Cross-national differences in attitudes toward interpersonal interactions have also been found in aviation teams (Helmreich, Merritt, and Sherman, 1996). Current research has demonstrated substantial variability among cultures concerning attitudes toward command responsibility and the captain's role on the flight deck. Cultures differ with respect to members' belief that junior crew members should question the actions of captains. Similarly, individuals from different cultures differ significantly in their endorsement of whether or not they should speak up when they perceive a problem with the flight. Overall, Anglos are more likely than non-Anglos to believe that it is acceptable for crew members to question the captain's decisions, that it is acceptable for the first officer to assume command of the aircraft under certain circumstances, that the captain should not automatically take physical control, and that successful flight deck management depends more than on the captain's individual proficiency.

Parallel findings were found in cross-cultural research, conducted at the Center for Creative Leadership, on teamwork and team leadership. More judicious use of personal prominence and power, greater openness to the ideas and interest of others, and mitigation of tough mindedness are more acceptable among team leaders in Europe, as compared to those in the U.S. (Leslie and Van Velsor, 1998).

Finally, Gibson (1996) found that the relation between team beliefs and team performance differed between American and Indonesian work teams. A collective orientation enhanced team performance, whereas an individualistic orientation inhibited teamwork. Kirkman (1997) found that, in the U.S., Finland, Belgium, and the Philippines, the amount of resistance to working in a team varied, depending upon the cultural orientation of employees. Respondents with individualistic values resisted working in teams more than did respondents with collectivist values. Further, respondents who valued power distance reported higher levels of resistance to self-management than did those who placed a low value on power distance. Currently, Gibson and Zellmer (1997) are engaged in an intercultural analysis on the meaning of teamwork. Although their preliminary results demonstrate that teams have become a pervasive element across the world, the concept of teamwork itself seems to differ as a function of culture.

4.2 Implications for measuring teamwork internationally

Based on the research cited above, it appears that culture can significantly affect the way in which individuals communicate, make decisions, and resolve conflicts in a team. For example, individuals from countries with low power distance (e.g., Austria, Israel, Ireland, and United States) try to minimize inequalities and favor less autocratic leadership and less centralization of authority in teamwork than do individuals from countries with high power distance (e.g., Malaysia, Philippines, Panama, Guatemala, and Puerto Rico). In addition, countries differ significantly in their expression of collectivism, a difference that is likely to affect an individual's desire to participate in teams (i.e., collective orientation) and the extent to which individuals take advantage of the benefits offered by teamwork.