.

Table 2 Mean score of role choice by team members

Roles No. of students n = 102 Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Implementer 27 4 24 12.35 5.168

Coordinator 18 2 21 11.22 3.589

Shaper 18 5 23 11.53 3.746

Plant 6 2 19 7.92 3.700

Resource investigator 7 2 17 8.63 3.590

Monitor evaluator 6 2 21 7.74 3.339

Team worker 13 2 22 10.13 3.738

Completer finisher 7 2 19 10.65 2.934


123

In the following paragraphs, the preference of primary roles can be understood through

the framework of national culture proposed by Hofstede (1991) and the culture of engi-

neering education proposed by Godfrey and Parker (2010).

National and engineering education culture framework

Hofstede (1980a, b) is a well-known cross-cultural researcher and analyst. He carried out a

survey of IBM employees in over 40 countries and gathered data from 116,000 ques-

tionnaires, Sondergaard (1994) argued that in spite of the criticism and limitations of

Hofstede’s work, it is being used extensively and is widely acknowledged by cross-cultural

researchers. Hofstede defines cultural dimensions are as follows:

• Power Distance Index (PDI): ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of

organizations and institutions (like the family) expect and accept that power is

distributed unequally’ (Hofstede 1991; Hofstede and Peterson 2000). Pakistan has a

reasonably high score on the PDI. According to Hofstede’s research, on this dimension

Pakistan stands 18th among 52 countries with a score of 55 on this dimension, Austria

has the lowest PDI and Panama and Guatemala and Malaysia score high at 95 and 104,

respectively.

• Uncertainty Avoidance: ‘intolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity’ (Hofstede 1991;

Hofstede and Peterson 2000). Pakistan scored 70 on uncertainty-avoidance index,

which is fairly high.

• Individualism versus Collectivism: ‘the extent to which individuals are integrated into

groups’ (Hofstede 1991; Hofstede and Peterson 2000). Pakistan scores fairly high on

collectivism in Hofstede’s study with a score of 14 on this dimension. Thus Pakistani

society is a collectivist society like Malaysia with a score of 26 in this dimension.

• Masculinity versus Femininity ‘assertiveness and competitiveness versus modesty and

caring’ (Hofstede 1991; Hofstede & Associates 1998; Hofstede and Peterson 2000).

According to the Hofstede study, Pakistan along with Malaysia scores 50 indicating a

masculine society, measuring against Sweden, the most feminine, and Japan, the most

masculine, scoring 5 and 95, respectively.

According to Hofstede’s (1991) cultural dimensions, Pakistan is a country with cultural

traits of collectivism, interdependence, loyalty to family, gender biasness, acceptability to

power, lack of creative management, and desire for formal rules and regulation (for details

see the Hofstede Centre at http://geert-hofstede.com/pakistan.html). Hofstede has

emphasized the role of family as one of the important determinant of national culture of

collectivist societies. He defines the family as ‘‘a number of people living closely together,

not just parents and children but also extended family and other housemates’’ (Hofstede

2001). According to Hofstede, a child who matures among a variety of seniors, peers, and

juniors absorbs the knowledge naturally as part of a ‘‘we’’ group (Hofstede 1980a, b,

2001). Therefore, this study in order to substantiate the argument of an influence of

national culture on team role preference, will seek guidance from Fisher and Macrosson’s

(1995) seminal work about the family environment and team roles preference. Fisher and

Macrosson (1995) by using family environment scale (FES) developed by Moos and Moos

(1986) concluded that team roles selection is influenced by the family environment, in

which the person is raised.

However, Khilji (2004) argued that Pakistani culture is in a transition phase and slowly

changing. The impact of the western education system and the practices of foreign


123

http://geert-hofstede.com/pakistan.html

multinationals have brought significant changes in the thinking and working pattern of the

country.

