Interculturality and decision making: Pursuing jointness in online teams

4.1.1 Explicit agenda management with initiating leader participation

As described above, participants are meeting for the first time with this group configuration, and they had just been given the assignments for the first session. Excerpt 1 represents the first exchanges within the group, right after a student assistant gave students technical instructions about this round of the game. At this moment, Tiina greets the other participants (line 1), thereby already adopting an active role in the management of the group’s agenda.

Tiina initiates the task by greeting colleagues (line 1), to which they respond (lines 3–5), and later providing an account of a physiological constraint she happens to experience at the time of the interaction (lines 6–7 & 9–10). Thereafter she laughs (line 10), which, in turn, is followed by all co-participants smiling in response (line 12). In overlap, Lea attempts to initiate a turn but abandons it (line 11). After Tiina’s turn, a silence of 2.3 s arises (line 12). Then, Tiina is again the one to propose a shift to the next topic, the actual game task (lines 13 & 15). Interestingly, her agenda management turn is designed in a way that renders the agenda open to discussion (with should we and the coordinating conjunction or) but, at the same time, it involves two specific proposals that call for the other participants’ agreement as the preferred response. Jana agrees with Tiina’s proposal (line 16). As Jana produces her turn in overlap with that of Tiina, it is possible that Tiina did not hear Jana’s agreement with her suggested line of action (to go down in order with the tasks).

After another silence (line 17), Jana proposes to start with the first task depicted on the collaborative board they are looking at (lines 18–19), thus agreeing with Tiina’s earlier proposal (line 13). After Tiina’s agreement token (mhmh, line 20), Jana asks for suggestions (line 21). In response, Tiina states a fact that they all know about their city (we do have a river, line 23), while the prolongation of the last syllable gives Tiina’s turn a flavor of “thinking out loud”. Tiina’s turn is responded to with an agreement token by Jana (line 24). This agreement token, also prolonged, seems to signal a lack of conclusiveness regarding the relevance of the statement for the current matter at hand. After a long silence (line 25), a token by which Tiina again “does thinking” (line 26), and yet another silence (line 27), Tiina makes a proposal (line 28). In response to the lack of recipient uptake (see the silence in line 29), Tiina produces an ironic evaluation of her proposal (line 30), a “post-proposal display of uncertainty” (Stevanovic 2015), orienting to the possibility that the proposal might get abandoned by others. Immediately thereafter, however, Tiina gets an agreeing response by Sanna (I think it works, line 31).

What is most important from the perspective of the degree of jointness of the group decision happens immediately after Sanna’s agreement: instead of seeking to engage the rest of the group to take a stance towards the idea, Tiina displays agreement with Sanna’s agreement, recycling her choice of the verb ‘work’ (simple works, line 32). In other words, by agreeing with Sanna, Tiina is endorsing her own proposal. Interestingly, as part of this sudden endorsement, Tiina reframes her previous (ironic) assessment of the proposal’s (lack of) “originality” (line 28) into a positive assessment about its “simplicity”, thus invoking another highly valued cultural ideal (Kecskes 2014: 97) to support her proposal. Afterwards, Tiina still asks the group if they agree with her proposal. However, by designing her utterances as polar questions (should we go with that, does anyone have a better idea, [does anyone have] a more original name?, lines 34–36), she marks the acceptance of her proposal as the only preferred response option. This seems to go counter the visions of intercultural openness mentioned above. The opportunity to make a competing proposal is offered only to those who are willing to claim that their proposals are better or more original than that of Tiina’s – a highly dispreferred action by which a speaker may be held particularly accountable. As expected, no competing proposal emerges. Instead, Lea agrees with Tiina’s proposal (line 37) and is followed by Jana (line 38), and the other participants nod in agreement (line 39). Finally, Tiina calls for her colleagues to commit to her proposal by asking where the newly chosen name can be written (line 40), thereby encouraging a colleague (Jana) to write the name down (lines 41–42 & 44–45).

In sum, in this sequence, preference is given to task completion over pursuing a truly joint decision. Despite some signs of an intercultural orientation to participation, dialogue, and openness (Ladegaard and Phipps 2020) displayed by Tiina – for instance, giving the group options regarding the agenda (line 13) and asking if colleagues agreed with her proposal (lines 34–36) –, overall the decision about the name of the city was taken unilaterally. This is because most of the steps that would be undertaken by proposal recipients in truly joint decisions, namely access, agreement, and commitment (see Section 2.2 above), were strongly pursued by Tiina. As unveiled in previous studies, if the leader is controlling the interactional agenda, they often exert control also over the contents of proposals (Stevanovic et al. 2022).

