Communication accommodation within global virtual team: The influence of cultural intelligence and the impact on interpersonal process effectiveness

Abstract

The study builds on existing literature on global virtual team (GVT) and focuses on how individual members can achieve higher levels of interpersonal process effectiveness. Anchoring on the theory of intelligence, this study establishes and examines cultural intelligence (CQ) and how it can relate and influence a GVT member's interpersonal process effectiveness. Furthermore, this study extends the literature by drawing from communication accommodation theory in examining how communication accommodation plays an important role in the effective functioning of a GVT member. To test these assertions, data were collected from members of GVTs and their colleagues (n = 262 paired data) in a multinational information technology offshoring firm. Data were analyzed and the results revealed that a GVT member's CQ relates positively and significantly to effectiveness on both interpersonal processes of synergy and direction. Furthermore, results showed that communication accommodation of a GVT member is influenced by CQ which consequently impacts both effectiveness on interpersonal processes of synergy and direction. These results contribute to the growing literature on GVT and offer new practical insights on how to improve overall efficiency and work performance within GVT.

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.