G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics Alon Lisak a,*, Miriam Erez b,1 a b

Department of Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel The William Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history: Available online xxx Keywords: Global leadership Global characteristics Multicultural teams Leadership emergence Pattern approach

A B S T R A C T

Building on theories of person-environment fit and on the pattern approach, we hypothesized that emergent leaders in multicultural teams score higher than non-leaders in terms of the three global characteristics, of cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to cultural diversity. We tested this hypothesis on a sample of 317 MBA students who worked on a four-week joint project in virtual multicultural teams. Employing logistic regression analysis, the results revealed that individuals who scored high on the above three global characteristics were significantly more likely to emerge as leaders than were other team members. ß 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Global organizations face the twin challenges of creating synergy among their culturally diverse and geographically dispersed subsidiaries and coordinating their activities to maximize efficiency in their missions (Ely, 2004; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004). There is wide agreement that one key for global success is the ability of global organizations to select, develop and place effective global leaders at all organizational levels (Butler, Zander, Mockaitis, & Sutton, 2012; Tung & Varma, 2008). These global leaders are ‘‘influencing the thinking, attitudes, and behaviors of a global community to work together synergistically toward a common vision and common goals’’ (Osland & Bird, 2006, p. 123), and accordingly, they contribute significantly to the success of global units in accomplishing their organizational goals (Zander, Mockaitis, & Butler, 2012). Nonetheless, there are only a limited number of empirical studies on global leadership (Osland, Taylor, & Mendenhall, 2009) and almost no empirical studies on leadership in multicultural teams (see Kearney & Gebert, 2009, as an exception). Most of the research on leadership and culture has assumed a cross-cultural perspective to examine differences and similarities in leadership characteristics across cultures (e.g., Atwater, Wang, Smither,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 54 9988854; fax: +972 4 6371445. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Lisak), [email protected] (M. Erez). 1 Tel.: +972 4 8294461.

& Fleenor, 2009; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Wendt, Euwema, & Van Emmerik, 2009). This approach may not work in multicultural teams, however, where leaders must simultaneously manage a culturally diverse workforce. Hence, global leadership research in general and multicultural team leadership in particular should attempt to identify the personal characteristics and behaviors of leaders that enable them to effectively lead followers who are culturally diverse and often located in different geographical zones (Osland, 2013). Furthermore, global leadership scholars search for global characteristics, which are defined as context-dependent characteristics that facilitate adaptation to the global work context (e.g., Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010; Bird & Osland, 2004). Multicultural teams are defined as teams consisting of ‘‘individuals from different cultures working together on activities that span national borders ‘‘(Snell, Snow, Davidson, & Hambrick, 1998, p. 147). Two important aspects of global multicultural teams are that they are culturally diverse and geographically dispersed, and their members typically communicate virtually with each other (Stanko & Gibson, 2009). Therefore, the global multicultural team environment differs in many aspects from that of co-located culturally homogeneous teams and thus represents a complex and dynamic environment (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). A plethora of research on emergent leadership has studied the general characteristics of emergent leaders in teams, such as general intelligence (e.g., Ilies, Gerhardt, & Le, 2004; Kickul & Neuman, 2000), personality traits (e.g., Taggar, Hackett, & Saha, 1999) and emotional responses (e.g., Coˆte´, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010; Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006). However, most

1090-9516/$ – see front matter ß 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 2

A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

of these studies on emergent leaders were conducted in local (culturally homogeneous), co-located teams, not in multicultural, virtual teams. Hence, to the best of our knowledge, there is no published research on emergent leaders of multicultural teams. In this paper, we build upon the person-environment (P-E) fit model (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) to study leadership emergence in multicultural teams. The P-E fit model suggest that a fit between specific personal characteristics and specific contexts influences who will assume leadership positions over time (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). Thus, we propose that emergent global leaders should possess contextdependent characteristics that enable them to successfully adapt to and operate in the multicultural team context as possessing these characteristics will increase their likelihood of being identified by other team members as emergent global leaders. Specifically, we examined the following three global characteristics that may contribute to the likelihood of a multicultural team member being identified by other team members as an emergent leader: Cultural Intelligence, which is defined as an individual’s capability to deal effectively in culturally diverse settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003); Global Identity, which conveys a sense of belongingness to the global work context (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006); and openness to cultural diversity, which is ‘‘the degree of receptivity to perceived dissimilarity’’ (Ha¨rtel, 2004, p. 190). Furthermore, instead of studying these three global characteristics independent of one another, we follow the pattern approach that suggests that the pattern of the relationships among the characteristics should be perceived as complementary to the variable approach in explaining the dynamics and processes related to leadership emergence (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Smith & Foti, 1998). We assert that these global characteristics have a synergetic power. That is, multicultural team members who are culturally intelligent, who perceive themselves as members of the global work context and who accept their team members’ diversity, are more likely to emerge as leaders of these teams than other members. Accordingly, our study contributes to the understanding of leadership emergence in multicultural teams by identifying the global characteristics of emergent leaders that dovetail with the global work context and by examining the pattern of the combination of these three global characteristics in emerging global leaders over their independent effects. 2. Theory and hypotheses 2.1. Contextual influence on the leadership emergence process The research literature distinguishes between appointed and emergent leaders. An appointed (or assigned) leader is a member who is designated by a superior authority to a leadership position. The emergent leader is a team member who is perceived by her peers as a leader or is elected to become the leader through an interactive process (Hollander, 1974; Hollander, Fallon, & Edwards, 1977). Therefore, unlike other leadership phenomena (such as leadership effectiveness) which is measured by between-group comparisons, leadership emergence is a within-group phenomenon, and the emergent leader is an individual perceived by other team members as a potential leader who has the ability to exert more influence than other members of the same group (Coˆte´ et al., 2010). Although the existing leadership emergence literature makes an important contribution to our understanding of this phenomenon (e.g., Druskat & Pescosolido, 2006; Reichard et al., 2011), these studies do not consider the context in which the team is operating as a factor in their model, and there is no discussion of possible