4.2.1 Explicit agenda management in response to group participation

In this group, students took the decision to start with a quick introduction by everyone (they talked briefly about their universities and study programs). Right afterwards, Lina takes up the role of chairperson by initiating the task we are interested in (lines 1–3).

This sequence starts with Lina stating the task described on the Miro board and asking colleagues for proposals (lines 1–3). The turn involves several self-corrections and restarts, which reveal difficulty in finding a perfect way to initiate a democratic decision-making process. These difficulties reveal Lina’s underlying orientation to a need of social inclusion in this intercultural scenario (is there anything that we can all agree on, lines 2–3). After some interactional disturbances with overlaps (lines 3–5), Natalie gives a suggestion concerning a possible name for the city, Nelsh (I was thinking of like maybe using (…) the first letters of all of our first names and I came [up] with the name Nelsh, lines 8–11), followed by a post-proposal display of uncertainty (but I don’t know if that’s okay, line 11). It should be noted that the name she chose seems to orient to the possibility of creating a team spirit, which could serve as a first step towards intercultural understanding. However, the only actual response to Natalie’s proposal at this point is Sabine’s laughter (line 12). This lack of uptake by the group can be interpreted as an indication that the other players are not that far yet with the team spirit forged by Natalie’s contribution. Then, another display of uncertainty happens with Natalie possibly orienting to her own suggestion as problematic, though with a laughing voice (it sounds a bit weird, line 13).

Lina evaluates the proposal (I think it’s a good idea, line 16), but this is followed by silence (line 17), which might have been oriented to by Natalie as an indication of disagreement by the rest of the group. Subsequently, Natalie produces an alternative proposal (maybe we can just rearrange the letters, line 18), another post-proposal display of uncertainty (I don’t know, line 18), and a reference to a prior cognitive activity (see Stevanovic 2013) as a way of accounting for the original proposal (that was the first one that came to mind, line 19). Another silence emerges and is followed by Hanne’s evaluation (I think it’s cute, line 21), after which Natalie provides another account (lines 22–23).

Despite her own positive evaluation of the proposal (line 27), Lina suggests putting Natalie’s name proposal to a vote (lines 28–29). Lina’s attempt to explicitly address the interactional agenda in the middle of the discussion may be seen to arise from the democratic ideal sketched earlier (anything we can all agree on, lines 2–3). However, from an interactional point of view, the proposal to vote seems to imply that there are disagreements with the (only) concrete proposal so far, thus highlighting the possibility of misalignment within the group. Furthermore, by orienting to Lina’s proposal in a dry and highly procedural manner, she entirely bypasses the affective and group-spirit fostering implications of Natalie’s proposal.

After Lina’s suggestion (lines 28–29) and further pursuit of the voting project (line 31), Natalie continues presenting alternative proposals (lines 34–39). Sabine takes up one of Natalie’s suggestions (to translate a word into another language) and starts building on it (lines 40–41). From there, Sabine and Natalie iterate in a process of creating an alternative proposal. At this point, Sabine checks for the absence of group disagreement (unless somebody disagrees, line 50) as a basis to move forward with the new proposal. In this way, she takes control over the agenda of interaction, while still complying with the dialogic ideal of intercultural understanding. At this point, however, Eeva reinvokes the first proposal by assessing the suggested name as cute (line 53), which is followed by Lina agreeing (line 54) and Sabine conceding (okay, line 55). Thereafter Lina makes a generic assessment about the “first” proposal (maybe the first guess is sometimes the best, line 56), thus both orienting to there having been multiple proposals in the air and anticipating the approaching end of the sequence. She also refers to the results of the voting on the Zoom (four of us already voted, line 58), which does not appear in the recording but which seems to be oriented to as a resource to highlight the democratic and consensual leaning of the decision.

