Communication accommodation within global virtual team: The influence of cultural intelligence and the impact on interpersonal process effectiveness
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has curtailed physical mobility of workers both domestically and internationally. As a response, many firms have institutionalized “virtual work” as a way to manage the constraints brought about by COVID-19 crisis. Virtual work is not new in the international management domain. Multinational companies have been operating virtually and forming global virtual teams (GVTs) initially conceptualized as “temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, and electronically communicating work group(s)” (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). For instance, in the information technology and business process offshoring sector, firms would form and operate through GVTs to deliver the services to their offshore clients (e.g., Presbitero and Toledano, 2018; Matarelli, Tagliaventi, Carli & Gupta, 2017; Gunasekare, 2015; Luo et al., 2012). Other researchers have used the terms “multinational and multicultural distributed teams” (Connaughton and Shuffler, 2007), and “transnational teams” (Lagerstrom and Andersson, 2003; Earley and Mosakowski, 2000) but the popularity in the use of GVT lies on its clear operationalization that it must be global (i.e., composed of members that are geographically distributed and as such culturally diverse) and virtual (i.e., technology-dependent for communication and interaction; no physical contact at all). As Gibson et al. (2014) highlighted: GVT is “where global and virtual meet” (p. 217).
One of the advantages of forming and working in a GVT context is the ability to work together on a certain project despite differences in geographical locations. Jimenez et al. (2017) explained that GVT members do not have to travel to work on a project saving significant amount of resources such as time and financial cost. Also, the dispersion of members in different time zones can enable a 24-hour workflow that easily facilitates the monitoring and completion of the project. However, there are many challenges associated when working in GVTs. For instance, coordination can be much harder compared to non-virtual, physical face-to-face type of communication (Muethel and Hoegl, 2010). This is due to the limited access to non-verbal communication cues such as body postures or hand gestures. In addition, while the time zone dispersion may contribute to having a non-stop, 24-hour workflow, such continuity can be challenged by technical issues. Technical glitches can impact the smooth functioning of the team which can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts (Kankanhalli et al., 2006). Furthermore, language differences can also be an issue in GVTs. While a common language is used, the fluency and proficiency in such language can trigger foreign language anxiety which can influence task performance (Presbitero, 2020) as well as knowledge sharing and interaction between and among GVT members (Zander et al., 2012; Barner-Rasmussen and Aarnio, 2011; Welch and Welch, 2008).
While recent studies have emerged investigating the complexities of functioning within GVTs [i.e., diverse effects of diversity on team effectiveness (Taras et al., 2019); familiarity and information elaboration (Maynard et al., 2019); social identity and influences on negative perceptions (Vahtera et al., 2017)], one important feature of GVT that has yet to be fully examined is effectiveness of interpersonal processes occurring within the team. Previous meta-analysis results on multicultural work groups indicate that cultural diversity is associated with more creativity but also greater conflict, less effective communication, lower satisfaction and lower social integration (Stahl et al., 2010). These findings were anchored on the convergence-divergence and process gain-process loss framework (Earley and Gibson, 2002; Steiner, 1972). Divergent processes stem from different values and ideas within the team (Canney and Ekelund, 2004) which Stahl et al. (2010) argue to either have positive group outcomes (i.e., process gains) or negative group outcomes (i.e., process loss). Meanwhile, convergent processes are “those that align the team around common objectives, commitment and conclusions” (Stahl et al., 2010, p. 692) and are argued to either have positive group outcomes (e.g., group cohesion) or negative outcomes (e.g., groupthink). While the framework has guided our understanding of team processes, the convergence-divergence and process gain-process loss framework was not explicit on interpersonal processes. Marks et al. (2001) argued that interpersonal processes play critical roles in team contexts since they can influence the downstream effectiveness particularly of task performance and delivery. Interpersonal processes are regarded as the interplay of cognitive, motivational and behavioral activities in social interaction (Snyder and Stukas, 1999). Maruping and Agarwal (2004) highlighted that managing interpersonal processes in teams can be facilitated through technology drawing from the task-technology fit perspective. This is particularly relevant for GVTs that leverage on technology for effective functioning. The literature has also shown that interpersonal processes can be categorized into two main processes: synergy and direction (Watson et al., 2003). While initially applied in the context of business venture teams, we find it relevant to extend such conceptual framework in the context of GVTs. Synergy is conceptualized as those activities such as resolving conflict, sharing information and coordinating/communicating team efforts which could all be observed and experienced in GVTs (e.g., Glikson and Erez, 2019; Klitmoller and Lauring, 2013; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001). Direction, on the other hand, is conceptualized as those activities such as setting the quality standards, examining continual growth and improvement, and achieving the set goals. This set of activities is also regarded highly and found to be critical for GVTs (e.g., Jimenez et al., 2017; Lipert and Dulewicz, 2018). Watson et al. (2003) demonstrated the importance of these two main categories of interpersonal processes as they are found to influence firm and group performance. Hence, we utilize such framework, apply it in the context of GVTs particularly in a multinational information technology offshoring firm and further examine the factors contributing to the effectiveness in both the interpersonal processes of synergy and direction in GVTs.