relations between context-dependent individual characteristics and leadership emergence. A main research direction that can assist in answering this possible relation between context-dependent individual characteristics and leadership emergence is the person-environment fit approach (P-E fit). In the last decades, P-E fit has been the main research concept as it emphasizes the influential effect of contextual factors on organizational behavior processes (Edwards, 2008). According to Kristof-Brown (2000), individual characteristics (e.g., personality traits, values, knowledge, skills and abilities), which are in congruence with the organization environment, lead to positive organizational outcomes, such as commitment, satisfaction and tenure. Consistent with the P-E fit perspective, Schneider’s (1983, 1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) model proposes that attraction to an organization occurs ‘‘as a function of their (people) implicit judgments of the congruence between those organizations’ goals (and structures, processes, and culture as manifestations of those goals) and their own personalities’’ (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995, p. 749). Selection occurs when these individuals have the ‘‘attributes the organization desires’’ (Schneider et al., 1995, p. 749), as exhibited in hiring decisions (Cable & Judge, 1997). Attrition occurs when an individual’s characteristics do not fit well with the organization (Chatman, 1991). Hence, due to the attrition processes, ‘‘over time, the environment will become more homogeneous because similar people will stay in the organization and dissimilar ones will leave’’ (Schneider et al., 1995; p. 756). An interesting assumption of the ASA model is that organizational founders, and later on, top management team members, tend to work with others who are similar in their values and perceptions and who fit within the organizational culture. This will result in a relatively homogeneous group of top-level managers in the organization (Schneider et al., 1998). Strong empirical support was found for this assumption. Organizationally shared prototypes of effective leadership were shared by organizational members and varied between different types of organizations (Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006). Top management team members were found to have high levels of homogeneity with respect to personal characteristics, demographic characteristics and values. Additionally, newcomers to top management teams who were promoted from middle management lines tended to be more homogeneous with existing members of that team, compared to external newcomers (Boone, van Olffen, van Witteloostuijn, & de Brabander, 2004; Jackson et al., 1991; Nielsen, 2009). Studies of large samples of managers at all organizational levels revealed a significant effect for organizational and sectorial membership on the homogeneity of personality characteristics (Schneider et al., 1998) and found that the greater the congruence of values of managers with their organization, the more likely it is that they will remain with the organization (Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). Hence, the above studies suggest that individuals who fit with their organizations tend to have longer tenure in these organizations and are likely to be promoted to management positions over time. Although this assumption was not studied at the team level, the P-E fit model at the organizational level can also be applied to the team level (Person-Team (P-T fit), which is defined as the compatibility between individuals and their work groups (Kristof, 1996). Person-Team fit models focus on the interpersonal characteristics necessary for effective cooperation and communication with other group members, as such characteristics are likely to impact organizational effectiveness by promoting group cooperation and synergy (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Recent studies of person-team fit found that both personality characteristics (e.g., extraversion) and values that fit with the

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

team work culture lead to positive outcomes, such as higher levels of performance, increased work satisfaction and increased levels of trust of these individuals than of others (DeRue & Morgeson, 2007; Glew, 2012; Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). A meta-analysis confirmed the positive effect of the congruence between team members’ characteristics and their team’s values with respect to satisfaction, commitment and tenure (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, et al., 2005). Hence, with this line of thought, we will assert in the next section that newcomers who fit well within their team environment (e.g., multicultural team) will face a higher probability of promotion to leadership positions over time. 2.2. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams Although multicultural teams and local teams (consisting of members from the same national culture) share many characteristics, they also differ in a number of important ways. As opposed to local teams whose members share basic national values and beliefs regarding the appropriate way to behave and respond to each other (Hofstede, 2001), multicultural team members bring different cultural perspectives to their teams with respect to work norms, procedures, expectations and decision making styles. Such cultural differences may impede the emergence of a shared group identity (Janssens & Brett, 2006; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2009). In addition to the challenges presented by cultural diversity, most multicultural teams are located on a continuum of virtuality that requires them to use primarily computer-mediated communication rather than face-to-face communication because of geographical distance (Cramton & Hinds, 2010; Stanko & Gibson, 2009). Virtual communication is generally considered to be a relatively lean communication channel because of the limitations inherent in the transmission of visual and nonverbal cues (Vignovic & Thompson, 2010). As such, it takes longer for multicultural virtual teams to establish team trust and team identity than co-located teams (Earley & Mosakowsky, 2000; Webster & Wong, 2008). The ability of a leader to communicate effectively in a virtual environment and to phrase his/her messages in a conversational and personal manner seems critical for team effectiveness (Kayworth & Leinder, 2002; Yoo & Alavi, 2004). Moreover, geographical dispersions challenge multicultural team leaders because of the need to design teamwork in a manner that can overcome different time zones, different regulations and different team member expectations (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Cascio & Shurygalio, 2003). As a result, leaders and emergent leaders of such teams face the challenges of overcoming cultural differences, geographical dispersion and lean communication channels in building the shared understanding and team unity that are necessary for team cooperation, coordination and performance (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2001). Thus, the unique global context in which they work demands that multicultural leaders have unique characteristics that enables them to influence followers’ perceptions and emerge as masters of the global environment (Zander et al., 2012). Team members search for a leader (or potential leader) who displays confidence in the complex global environment, who seems well adjusted and capable of communicating with the entire team and who helps to further the creation of shared understanding and trust among team members. A team member with such qualities is likely to emerge as a multicultural team leader. The person-environment fit approach has a direct influence on the success of multicultural teams. In their multi-level model of culture, Erez and Gati (2004, see also Shokef & Erez, 2006, 2008) assert that members of multicultural teams nested in global organizations should share the values and norms of the global work culture in which these organizations operate. While these

