This reflective paper examines communication dynamics, leadership style, and cross-cultural teamwork observed during an internship at a software company. The author describes working on a 20-person team drawn from the United States, India, the Philippines, and Singapore to develop a banking automation application. The paper traces the project through its developmental stages, analyzes a mid-project conflict caused by a late client requirement change, and evaluates the manager's democratic leadership style using Daft's (2007) framework. It concludes that clear role definition, consistent communication channels, and participatory leadership were the primary factors behind the team's success despite geographic, cultural, and time-zone differences.
Communication is an essential part of any formal group, and I realized this firsthand during my internship at a software company. It was an entirely new experience for me to work with a diverse group of people. My team consisted of members from the United States, India, the Philippines, and Singapore — 20 people in total: 3 from the U.S., 8 from India, 6 from the Philippines, and 3 from Singapore. Each member had a distinct role. My colleague and I were trainees, while the third American on the team served as manager. The Indian colleagues worked as software developers, the Filipino colleagues served as testers, and the three Singaporean colleagues provided administration and systems support.
The team's goal was to build a software application for a U.S.-based banking company. The software would automate bill payments, allow customers to transfer money between accounts, manage account information, and incorporate the security requirements of online banking. The project deadline was four months. The bulk of development was handled by the Indian colleagues, and every module was tested by the Filipino colleagues. My role was to understand the complexities of the entire process and conduct an internal audit for the team. This broad role allowed me to interact with everyone across countries and gave me a new perspective on communication and the corporate environment.
Each stage of development produced its own challenges. The first stage involved requirements gathering, during which the team interacted with the client to collect all necessary specifications. My manager, three developers, and I attended this meeting. The phase highlighted the communication skills of the developers, who had to discuss with the client the feasibility of including or excluding certain features and then relay that information accurately to the rest of the team. This proved more challenging than expected: the communication had to be precise and free of distortion for the software to be built correctly.
The next stage was the parallel development and testing of individual modules. This introduced a different kind of problem — the Indian and Filipino team members lived in different time zones and had to agree on common meeting times to discuss issues as they arose. This situation tested their ability to communicate effectively, remain flexible, and stay responsive to each other's ideas. Once development was complete, the testing team took over entirely and conducted thorough testing to identify defects, which were then sent back to the developers for correction. Throughout all of these stages, the Singaporean support team ensured that backup systems and network connections remained operational, while the U.S.-based manager oversaw the entire team. Eventually, the product was completed.
During product development, the client requested an additional feature that had not been discussed in the original specifications. This request arrived late in the project timeline, making it difficult for the developers to accommodate. The manager decided the feature should be included, but the developers opposed this position because the required code changes were extensive and risked delaying delivery. The testing team shared this concern, fearing that additional pressure would result in overlooked defects. The Singaporean support team, however, felt the change should be made to satisfy the client's request. The disagreement became a significant obstacle for the project.
The manager ultimately resolved the situation by speaking directly with the client and explaining the team's constraints. The client agreed to extend the deadline by a couple of months, and the developers and testers accepted this as sufficient time to implement the changes. This episode illustrated how open communication can resolve conflict and realign a team around a common goal.
"Democratic leadership defined and evaluated against alternatives"
"Cultural barriers, role clarity, and multi-channel communication"
It was a valuable experience to work with such a diverse team, and it provided important lessons about communication and its effectiveness in today's global economy and workforce. The success of the project demonstrated that when roles are clearly defined, communication channels are kept open, and leadership encourages participation, even a geographically and culturally dispersed team can achieve its goals.
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.