Thus, Lina shows several indications that reaching a consensus is on her own agenda as a leader in this task. However, moderating proposals and encouraging participation are tricky tasks as they involve finding the balance between supporting proposal-makers through legitimization of their proposals and ensuring that the most people have a say in the group decision. Thus, we can see an explicit orientation towards participation and inclusion which is realized as an unwieldy attempt towards agenda management after the first proposal has already been issued. Such an interactional move can compromise the immediate affective recognition of the proposal as valid and worth proposing. Previous research has pointed out that it is in online interactions in particular where the accomplishment of goal-oriented tasks may be associated with difficulties to express affection and solidarity (Conti et al. 2022; Stevanovic et al. 2020). In this case specifically, Natalie’s proposal was responded to with low emotional engagement and put to a vote. Even if her proposal was later established as accepted by the group, its initial recognition was hampered. Interestingly, and paradoxically, this hampering happened in the name of participation, inclusion, and democratic practices – those very ideals that are assumed to be the basis for the establishment of human relations that lead to intercultural understanding. Even though this is not part of the analysis presented above, there are indications that the players in this group had a hard time developing connections with each other: Natalie abandoned the game in the middle, and Sabine reported, in the last round of the game, that she often felt uneasy in interactions with the group.

4.2.2 Explicit agenda management before group participation

In this group, the task initiation is undertaken by Jia (line 1) and continued by Emma, who turns out to play an important role in the agenda management of the group, taken up at the very beginning of the task (lines 3–8).

This sequence starts with Jia initiating the activity by restating to the other players what the task is about (as shown on the Miro board they are all sharing, line 1), which is responded to by Claire and Emma (mmhm and yeah, lines 2 & 3). Emma then proposes how they can go about solving this task (lines 3–8). She suggests to write down proposals for city names on Miro’s sticky notes (post-its) as a brainstorming activity which would be followed by a voting session. Jia agrees with Emma’s agenda-management proposal (lines 9–10). Emma herself once more underlines the simplicity of her proposal (line 11) before asking the group’s opinion about it (what do you think?, line 12). Claire agrees with the proposal, too (line 14), and the participants proceed with the voting.

After the discussion of some technical issues related to voting (lines 17–102; not shown in the transcript), most of the participants have drawn tally marks on their two preferred suggestions on their Miro board (see Figure 2 below). Emma observes that the vote by one of the participants is missing (line 103), to which Jia orients, however, only minimally (with a low-pitched yeah, line 104), while Claire elaborates on Emma’s remarks but withdraws from stating the name of the participant who did not vote (line 105). Then, Jia shifts the topic to the presentation of the results of the voting process, in which the name ‘Kingdom of Women’ was chosen for the fictitious city. Claire responds to this turn by laughing, repeating the name chosen for the city, and evaluating it (I love it, line 109). However, after Emma’s abandoned turn-initiation (line 110), which is followed by a 4-second-long silence (line 111), Claire returns to the topic of the voting process and counts the number of votes on the board again (line 112). She also makes participation in the voting process relevant (somebody didn’t vote though, line 113). She subsequently provides an account and a justification for not pursuing this topic further in favor of task completion (lines 115–116). Jia shows agreement (line 117) and Claire asks all colleagues whether they agree with the name ‘Kingdom of Women’ (lines 118–119). Jia and Emma agree, but, at this point, the other participants are not any longer visible on camera, and they haven’t expressed their stance toward the idea. Thus, in her following turn (line 124), Claire gives these participants a last chance to come in and participate in the discussion. Emma’s turn (okay, cool, line 128), with falling intonation, suggests that the decision is established and the sequence is about to come to a close. After this, Claire evaluates the results of the voting process again (great), repeats the chosen name for the city, and celebrates it with raised hands and other gestures (lines 129–130). She is joined by Jia, who claps in agreement (see Figures 3 and 4 below). Emma is not on camera at this point but her celebration (uhuu, line 131) can be heard. Thus, multiple participants engage in emotional work to celebrate the winning proposal of the group.

Figure 2:

Final version of Activity 1 on the Miro board.

Figure 3:

“Okay, Kingdom of Women”

Figure 4:

“Uhuu”.

What was different in this case, compared to Excerpt 2, is the clear separation between the agenda proposals (the ones related to the voting process) and the content proposals (the actual name choices). Concerning intercultural ideals, the very choice to start the activity with such an agenda proposal reveals an orientation to openness and freedom of expression, which has been suggested to lead to genuine understanding of the “cultural Other” (Ladegaard and Phipps 2020: 75). The overall decision-making process was relatively slow, which already in itself enables greater group participation. Most importantly, however, the key tasks related to the process were distributed among the participants: Emma managed the agenda; Jia announced the results of the voting process; and Claire assessed the resulting name choice and initiated the celebration of the collaborative decision. As a result, the decision established was a genuine collaborative achievement – even though it was only three participants who were actively sharing the responsibility for the decision.