3

values and norms (such as trust, interdependence and openness to cultural diversity) are the building blocks of team trust and team identity in the global context, they may differ from those that are deemed acceptable in the home cultures of global team members (Glikson & Erez, 2013). Building upon the person-team fit approach (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, et al., 2005), we assert that individuals who hold personal characteristics that fit in the global work context of multicultural teams are more adaptable to the multicultural context, are able to master their environment more effectively and, hence, are more likely to lead others to adapt to this global work context. Over time, these individuals will be perceived by others as having leadership qualities and will emerge as multicultural team leaders. This study aims to identify the context-dependent individual characteristics that a multicultural team member should possess to be identified as a leader by other team members. However, the following question remains: What are the personal characteristics that distinguish those who emerge as leaders of multicultural teams from other members of the team? Recent studies in the global context suggest three such individual global characteristics – cultural intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003), global identity (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2008), and openness to cultural diversity (Ha¨rtel, 2004) – all of which complement each other. Cultural intelligence pertains to the cognitive aspects of cultural awareness and cultural knowledge, as well as to the motivation to adapt to various cultural contexts and to behave accordingly. Global identity pertains to a person’s selfconcept, and as such, it reflects an individual’s identity as shaped by a sense of belongingness to the global work context (Erez et al., 2013). Openness to cultural diversity reflects the basic attitude of the individual toward diverse others (Fujimoto, Hartel, & Hartel, 2004). Therefore, we propose that the emergent multicultural team leader should score higher on these three global characteristics than other team members. Because of the importance of these characteristics, we further elaborate on them and their relationships to leadership emergence in the multicultural team context. 2.2.1. Cultural intelligence (CQ) Cultural intelligence (CQ) is defined as an individual’s capability to effectively address culturally diverse settings. As such, it is culture-free and refers to a general set of capabilities that is relevant to situations that are characterized by cultural diversity (Earley & Ang, 2003). CQ requires three types of fundamental interactive components, which are categorized as mental, motivational, and behavioral (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). The mental component refers to the ability to perceive and understand new cultures using various types of cultural cues. This component is manifest both in a meta-cognitive dimension, in which mental processes are used to acquire and understand cultural knowledge, and in a cognitive dimension, in which knowledge about the norms, practices and conventions of different cultures is acquired through education and personal experience. The motivational component refers to self-motivation and the commitment to adapt and adjust to a diverse cultural environment. The behavioral component encompasses the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and non-verbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2007). Individuals with high CQ effectively manage multicultural situations, make correct cultural decisions in a timely manner (Chen, Liu, & Portnoy, 2012; Chua, Morris, & Mor, 2012) and facilitate desirable processes and outcomes in a global context. Research findings have shown that members of multicultural teams who have high CQ levels integrate into and adapt to their teams more smoothly (Flaherty, 2008; Shokef & Erez, 2008), and they develop

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 4

A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

more interpersonal trust among team members (Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008) than those with low CQ. CQ is therefore considered to be an essential learning capability that leaders use to translate their global experiences, characteristics and behaviors into experimental learning, adjustment and effectiveness (Kim & Van Dyne, 2011; Lovvorn & Chen, 2011; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009). Furthermore, CQ appears is related to the leadership effectiveness of expatriates (Deng & Gibson, 2008) and to leadership effectiveness in multicultural teams (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). Last, it has also predicted global leadership effectiveness in career development programs for international assignments (Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2011). Recently, Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, and Annen (2011) found that, among Swiss army officers, emotional intelligence was a stronger predictor of domestic leadership effectiveness while cultural intelligence was a better predictor of crossborder leadership effectiveness. We propose that CQ differentiates emergent global leaders from other team members. Potential global leaders with high CQ should be sensitive to different practices and conventions (Cognitive CQ), should have the motivation to resolve team conflicts and maintain team identity (Motivational CQ), should have the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors (behavioral CQ) and should be able to reflect upon their own behavior using the cultural context as a guide (Meta cognitive CQ). Accordingly, these qualities should increase the likelihood of emerging as a global leader. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1a. Cultural intelligence will be related to leadership emergence in multicultural teams. Emergent global leaders will have a higher level of cultural intelligence than other multicultural team members. 2.2.2. Global identity Basic questions such as ‘‘Who am I?’’ reflect a person’s selfidentity (Neisser, 1993). Self-identity represents both the private self, i.e., a person’s traits, feelings and behaviors, and the social self, which is related to affiliations and group memberships (Triandis, 1989). The social self is shaped by the social context through the process of socialization, which reflects the values and the behavioral norms of other members of their social community (Erez & Earley, 1993; Oyserman, 2004). Because individuals are motivated to become valued, they strive to maintain positive relationships with their team members and avoid being rejected (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Social inclusion and a sense of belonging are thus important for a person’s adaptation to a social environment (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Kirpatrick & Ellis, 2004). The social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) posits that a shared social identity emerges when people’s perceptions of their mutual and collective similarities are enhanced. Consistent with this line of thinking, Arnett (2002) proposed that in a world in which globalization has become a significant phenomenon in everyday life, people develop a global identity that gives them a sense of belonging to the global community, which facilitates their communication (face-to-face or virtual) with members of other cultures. Members of multicultural teams in global organizations who share a common interest to accomplish a team goal are motivated to overcome cultural barriers and maintain positive relationships with other team members (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006). This sense of belongingness to others with diverse cultural backgrounds who are working in the same global organization reflects a person’s global identity (Shokef & Erez, 2006). Self-concept based leadership theories (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) emphasize the importance of