Engineering Education culture will be explained by the seminal work of Godfrey and

Parker (2010) who, by using six cultural dimensions titled as an engineering way of

thinking, an engineering way of doing, being an engineer, acceptance of difference,

relationships, and relationship to the environment, developed a holistic framework by

considering the values, beliefs, and assumptions which underpin the culture of engineering

education at the disciplinary, departmental, or institutional level. Following are the salient

features of the six dimensions:

1. An engineering way of thinking: Engineers are interested in the things that are

contextual, can work and where the logic of the working is explicit. They are not

interested in the things which are only academic. For engineers the reality is tangible,

definable, measurable and quantifiable. Truth and reality can be proven through

mathematics as a symbolic language along with the diagrams and graphics. The focus

of this symbolic representation is logical directness rather than ideological reflection.

That is why the complex problems are managed through the reductionist approach and

system thinking. The optimal solution is one which is pragmatic, cost effective, timely

and best rather than perfect which means that the solution must work. However,

culturally accepted solutions are one of the constraints of the engineering solution

(Bucciarelli et al. 2000; Godfrey and Parker 2010)

2. The engineering way of doing: The synonyms like hard, challenging, tough,

demanding or another set of terms like nightmare, horrific and living hell is a shared

identity of the faculty and student of engineering schools. This is manifested in the

curriculum of the engineering schools where the essential content of the course is the

design course and project based learning. These are known as the hard courses as

compared to the soft courses comprised of the communication and management skills

as well as the corporate social responsibility courses. The dense and heavy workload is

one of the features of the engineering education culture, which is globally recognized

(Armstrong 1996; Stevens et al. 2008). Managing time is another feature of

engineering culture, for engineers time is an inelastic entity.

3. Being an engineer: is the feeling of high achievers and can do people. The engineering

fraternity has respect for each other and have trusted relationships with a sense of pride

and strength. This solidarity increases with the passing of time.

4. Acceptance of difference: Integrated faculty in engineering schools is observed as there

are similarities in engineering education all over the world. The integrated nature of

the culture is epitomized by the vigorous ‘‘family-like’’ affiliations expressed by

faculty and students as well as this integration implicitly shares common academic

values and attitudes internationally which are assumed to be culturally transferable

(Godfrey and Parker 2010). However, the diversity in relations, interactions and

gender is tolerated.

5. Relationship: there is a lot of trust among different departments and through the

conduct of cross discipline projects. Both faculty and students have family-like

relationship. Engineers have a tendency to stick together rather than being loners. The

power relationship between the faculty members was seen as lower compared to non-

engineering faculties. Conflict is resolved in private.

6. Relationship to environment: Sustained changes in the economic and political

environment affects the practices and behaviors of engineering schools such as the

performance based research funding schemes which have increased the pressure on


123

faculty to focus on research at the expense of teaching. Thus engineering education

culture is affected by the national culture.

Cultural justification of the choice of coordinator and team worker role

Fisher and Macrosson (1995) found a positive correlation between the role of Coordinator

and team worker with the dimension of ‘‘Cohesion’’ in FES (Family Environment Scale).

Since the Coordinator clarifies the goals, promotes decision making and gives direction to

achieve the objectives; his role is like the ‘‘father’’ in the family who gives support and

extends help when the family needs it. Cohesiveness among the family members is the most

pivotal trait in the family. Pakistan is a highly collectivist society where pleasure is derived

from the group achievement and this collectivism leads to the paternalistic society (Rou-

tamaa and Hautala 2008). Saving family honor, contributing to its prestige and supporting

the family members through thick and thin is the primary duty of every family member. In

Pakistan, group conformity has greater value. In-group members are bound to safeguard the

interests of each other (Khilji 2004). This cultural norm which is inculcated in the children

at a very early age, can explain the high score of the coordinator and team worker role in

Pakistani student teams. In the perspective of the culture of Engineering Education, Godfrey

and Parker (2010) observed that ‘‘engineering faculty and students had a trust and respect

for the majority of their colleagues with the expectation that the delegation was safe because

their colleagues (engineers) could, and would, deliver what was expected’’. This signifies

that just like families, engineers develop a sense of cohesion among themselves. This

applied to the young engineers who participated in the group activity undertaken for this

study. Thus the cultural dimension of collectivism and engineering culture dimension of

relationship might have influenced the emergence of this role within the team.