4.2.3 Implicit agenda management with responsive leader participation

Here, the task is initiated by Lene, who produces a rather open agenda-management turn in which she asks the other players which task they would like to take up first (lines 1–3). She provides the group with two alternatives: task 1, which has to do with city names (the one we are interested in), or task 2, which has to do with distributing roles in the game.

In response to Lene’s agenda-management turn (lines 1–3), Wai asks a clarification question (lines 5–7), to which Lene responds (lines 9–12). After that, Lene refers to the presentation the instructor shared during the instructor’s introduction to the game and to the fact she and her classmates still do not have access to the materials they need to be able to undertake this task (lines 13–19).

After the reading of the city description (lines 20–119, not shown in the transcript), Lene reinitiates the discussion around a proper name for the city by referring back to the aspect of wine mentioned in the description (lines 120–121). This serves as a pre-sequence to her proposal to include ‘wine’ in the name of the city (line 122). Lene’s proposal is preceded and followed by displays of uncertainty (I don’t know, lines 121 & 123) and a framing that underlines the tentative nature of the proposal (might be a plan, lines 123 & 126). Yan makes another reference to the city description (food and drinks, line 128). After a side sequence (lines 132–138; not shown in the transcript), Yim appears to repeat Lene’s proposal on what the name should contain (something related to wine, line 140–141) but adds a new piece to it (i.e., not only something related to wine but also perhaps a wine’s name, line 141).

What happens next involves an intriguing negotiation of ownership of proposals and rights to display uncertainty in their evaluation. First, Lene casts Yim’s proposal as identical to her earlier proposal (lines 142 & 144). However, just like in her first introduction of the idea of using wine as part of the city name, she displays uncertainty about the idea (I don’t, I don’t know, line 144). After some smiles are shared in the group (line 146), Zhong brings in new information about the city (the city is located on a hillside, line 150) and proposes adding something related to this to its name. Based on this, Lene comes up with a proposal (we could just say Wine Hill or something, line 154), but again she proceeds with a post-proposal display of uncertainty (that’s not super creative, line 155). While doubting the worth of other people’s proposals would certainly be associated with face-threat, this seems not to be the case here. In both of her displays of uncertainty, Lene has first claimed ownership of the idea and only thereafter displayed uncertainty. When previously displaying doubt with Yim’s idea of referring to wine in the city name (lines 142 & 144) and when now evaluating the addition of hill to wine, as suggested by Zhong, as “not super creative”, she is in fact evaluating her own ideas (lines 122 & 154). In this way, Lene gives room for the participants to come up with yet other proposals, even if Yim and Wai seem to agree with her most recent proposal (lines 156–157).

At this point, something unexpected happens, as indicated by Lene’s change-of-state token (oh, line 158), which is repeated by Zhong (line 159). As Lene subsequently announces, another participant, Hong, has written “Burgundy” in the chat (line 160–161), which in this context is to be treated as a proposal for the name of the city. This is followed by a positive evaluation (line 161) and displays of agreement (lines 162 & 164–165). Afterwards Lene seeks approval by other group members (is everyone fine with that?, line 166). Hong accounts for his proposal, invoking its relationship to Yim’s earlier suggestion (a wine’s name, line 141) and explaining that this is the name of a famous French wine (line 169). This account is followed by Lene, Yim, and someone else who does not appear on camera reinforcing their support to Hong’s proposal (lines 170–172). Wai initiates the dealings around writing the name onto the collaborative board the group is sharing (line 173), marking the group’s commitment to the decision.

In this excerpt, several features highlight the collaborative character of the decision-making process and, in this way, also an underlying orientation to openness as an intercultural ideal. First, Lene opens the interaction by asking the group which task they would like to take up first, thus managing the interactional agenda in a rather collaborative way (should we think about … or do we wanna focus on … ?, lines 1–3). She launches a proposal on what the city name could possibly contain, instead of making a name suggestion, which is the final aim of the game task. The practice chosen by Lene is collaborative in that it invites others to make the actual proposal. Also other group members (Yim and Zhong) end up using the same practice. When Lene has gathered initial agreement to her proposal, she is very fast in abandoning it in favor of Hong’s name proposal. As soon as the proposal “Burgundy” shows in the chat, Lene evaluates it promptly and immediately asks for the group’s agreement (is everyone fine with that?, line 166). Such immediate endorsement of a competing proposal over a current one would have been a face-threatening move to make, had not Lene first claimed ownership of the proposal to be abandoned. Now, Lene is active in promoting the one and only proposal that she is not the owner of, which only underlines the collaborative character of the decision-making process and a genuine orientation to the cultural Other.