social identification of team members with their teams to facilitate trust and cohesiveness within the teams. Following this line of thought, we assert that potential emergent leaders with highly developed global identities may serve as global role models for other members. These members observe their strong sense of belongingness to their multicultural teams, which they view as their in-group, hence, facilitating cooperation and understanding in multicultural teams. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1b. Global identity will be related to leadership emergence in multicultural teams. Emergent leaders will have a higher level of global identity than other multicultural team members. 2.2.3. Openness to cultural diversity Diversity reflects differences among individuals regarding any attribute that leads to the perception that others are different from the self (Riordan & McFarlane-Shore, 1997; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Individuals with high levels of openness to cultural diversity view differences as positive, are open to learning from dissimilar others and make an effort to understand dissimilar perspectives. In contrast, individuals low on this dimension regard differences as negative and are not open to understanding dissimilar others (Fujimoto, Hartel, Hartel, & Baker, 2000). Thus, individuals who are open to cultural diversity are motivated to actively seek new cultural experiences, they are curious about other national cultures and they are non-judgmental about other cultural behaviors and expectations (Hartel & Fujimoto, 2000; Shokef & Erez, 2006). These individuals are willing to adopt and express behaviors that indicate and dovetail with tolerance, they respect dissimilar individuals, and they are motivated to reduce the possible negative effects of cultural misunderstandings (Fujimoto et al., 2004; Ha¨rtel, 2004; Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2004). Openness to cultural diversity serves as an important intercultural competency among multicultural team members that leads to positive outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment and trust (Lloyd & Ha¨rtel, 2011). In analyzing the interpersonal interactions among researchers working in multicultural teams, Ettorre (2000) found openness to diversity to be an important leadership characteristic in the success of international projects. In the current paper, we propose that multicultural team members who are open to cultural diversity are more likely to emerge as leaders. They will actively seek to interact with other team members and will regard these cultural interactions as interesting and challenging instead of threatening. Such members will initially show more respect to – and trust in – other team members despite national cultural differences and will actively and voluntarily create positive relations with dissimilar members. This, in turn, facilitates cross-understanding among team members (Huber & Lewis, 2010). Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1c. Openness to cultural diversity will be related to leadership emergence in multicultural teams. Emergent global leaders will have a higher level of openness to cultural diversity than other multicultural team members. 2.3. The pattern approach as a frame for leadership emergence in multicultural teams Most studies on leadership emergence have utilized the variable approach, searching for individual difference variables with the strongest correlations with leadership emergence criteria (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). However, over the last decade, Foti and colleagues have suggested that the pattern approach should be considered as complementary to the variable approach in

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

explaining the dynamics and processes related to leadership emergence outcomes (e.g., Gershenoff & Foti, 2003; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Smith & Foti, 1998). Based on a person-oriented perspective (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Magnusson, 1995; Magnusson & Torestad, 1993), the pattern approach assumes a holistic and dynamic view of the individual as an integrated unity over time (Foti, Thompson, & Allgood, 2011; Magnusson, 1999). Accordingly, individuals may be classified into homogeneous groups on the basis of the patterns of their scores across certain personal characteristics. Once individuals have been classified into groups with common patterns, these groups become the focus of the research (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). Accordingly, empirical findings have shown significant relationships between specific motivational patterns and leadership effectiveness (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Sorrentino & Field, 1986) and between specific patterns of transformational/transactional leadership behaviors and leadership effectiveness (O’Shea, Foti, Hauenstein, & Bycio, 2009). Very few studies of emergent leadership have emphasized the importance of using the pattern approach. These studies have demonstrated that patterns of high levels of intelligence, dominance, self-efficacy (Smith & Foti, 1998) and self-monitoring (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007) are related to leadership emergence while patterns of mixed- or low-levels of these attributes are not related to leadership emergence. Additionally, another study found a stronger relationship between specific patterns of gender roles and intelligence (masculine-intelligent and androgynous-intelligent) and leadership emergence than there was for other patterns in allfemale teams (Gershenoff & Foti, 2003). A basic tenet of the pattern approach is that the individual is an active part of an integrated, complex, dynamic and adaptive person-environment system (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). We propose that an emergent multicultural team leader should be able to simultaneously understand the complex multicultural team context, have a sense of belongingness to the global team, and show tolerance and acceptance of the cultural variation of the team. These three characteristics – also known as cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to cultural diversity – are found to be positively related to each other, and they positively influence multicultural team performance (Ang et al., 2006; Shokef & Erez, 2006, 2008). Following the holistic pattern approach, we propose that multicultural team members who integrate all three global characteristics will be recognized more easily by their peers as emergent leaders compared to individuals who are not integrating, or who hold lower levels of these characteristics. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2. A multicultural team member with high levels of openness to cultural diversity, global identity and cultural intelligence (H-H-H pattern) is more likely to emerge as a leader compared to members with mixed patterns and compared to members with low levels of these global characteristics (L-L-L pattern). 3. Methods 3.1. Participants Representing 32 nationalities, the participants included 317 MBA and graduate students from ten universities in eight countries (USA [3], England, Hong-Kong, Germany, Israel, Italy, Spain and Switzerland) who were part of a multicultural team project in 2009. Of the participants, 47% were European (13% from Italy and 11% from Germany), 21% were from the Far East (13% Chinese), 18% were North American, 12% were Israeli and 2% were from miscellaneous areas (e.g., Latin America and central Asia). The average age was 26.2 years (S.D. = 4.95) and 53% were men. Most