Cultural justification of the choice of Implementer and shaper role

An Implementer is the person who changes the ideas into practical work, plans the

activities and designs the procedures to achieve the target objectives. Implementers are

conservative, controlled, disciplined, efficient, methodical, sincere, stable and systematic

people. Shapers are challenging, dynamic, thrive on pressure, and possess the courage to

overcome obstacles. Fisher and Macrosson (1995) correlated implementers and shapers

roles with the ‘‘achievement orientation’’ of FES. The family environment of the imple-

menter is characterized by competitiveness and discipline. This is explained by the Hof-

stede’s (1998) ‘‘Masculine and feminine’’ score of 50 in the case of Pakistan. Masculinity

refers to characteristics of the society in which social gender roles are discrete, and

femininity applies to the cultures in which social gender roles overlap (Hofstede 1991). In

a society where the masculine and collective score is high the values of respect for parents

and elders, meaning of life, competence, effectiveness, success (achievement), social

justice and being helpful are the dominant characteristics (Routamaa and Hautala 2008).

This explains the role preference of implementers and shapers in Pakistan. From the

perspective of the culture of Engineering Education, Godfrey and Parker (2010) witnessed

that most common attribute of engineers in an academic and intellectual sense, is their

highest achievement in academics with above average ability in the subjects of mathe-

matics and scientific understanding. Their self-concept as professionals is as ‘‘Can Do’’

people, self-starters, efficient and effective in resource utilization. The following are their

dominant attributes and qualities:


123

• Numerate—feel comfortable with numbers as they use numbers definitely and

proficiently to elucidate everyday events

• Practical—conversant with technology and computer applications

• Tough, independent and capable people

• Not emotionally expressive and are steered by logic, analysis, and reason

• Pragmatic rather than idealistic

• Likability towards humor

• Sense of pride

The theme of ‘‘Hardness’’ seemed to be pervasive in the discussions of faculty and

students who believed that anything ‘‘valuable’’ is hard to achieve. This is manifested in

the engineering education workload on the students which is aptly denoted with the terms

of ‘‘challenging’’, ‘‘tough’’ and ‘‘demanding’’ (Stevens et al. 2007, 2008). Consequently,

this hard work develops the ability to face challenges and ultimately contributes to the

sense of pride and achievement in engineers, which is signified as a ‘‘meritocracy of

difficulty’’ (Stevens et al. 2007).

Cultural justification of the choice of completer finisher role

The other preferred role is of completer finisher who is painstaking, meticulous, searches

out errors and omissions and delivers on time. According to Fisher and Macrosson (1995)

this is the only role which correlates positively with a system maintenance dimension of

FES, which is about organization and control. Similarly, it is the only team role that

correlates with the FES subscale of moral-religious emphasis. Therefore, the completer

finisher role can be attributed to the Islamic influence on youngsters which inculcates the

sense of self-reliance and dedication to work. Islam emphasizes the importance of loyalty

to self, family and employers. In Islam, Muslims, while working in the organizations

should be responsible for their conduct, sincere to their superiors and organization, dis-

ciplined and diligent. This explains the preference of completer finisher role in our teams.

From the perspective of the culture of engineering education, Godfrey and Parker (2010)

argued that Engineering deals with the concrete, definable, measurable, calculable reality.

Therefore, certainty and authenticity are described by mathematics as the means for

communication and a tool of theory development and modelling. Similarly, diagrams,

charts and graphs as visual communication are preferred over written and spoken language.

The written or spoken language should be ‘‘unswerving’’ and ‘‘to the point’’. Through

design and project based learning the engineers learn that firstly, for every problem a

solution exists and secondly, by using the right paraphernalia and expert knowledge any

problem can be solved. The engineering way of doing is related to the dimension of time

and its effective usage. For engineers, time is inelastic therefore they have to meet

deadlines, plan the projects and regulate time between various activities. For engineers, the

‘‘best solution’’ rarely connotes to perfection rather the accomplishment on time, is the best

solution. Therefore, the cultural dimension of moral and religious influence and engi-

neering culture dimension of the engineering way of doing might have influenced the

existence of this role within the team.