We aim to fill in the gaps in the literature by offering a new framework in examining GVTs. Specifically, we utilize and empirically test the interpersonal processes of synergy and direction and how they are exhibited by GVT members. In addition, we examine factors that contribute to the effectiveness in both the interpersonal processes of synergy and direction in GVTs. Given the global context in which GVT operates, we focus on examining the role of cultural intelligence (CQ) or the capabilities that can enable an individual to function effectively amidst cultural diversity (Earley and Ang, 2003). CQ is a distinctive capability that is demonstrated not to function in domestic contexts that are culturally-homogenous (Rocksthul et al., 2011). Following these theoretical views on CQ and grounding from the theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 2003, Sternberg, 1985) which asserts the role of intelligence in enabling individuals to become effective and proficient in managing the demands of the environment, we conceptually establish and empirically test that high level of CQ would relate to high levels of effectiveness in GVT member's display of synergy and direction effectiveness. Such assertion is consistent with recent findings indicating the critical role of CQ as an individual-level intercultural capability required for effective functioning in GVT context (Presbitero, 2020; Presbitero, 2019). In addition to CQ, we also examine the role of communication accommodation which pertains to an individual's communicative action or behavior to “create, maintain, or decrease social distance in interaction” (Giles and Ogay, 2007, p. 293). Anchoring on communication accommodation theory (Giles and Powesland, 1997; Giles et al., 1991), we emphasize and argue the important role of communication accommodation in influencing a GVT member's effectiveness in terms of synergy and direction. The focus on communication accommodation builds on recent studies that highlight the emergence of communication climate in GVT functioning (i.e., Glikson and Erez, 2019). By examining the roles of CQ and communication accommodation of GVT members, we contribute by further advancing our knowledge and understanding of GVT functioning. We also offer practical insights that can help in achieving greater effectiveness of members in GVTs. In the next section, we review the literature and develop our main hypotheses.
Section snippets
Literature review and hypothesis development
We first review the literature on CQ. CQ has been defined in the literature as the ability of an individual to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Earley and Ang, 2003). In a review of CQ literature, Fang et al. (2018) were able to retrieve 142 empirical papers from 2002 to 2018 demonstrating the significant interest on the topic. This was also observed by Yari et al. (2020) when they conducted a systematic review of CQ and related constructs (e.g., global
Participants and procedures
To test the abovementioned hypotheses, we collected data in a multinational offshoring firm based in Manila, the Philippines. The multinational offshoring firm provides information technology and business process services and operates in countries such as Canada, United States of America, Australia and United Kingdom. The nature of work in such an offshoring firm necessitates the creation of GVTs to ensure that projects are delivered and completed on time. Those employees who were involved in
Common method bias
To assess whether there was a statistically significant difference between early and late respondents, a survey wave technique was conducted following the recommendations of Rogelberg and Stanton (2007). Results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between early and late survey respondents. We also checked non-response bias following earlier recommendations (e.g., Harzing et al., 2013; Jantunen et al., 2005) and we found no evidence for such type of bias. Potential
Theoretical contributions
This study contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, we advance our knowledge on the dynamics within GVTs focusing mainly on effectiveness in interpersonal processes of synergy and direction. Previous studies have demonstrated the complexities of GVT functioning taking into account its virtual nature and high levels of cultural diversity. Specifically, studies have focused on diversity at different levels and their impact on effectiveness (Taras et al., 2019); challenges
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study provides a novel framework in understanding effective performance of members in GVTs, i.e., the interpersonal process effectiveness on synergy and direction. In addition, the study unpacks the contributors to such effectiveness by examining the roles of CQ and communication accommodation. These insights add to the growing literature on how to effectively manage GVTs and ensure their effective performances despite the challenges of operating virtually with members who
References (97)
- et al.
Shifting the faultlines of language: a quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in MNC subsidiaries
J. World Bus.
(2011) - et al.