5

(76%) of the participants had previous work experience in industrial companies, and 28% reported that they were working in global organizations at that time. Additionally, most (71%) of the participants reported that they had worked in multicultural teams in the past (in industry or as part of international MBA programs). An initial condition for participation in the project was a sufficient level of English proficiency for fluent intra-team communication (e.g., e-mails, chats, video conversations). The mean self-reported level of English proficiency was 4.46 (S.D = .73, 1–5 scale). Additionally, 80% of the students completed their MBA programs in English. Last, the proportion of nominated leaders from AngloSaxon countries (20%) was close to their proportion in the sample (19%), suggesting no bias in leadership emergence for those who are English native speakers. 3.2. Procedure Participants were assigned to 81 virtual multicultural teams. Of these, 74 teams (91%) consisted of four members and the remaining teams consisted of three members. Members of each team were from different countries, nationalities and universities and spoke different native languages. They were asked to work on a four-week team project as part of their cross-cultural management course requirements toward their final grade. The project consisted of the following three steps: Step1: Before the beginning of the project, all participants completed a web-based questionnaire in English. The questionnaire assessed the respondent’s global characteristics with respect to global identity, cultural intelligence, openness to cultural diversity and demographics. Step 2: The first week of the project was the ‘‘getting to know each other’’ phase. The team members interviewed one another and participated in discussions that expanded their knowledge about one another. This stage consisted of two chats (at least) among all team members, intensive daily e-mail exchanges and discussion of a case study that presented a personal dilemma in the context of an international acquisition. After becoming acquainted with one another, team members were required to reach consensus regarding a country on which they were to write their final project. At the end of Step 2, the team members were required to elect ‘‘the most suitable team member’’ to serve as their team leader to lead them through their mission in Step 3. At this stage, they received the task instructions, which included the rules for communicating with the project coordinator. Step 3: In this stage, the team assignment began and lasted for two additional weeks. The task was to develop guidelines for an expatriate who was to be assigned a position in a country selected by the team. The country could not be the home country of any of the team members. Each team was required to prepare a twelve-slide presentation that included information about the host country and a comparison of the cultural similarities and differences with team members’ home countries. Their grades on the final team project served as part of their final course grades.

3.3. Measures All global characteristics and controls were measured in the week before the beginning of Step 1. Cultural intelligence. We measured cultural intelligence using the Cultural Intelligence Scale of Ang et al. (2006, 2007). This 20-item scale assesses cultural intelligence on the following four sub-scales: metacognitive (e.g., ‘‘I am conscious of the cultural

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

6

knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions’’), cognitive (e.g., ‘‘I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behavior in other cultures’’), motivational (e.g., ‘‘I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures’’), and behavioral (e.g., ‘‘I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent and tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it’’). The CQS was answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). The general scale reliability coefficient (alpha) for this study was .92 (with an alpha of .83, .87, .87 and .88 for the sub-scales, respectively). We used the total score on the four subscales as the CQ measure. Global identity. We measured global identity using the global identity scale developed and validated by Erez and Shokef (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006, 2008). This measure consists of four items and uses a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all to 7 = Very Much). The items measured the level of the individual’s identification with a global context (e.g., ‘‘I relate to people from other parts of the world as if they were close acquaintances/ associates’’). Scale reliability coefficient (alpha) was .85. Openness to cultural diversity. We measured openness to cultural diversity using a scale consisting of 4 items and a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Very Inaccurate; 7 = Very Accurate) that were modified based on the openness to diversity scale of Hobman, Bordia, and Gallois (2003). This scale measures the willingness of the respondent to be open to diverse individuals (e.g., ‘‘I often spend time with people from cultural groups other than my own’’). The scale reliability coefficient (alpha) was .74. To confirm the global characteristics’ factor structure and to ensure that global identity, cultural intelligence and openness to cultural diversity were independent factors, we applied a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a three-factor model. To calculate this model, we first designed a second-order factor model of cultural intelligence, which included the four subscales of the cultural intelligence questionnaire, as first-order factors (metacognition, cognition, motivation and behavioral). We then added the global identity scale and the openness to cultural diversity scale and correlated all three factors (the second-order cultural intelligence scale, global identity scale and openness to cultural diversity scale). All of the items significantly loaded on their corresponding factors (p < .01) and fit indices provided evidence of a good fit (x2 (329) = 719, p < .001; Comparative Fit Index (CFA) = .92; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .91; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .059) as was suggested in the literature (Lower then .07 for RMSEA and higher then .90 for CFI and TLI, e.g., Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Additionally, we compared this model with alternative two-factor models. These models combined two of the three factors correlated with the remaining factor. We then compared the x2 of the threefactor model and each of the two-factor models to identify significant differences. The three-factor model demonstrated better fit than each of the two factor models. The results for the two-factor model of global identity combined with openness to cultural diversity and correlated with cultural intelligence were (x2 (331) = 890.6, p < .01; CFI = .88, TLI = .86, RMSEA = .073, Dx2