Cultural justification of the choice of monitor evaluator role

Our finding showed two least preferred roles i.e., the Plant and the Monitor evaluator.

Fisher and Macrosson (1995) expressed that the monitor evaluator’s family has the


123

characteristics of active discouragement to behave openly and express their feelings

directly. It also signifies lack of participation in social and recreational activities.

‘‘Repression of feelings’’ and ‘‘social isolation’’ are the two correct expressions to describe

the family environment of monitor evaluator. As mentioned earlier Pakistan is a masculine

society where ‘‘power’’ and ‘‘effectiveness’’ are honored. This is the reason that the

monitor evaluator role was the least preferred role. From the perspective of the Culture of

Engineering Education, Godfrey and Parker (2010) found that ‘‘Power differentiation in

relationships among the faculty members was seen as lower in engineering relative to other

faculties. This was illustrated by an informal, egalitarian atmosphere where first names

were acceptable forms of address even between faculty and students (particularly senior

students). Joking and teasing were common features of relationships, usually implying

acceptance as a member of the group’’. In a similar context Tonso (1996) described the

engineering faculty environment as ‘‘an environment where young men of college age

dominate. Mildly profane language, semi-sexual double entendres, and metaphors from

rugby football were relatively common’’. Thus a team role which is characterised as sober

introvert, low drive, serious, stable and un-ambitious might not have been preferred by the

engineers due to the engineering schools environment.

Cultural justification of the choice of plant role

Pakistan has a high score on the high uncertainty avoidance dimension which means

members of the society feel comfortable with already framed rules and laws. They do not

welcome change because they feel comfortable with the traditional practices. This type of

environment is not favourable for creative minds. The ‘‘plant’’ qualities can nurture when

they are based on self-interest, not competitive pressures. As mentioned earlier ‘‘Plants are

distinguished by high IQs, a fragmentary picture of their families in which they grew up in

is one in which the ‘‘little professors’’ are allowed to pursue their interests, on their own,

undisturbed and untroubled by the competitive pressures imported from the adult world’’.

As mentioned earlier, in Pakistan the family environment encourages positive competition

and the internal family environment is not akin to the environment deemed suitable for

plants as described by Fisher and Macrosson (1995). From the perspective of the Culture of

Engineering education, Godfrey and Parker (2010) observed that learning is based on

projects of various scopes and Design education where-by engineers learn to work within

limits and compromise yet to deliver rational, cost effective, timely, and ‘‘best’’ instead of

‘‘perfect’’ solutions to queries and problems that were ‘‘seldom’’ defined by engineers

themselves. However, a ‘‘good’’ design course inculcates the ability of innovativeness and

creativity in students to provide optimal solutions, the solution that ‘‘must’’ work, for the

‘‘real’’ rather than theoretical problems. The best solution is a matter of choice within the

given constraints of cost and resources. In Pakistan, engineering education still is teacher-

centric and instruction based. At the academic level various gaps like lack of interfaces

between the engineers and the stakeholder; syllabi not meeting, the requirements of cre-

ative needs and minimal focus on skill development demanded by industry have been

identified. Therefore, these shortcomings in the engineering education system have resulted

in a lack of original thinking in young Pakistani engineers. Akin to the findings of Zam-

petakis et al. (2007) that engineering students expressed their need for creative courses, yet

the engineering curriculum still underscores the basic science courses at the expense of

problem solving specific to engineering. Moreover, efforts to incorporate creativity into

engineering education have been inconsistent (Conole et al. 2008).


123

Conclusions

This research explored the role choices of final year engineering students in Pakistan who

are shortly going to start their professional career. According to our findings, they assumed

the roles of implementer, coordinator, shaper and team workers. The choice of the above

mentioned roles can be easily understood by synthesizing the national and engineering

culture. It is argued that both cultures exert significant influence on role choice. In the

context of the internationalization of work through multinational organizations and

mobility of engineers, these finding suggest a lot to potential employers. The findings also

suggest that the engineering education culture of Pakistan shares a common thread with the

culture of other schools of engineering across the world. However, the most alarming

finding of this study is the lack of Plant roles within teams. It is therefore suggested that

activities that foster creativity should be incorporated in the curriculum. Similarly, engi-

neering students should be motivated to innovate through collaboration in a PBL envi-

ronment, which is seriously lacking in engineering education in Pakistan. There is no

strong theory of engineering culture therefore independent constructs are being integrated

and tested by the engineering education scholars. The framework proposed by Godfrey and

Parker (2010) is rudimentary itself. Therefore, the current study is just a highlighter and

humble start to draw the attention of academia to stimulate the dialogue to inform a more

complete understanding of the concept of culture within the engineering education milieu.