The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles
J. Bus. Res.
(2019) - et al.
Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural intelligence
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
(2018) - et al.
The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications
Long Range Plan.
(2012) - et al.
The culturally intelligence negotiator: the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
(2010) - et al.
Working across boundaries: current and future perspectives on global virtual teams
J. Int. Manag.
(2017) - et al.
When global virtual teams share knowledge: media richness, cultural difference and language commonality
J. World Bus.
(2013) - et al.
Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of cultural intelligence
Int. J. Intercult. Relat.
(2017) - et al.
Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team-the development of a global business system
J. World Bus.
(2003) - et al.
Does your intelligence help to survive in a foreign jungle? The effects of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment
Int. J. Intercult. Relat.
(2012)
Predicting academic performance and trajectories from a measure of successful intelligence
Learn. Individ. Differ.
The role of brokers and social identities in the development of capabilities in global virtual teams
J. Int. Manag.
Cultural and societal influences on shared leadership in globally dispersed teams
J. Int. Manag.
Conflict handling, trust and commitment in outsourcing relationship: a Chinese and Indian study
Ind. Mark. Manag.
The selection, use, and reporting of control variables in international business research: a review and recommendations
J. World Bus.
Cultural intelligence (CQ) in virtual, cross-cultural interactions: generalizability of measure and links to personality dimensions and task performance
Int. J. Intercult. Relat.
Foreign language skill, anxiety, cultural intelligence and individual task performance
J. Int. Manag.
Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: in parise of simple methods
Long Range Plan.
Diverse effects of diversity: disaggregating effects of diversity in global virtual teams
J. Int. Manag.
Influence of social identity on negative perceptions in global virtual teams
J. Int. Manag.
Expatriates managers’ cultural intelligence as promoter of knowledge transfer in multinational companies
J. Bus. Res.
Team interpersonal process effectiveness in venture partnerships and its connection to perceived success
J. Bus. Ventur.
The effects of human capital, organizational demography, and interpersonal processes on venture partner perceptions of firm profit and growth
J. Bus. Ventur.
The relationship between ethnocentrism and cultural intelligence
Int. J. Intercult. Relat.
Leading global teams
J. World Bus.
Handbook of Cultural Intelligence
Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance
Manag. Organ. Rev.
Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance
J. Appl. Psychol.
Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence, knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity
Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol.
Accommodation Theory Revisited
The impact of cultural intelligence on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction, and anxiety for Chinese host country managers working for foreign multinationals
Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.
Effective team processes for global teams
Cultural intelligence and export performance of small and medium enterprises in Thailand: mediating roles of organizational capabilities
Int. Small Bus. J.
Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: a review and future agenda
Small Group Res.
A comparative study of the impact of emotional, cultural, and ethical intelligence of managers on improving bank performance
Inter. J. of Organ. Leadership
Mapping and modelling the capabilities that underlie effective cross-cultural leadership: an interpretive study with practical outcomes
Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J.
Diasporic communication: cultural deviance and accommodation among Tibetan exiles in India
J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev.
Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures
Multinational Work Teams: A New Perspective
Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team functioning
Acad. Manag. J.
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
J. Market. Res.
Communication accommodation theory
Where global and virtual meet: the value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first century teams
Ann. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav.
Communication accommodation theory
Speech Styles and Social Evaluation
Accommodation theory
Accommodation theory: communication, context, and
The emergence of a communication climate in global virtual teams
J. World Bus.
Cited by (31)
Crossing digital frontiers with cultural intelligence - a new paradigm for project managers
2023, International Journal of Project ManagementPeer performance evaluations in global virtual teams: A longitudinal analysis of surface- and deep-level attributes
2023, Journal of International ManagementThe influence of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on conflict occurrence and performance in global virtual teams
2022, Journal of International ManagementCitation Excerpt :Studying CQ and EQ together in the multicultural GVT context is important as they complement each other, resulting in the more effective functioning of cross-cultural interactions. Previous studies have mainly focused on CQ as it has been considered a key competence for GVT members (Dibble et al., 2019; Henderson et al., 2018; Koh et al., 2009; Presbitero, 2021). Presbitero (2016) and Presbitero and Toledano (2018) demonstrate that CQ positively influences task performance in virtual, cross-cultural interactions.
Guest editorial: Exploring the research opportunities and challenges in the metaverse
2024, Internet ResearchVirtual teams and software project management success in a developing country: an empirical study
2024, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and ManagementThe mediating roles of travel motives and social capital on the relationship between cultural intelligence and general life satisfaction
2024, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research