(2) = 171.6, p < .001). For the two-factor model of global identity combined with cultural intelligence and correlated with openness to cultural diversity, the results were (x2 (334) = 918.9, p < .01; CFI = .88, TLI = .86, RMSEA = .074; Dx2 (5) = 199.9, p < .001). Finally, for the two factor model of cultural intelligence combined with openness to cultural diversity and correlated with global identity the results were (x2 (334) = 795.5, p < .01; CFI = .89, TLI = .87, RMSEA = .072; Dx2 (5) = 76.5, p < .001). Hence, we found support for our three-factor model structure. Leadership emergence. Most previous studies assessed perceived leadership emergence by asking team members to evaluate each other on perceived leadership scales (e.g., Kickul & Neuman, 2000; Taggar et al., 1999). These criteria allowed them to estimate the level of perceived leadership of each of the team members. However, these criteria did not examine team members’ perspectives regarding the most appropriate member for the leadership role as there was no need to elect the most appropriate member to an actual leadership position. Only a limited number of studies allowed team members to elect the emergent leader to lead them toward the accomplishment of their team task (Hollander et al., 1977; Pillai & Meindl, 1991; Van Vugt & De Cremer, 2002). In the current study, we allowed the team members to elect their emergent leader whose role was to coordinate the team members’ activities, integrate their contributions and motivate them to complete their assigned task on time. We expected team members to elect the individual with the highest potential to successfully lead the team to its task completion due to the relation between the task product and the students’ grades. Thus, we assessed leadership emergence based on the actual selection of one team member by his/her peers. Control variables. We controlled for leaders’ ages, genders (Joshi, Lazarova, & Liao, 2009), and past work experiences in multicultural teams, because recent studies have suggested that global work experience enhances global identity and cultural intelligence (Li, Mobley, & Kelly, 2013; Shokef & Erez, 2008). 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive statistics The means, Standard Deviations (S.D.) and inter-correlations appear in Table 1. The correlations among the global characteristics (openness to diversity, cultural intelligence and global identity) ranged between r = 0.50 and 0.56, p < .01. All three global characteristics positively and significantly correlated with leadership emergence. Age was the only control variable that positively correlated with leadership emergence (r = .13, p < .05), but did not correlate significantly with the three global characteristics. 4.2. Hypotheses testing We tested Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c regarding the relationship between global characteristics and becoming an emergent leader

Table 1 Mean standard deviations and correlations among model variables. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Age Past multicultural team work experience Gender Cultural intelligence Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Leadership emergence

Mean

S.D.

1

2

3

26.18 0.71 1.47 4.77 4.95 5.28 0.26

4.95 0.45 0.50 0.80 1.00 0.92 0.44

– .06 .13* .01 .02 .02 .13*

– .10 .12* .09 .23** .04

– .06 .06 .07 .06

4

5

6

– .53** .13*

–

– .50** .56** .16**

.16**

N = 317. Gender: 1 = man, 2 = woman; leadership emergence: 1 = leader, 0 = follower. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

Table 2 Mixed regression estimates of differences in global characteristics between emergent leaders and their followers. Global characteristic

Mean leaders’ score (S.D.) N = 81

Mean followers’ score (S.D.) N = 236

b

df

t

Cultural intelligence Openness to cultural diversity Global identity

4.98 (0.80) 5.30 (0.90) 5.19 (1.07)

4.70 (0.79) 5.20 (0.91) 4.88 (1.05)

0.29 0.35 0.33

234 234 234

2.93** 3.02** 2.52*

N = 317. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. The regressions controlled for age, gender and past work experience in multicultural teams. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