It is concluded that through Belbin’s SPI the missing elements of ‘‘engineering’’ among the

engineers could be found. This may lead to appropriate changes in the curricula and

pedagogy. The study may be validated in countries where engineering education reforms

are sought like in the Malaysia where the Malaysian New Economic Model and strategic

reform initiatives (SRI) are focusing on the development of globally competitive and

excellent engineers.

References

Andersen, A. (2001). Implementation of engineering product design using international student teamwork—To comply with future needs. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 179–186.

Aritzeta, A., Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2007). Belbin team role model: Development, validity and appli-cations for team building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 96–118.

Armstrong, J. (1996). Workload in engineering courses and how to reduce it. In Proceedings of 8th AnnualConference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. Melbourne, Australia.

Arroba, T., & Wedgwood-Oppenheim, F. (1994). Do senior managers differ in the public and privatesectors? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9, 13–16.

Balderson, S. J., & Broderick, A. J. (1996). Behaviour in teams: exploring occupational and gender dif-ferences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 33–42.

Belbin, M. (1981). Management teams, why they succeed or fail. London: Heinemann.Borrego, M. (2008). Creating a culture of assessment within an engineering academic department. In

Proceedings of IEEE/ASEE frontiers in education conference. Saratoga Springs, NY.Broucek, W. G., & Randall, G. A. (1996). An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin self-

perception inventory and observer’s assessment from the perspective of the five-factor model. Journalof Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 389–405.

Bucciarelli, L., Einstein, H. H., Terenzini, P. T., & Walser, A. D. (2000). ECSEL/MIT engineering educationworkshop’ 99: A report with recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 141–150.

Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., & Hamilton, E. R. (2008). Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions offaculty to student engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 339–353.

Conole, G., Brasher, A., Cross, S., Weller, M., Clark, P., & Culver, J. (2008). Visualising learning design tofoster and support good practice and creativity. Educational Media International, 45(3), 177–194.


123

Courter, S. S., Millar, S. B., & Lyons, L. (1998). From the students’ point of view: Experiences in afreshman engineering design course. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(3), 283–288.

Cronin, C., & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology inhigher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 637–661.

Downey, G. L., & Lucena, J. C. (2005). National identities in multinational worlds: Engineers and‘‘engineering cultures’’. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and LifelongLearning, 15(3–6), 252–260.

Felder, R., Brent, R., & Prince, M. (2011). Engineering instructional development: Programs, best practices,and recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 89–122.

Fisher, S. G., & Macrosson, W. D. K. (1995). Early influences on management team roles. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 10, 8–15.

Fisher, S. G., Macrosson, W. D., & Semple, J. H. (2001). Control and Belbin’s team roles. PersonnelReview, 30, 578–588.

Fisher, S. G., Macrosson, W. D. K., & Wong, J. (1998). Cognitive style and team role preference. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 13, 544–557.

Flattau, P. E., Lal, B., Horin, C., Martinez, H., & Ford, J. J, I. I. I. (2009). Early outcomes of the NationalScience Foundation’s grants program on ‘‘How people learn engineering’’ (HPLE). Washington, DC:Institute for Defense Analyses Science & Technology Policy Institute. (IDA Document D-3725).

Fromm, E., & McGourty, J. (2001). Measuring culture change in engineering education. In Proceedings of the2001 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition. Salt Lake City, UT.

Furnham, A., Steele, H., & Pendleton, D. (1993a). A psychometric assessment of the Belbin Team-RoleSelf-Perception Inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 245–257.

Furnham, A., Steele, H., & Pendleton, D. (1993b). A response to Dr Belbin’s reply. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 66, 261.