by using the PROC MIXED regression technique (Wolfinger, Tobias, & Sall, 1991) for each of the global characteristics, taking into consideration the team dependency effect and controlling for age, gender and past work experience on multicultural teams (see Table 2). The results supported Hypothesis 1 by showing that emergent leaders initially scored significantly higher than other team members on the three global characteristics of cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to cultural diversity. Hypothesis 2 predicted that multicultural team members whose patterns showed high levels of cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to diversity (H-H-H pattern) would have a higher probability to emerge as leaders than team members with mixed patterns or team members with low levels of these global characteristics (L-L-L pattern). Following the recommendation of Foti and Hauenstein (2007), this hypothesis was first examined using the variable approach method of hierarchical regression and it was then examined using the pattern approach. Because the dependent variable (leadership emergence) was dichotomous, we used a hierarchical logistic regressions analysis for parameter estimation (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000). Because logistic regression analysis is a nonlinear regression model, it does not provide an F-statistic to test for the overall model fit. Instead, overall and improvement chi-squared tests may be computed from the log-likelihood statistics (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000). Logistic coefficients (B) represent the degree to which the log odds of the event occurring are changed for each unit increase in the associated independent variable. The log of the odds ratio (log [p/(1 p)] (where p is the probability to be nominated as a leader) for a variable indicates the change in the log of the odds for a case when the value of that variable increases by 1. The Wald statistic assesses whether the B coefficient for the corresponding independent variable is significantly different from zero (De Pater, Van Vianen, Bechtoldt, & Klehe, 2009). Finally, we estimated the exponential of the beta of the respective predictor (exp. (B), which is the factor by which the odds change when the respective predictor increases by one unit. For instance, multiplying by a factor of 1.05 is equivalent to a 5% increase in odds. Only one member in each team could be nominated to a leadership position by peers. Hence, all team members were strongly correlated in their decision criteria as coding ‘‘1’’ for the emergent leader meant coding ‘‘0’’ for all other team members. To model this strong dependency, we used the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model for our analysis, and used the GENMOD procedure of SAS 9.2. GEE (Hardin & Hilbe, 2003) is an extension of the standard array of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). As likelihood-based models, traditional GLMs are based on the assumption that individual subjects or observations are independent. In contrast, GEE models do not require such an assumption, and can thus handle situations where responses are correlated (see ¨ o¨rni, Uusitalo, & Hyo¨na¨, 2011, for demonstration). Simola, Kuisma, O We used the compound symmetry working correlation structure, which modeled the same correlation between each of two observations within the same team. Additionally, because the GEE method is not, in general, a likelihood-based method of estimation, inferences based on likelihoods are not possible for this method. Hence, there is no equivalent for R2 or AIC using this method.

To conduct the hierarchical logistic regression, the control variables (past work experience in multicultural teams, age and gender) were entered into the regression equation in the first step. The global characteristics of global identity, openness to cultural diversity and cultural intelligence were entered in the second step. Two-way interactions between all combinations of the global characteristics were entered in the third step. In the fourth step, a three-way interaction among the three global characteristics were entered into the regression equation. The scores of the three global characteristics were centered (the mean subtracted from each mean score, leaving deviation scores) to reduce multicollinearity between the variables and their interactions (Preacher & Rucker, 2003). The results showed non-significant (p > 0.05) effects for all main effects and for the interaction between the global characteristics that were over and above the control variables, with logistic coefficients (B) lower than .01. These results indicated that the traditional variable approach method of hierarchical regression, did not offer meaningful results to our second hypothesis. We further conducted a pattern approach analysis (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007) using a clustering-by-cases procedure to classify the multicultural team members on the basis of their scores on the three global characteristic measures (cultural intelligence, openness to cultural diversity and global identity). We followed the suggestion of Bergman and Magnusson (1992) and used the k-means relocation cluster analysis with the squared Euclidean distance method and a start classification based on Ward’s method. Accordingly, we started by performing a hierarchical cluster analysis, selecting the squared Euclidean distance as a similarity measure and using Ward’s method to form the initial clusters without restricting their number. These analyses provided a dendrogram based on the distance of the clusters. Examining the dendrogram and the different clustering solutions, we determined that the ideal number of clusters was three, each with high fit (average silhouette width = .26). Table 3 displays the cluster analysis results. Accordingly, fiftyfive participants were assigned to the H-H-H (high in all three characteristics) cluster, of whom 40 percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position. One hundred and fifty four participants were assigned to the mixed cluster with mixed combinations and with average scores close to the average scores of the total sample. Of this cluster group, 27 percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position. Finally, 108 participants were assigned to the L-L-L cluster (low in all three characteristics), with lower average scores than the sample average for all three characteristics and with the lowest minimum points. Only 17 percent of this cluster was elected by their peers for a leadership position. These three clusters represented our three predicted patterns. To study the relationship between the high (H-H-H) pattern of global characteristics and leadership emergence compared to the low (L-L-L) and mixed patterns, with gender, age and past work experience in multicultural teams as controls, we fitted a logistic regression model. To control team dependency we calculated again Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model, using the GENMOD procedure of SAS 9.2. The results revealed that the effects of

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

8

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the cluster analysis results-81 teams. Cluster/pattern

N

Variable

Mean

S.D.

Min

Max

Number and proportion of emergent leaders in each cluster

L-L-L

108

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural intelligence

3.92 4.58 4.15

0.84 0.84 0.74

2.25 2.50 2.15

6.25 7.00 6.05

18 (17%)

Mixed

154

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural intelligence

5.26 5.39 4.84

0.61 0.65 0.47

4.00 3.25 3.60

7.00 6.75 6.00

41 (27%)

H-H-H

55

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural intelligence

6.12 6.37 5.82

0.54 0.31 0.35

4.75 5.75 5.15

7.00 7.00 6.70

22 (40%)