Gilbert, A.-F. (2008). Gender and educational codes in mechanical engineering and materials science: Anethnographic approach. In Proceedings of the research on engineering education symposium (REES).Davos, Switzerland.

Godfrey, E. (2007). Cultures within cultures: Welcoming or unwelcoming for women? In Proceedings of2007 annual conference and exposition of American Society for Engineering Education. Honolulu, HI.

Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal ofEngineering Education, 99, 5–22.

Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G (1980b). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 42–63.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. (1998a). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization

Studies, 19(3), 477–492.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations

across nations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. & Associates (1998b) Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). National values and organizational practices. In N. M. Ashkanasy,

C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp.401–405). London: Sage.

Johri, A. (2010). Creating theoretical insights in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education,99(3), 183–184.

Johri, A., & Olds, B. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research andlearning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.

Kelly, K., & M. Murphy. (2007). Academic change in higher education in Europe. In Proceedings of the2007 annual conference and exposition of American Society for Engineering Education. Honolulu, HI.

Kemnitzer, S. (2008). The need for theory-based research in engineering education. Video interviewrecorded at ASEE 2008. Available online at CASEE video channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsh08jHEKs.

Khilji, S. E. (2004). Whither tradition? Evidence of generational differences in HR satisfaction fromPakistan. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), 141–156.

Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact ofEC2000. Baltimore, MD: ABET Inc.

Lewis, S., Mclean, C., Copeland, J., & Lintern, S. (1998). Further explorations of masculinity and the cultureof engineering. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 8(1), 59–78.


123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsh08jHEKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsh08jHEKs

McKenna, A., Hutchison, M., & Trautvetter, L. (2008). The engineer of 2020: Case studies of organizationalfeatures of effective engineering education. In Proceedings of research in engineering educationsymposium. Davos, Switzerland.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1986). Family environment scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

NSF-GSE, Research on Gender in Science and Engineering Program (2010). New formulas for America’sworkforce. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03207/nsf03207.pdf.

Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persis-tence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3),259–278.

Routamaa, V. & Hautala, T. M. (2008). Understanding cultural differences—The values in a cross-culturalcontext. The International Review of Business Research Papers, 4, 5.

Seidman, A. (Ed.). (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success. Westport, CT: Praeger,American Council on Higher Education series on Higher Education.

Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (1998). A comparison of the Belbin self perception inventory and observer’sassessment sheet as measures of an individual’s team roles. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 6(1), 1–8.

Shi, Y., & Tang, H. K. (1997). Team roles behaviour and task environment: an exploratory study of fiveorganizations and their managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12, 88–94.

Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement:Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.

Sondergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede’s consequences—A study of reviews, citations, and replications; specialissue on cross-national organization culture. European Group for Organizational Studies, 15(3), 447–456.

Stevens, R., Amos, D. L., Jocuns, A., & Garrison, L. (2007). Engineering as lifestyle and a meritocracy ofdifficulty: Two pervasive beliefs among engineering students and their possible effects. In Proceedings ofthe 2007 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition. Honolulu, HI.

Stevens, R., O’Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., & Amos, D. L. (2008). Becoming an engineer: Towarda three dimensional view of engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 355–368.

Streveler, R., & Smith, K. (2006). Conducting rigorous research in engineering education. Journal ofEngineering Education, 95(2), 103–105.

Tonso, K. L. (1996). Student learning and gender. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(2), 143–150.Tonso, K. L. (2006). Teams that work: Campus culture, engineer identity, and social interactions. Journal of

Engineering Education, 95(1), 25–37.Tuckman’s, I. (1965). 5 Stages of group development. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.van Dierendonck, D., & Groen, R. (2011). Belbin revisited: A multitrait-multimethod investigation of a team

role instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 345–366.Zampetakis, L. A., Tsironis, L., & Moustakis, V. (2007). Creativity development in engineering education:

The case of mind mapping. Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 370–380.


123

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03207/nsf03207.pdf

Influence of national and engineering culture on team role selection

Documents

Transcript of Influence of national and engineering culture on team role selection