General sample

317

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural Intelligence

4.96 5.28 4.77

1.05 0.92 0.80

2.25 2.50 2.15

7.00 7.00 6.70

81

the total model were significant (Wald x2 = 10. 81, p < .05). The model indicated no significant effects for controls of gender (B = 0.001, Wald x2 = 0.58, ns) or age (B = 0.001, Wald x2 = 3.06, ns) but found a significant positive effect for past work experience in a multicultural team (B = 0.0001, Wald x2 = 5.36, p < .05, Exp (B) = 1.001). A comparison between the H-H-H pattern and the L-L-L pattern demonstrated a significantly higher odds ratio for leadership emergence for the H-H-H pattern group compared to the L-L-L pattern group (B = 0.01, Z = 2.41, p < .05, Exp (B) = 1.001). However, the results did not reveal a significant difference between the H-H-H pattern group and the mixed pattern group (B = 0.0006, Z = 1.08, ns). Finally, no significant difference was found between the effect of the mixed pattern group and the L-L-L pattern group on leadership emergence (B = 0.001, Z = 1.21, ns). The pattern analyses demonstrated weak effects and only partially supported hypothesis 2. However, we assert that these results do not demonstrate the full effect of the three global characteristics on leadership emergence in multicultural teams. In our second hypothesis, we asserted that team members with an HH-H pattern are more likely to emerge as leaders compared to members with mixed patterns and compared to members with an L-L-L pattern. Taking into account the strong intra-group dependence that exists in these teams (when coding 1 for the emergent leader in the criterion means coding 0 for other team members), we assert that hypothesis 2 can be fully examined only in teams that include members with an H-H-H pattern because this pattern is the reference point of our hypothesis (in other words, if there is no H-H-H pattern individual, the hypothesis cannot be tested). To test this assertion, we repeated the pattern analysis phases described above, but this time only with teams that met this

requirement. As 39 teams did not include individuals with an H-HH pattern, they were excluded from the analysis. An additional 10 teams with two or three H-H-H members were also excluded from the analysis because they inflated the likelihood that the H-H-H individual would be elected as a leader. The remaining 32 teams in the analysis included members who represented the three patterns. On each team, there was only one member with the H-H-H pattern. Of the 32 teams, 31 consisted of four members. Table 4 represents the cluster analysis descriptive results using K-means and ward methods. The analysis found the same three differentiated clusters – H-H-H, mixed and L-L-L – that represent our suggested patterns. Thirty-two participants (each on a different team) were assigned to the H-H-H cluster, of whom 47 percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position. Sixtyone participants were assigned to the mixed cluster, of whom 21 percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position. Finally, thirty-four participants were assigned to the L-L-L cluster, of whom only 11 percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position. To compare odds ratios that a member of the high (H-H-H) cluster will emerge as leader versus the odds that a member from the low (L-L-L) cluster or mixed cluster, we controlled for gender, age and past work experience in a logistic regression. To control team dependency, we calculated generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the GENMOD procedure of SAS 9.2. The results revealed that the effect of the total model was significant (Wald x2 = 9.28, p < .05). The model indicated no significant effects for gender (B = 0.21, Wald x2 = 1.21, ns), past work experience on a multicultural team (B = 0.01, Wald x2 = 0.01, ns) or age (B = 0.002,

Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the cluster analysis results-32 teams. Cluster/pattern

N

Variable

Mean

S.D.

Min

Max

Number and proportion of emergent leaders in each cluster

L-L-L

34

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural intelligence

4.00 4.51 4.17

0.80 0.82 0.58

2.50 3.00 2.85

5.50 6.25 5.45

4 (12%)

Mixed

61

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural Intelligence

5.24 5.31 4.84

0.66 0.70 0.41

4.00 3.75 3.65

6.75 6.50 5.95

13 (21%)

H-H-H

32

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural intelligence

6.12 6.40 5.80

0.51 0.33 0.39

5.25 5.75 5.15

7.00 7.00 6.70

15 (47%)

General sample

127

Global identity Openness to cultural diversity Cultural Intelligence

5.13 5.37 4.91

1.03 0.95 0.75

2.50 3.00 2.85

7.00 7.00 6.70

32

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Wald x2 = 0.001, ns). A comparison between the H-H-H pattern and the L-L-L pattern demonstrated a significantly higher odds ratio for leadership emergence for the H-H-H group compared to the L-L-L group (B = 1.62, Z = 2.74, p < .01, Exp (B) = 5.04). Additionally, the results revealed a significant difference between the H-H-H pattern group and the mixed pattern group (B = 1.39, Z = 2.47, p < .05, Exp (B) = 4.00) with a higher odds ratio for leadership emergence in the H-H-H group. Finally, no significant difference was found between the effect of the mixed pattern group and the L-L-L pattern group regarding leadership emergence (B = 0.09, Z = 0.26, ns). These results fully support our second hypothesis. 5. Discussion Our objective in this study was to contribute to the existing body of knowledge about leadership emergence in the following three ways: first, by studying leadership emergence in multicultural teams, a phenomenon that has not been studied before; second, by identifying the global leadership characteristics that differentiate emergent leaders from other team members; and third, by testing whether the combination pattern of the three global leadership characteristics predicts emergent leadership better than their individual effects. Achieving these three objectives, we made contributions to the following four lines of research: (a) leadership emergence, (b) leadership in multicultural teams, (c) person-environment fit approach, and (d) the pattern approach. Our study design enabled us to assess the global characteristics of multicultural team members before they formed the work teams and to test whether the team member who emerged as a leader had higher level of global characteristics than the other team members. Such a design is difficult to achieve in global organizations where different multicultural teams are at different stages of maturity. Our study design allowed us to test our first hypothesis that emergent global leaders will have higher levels of cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to diversity than their other team members. The results revealed that, on average, all three global characteristics were initially higher among those who were elected to leadership positions by their peers, compared to other team members. Consistent with the multi-level model of culture (Erez & Gati, 2004), our study refers to the multicultural team context as nested in the global work culture in which people from different national cultures establish a new cultural environment and create a new global cultural entity. In our study, we demonstrated that global characteristics are important for leadership emergence in this context and that the fit between global leadership characteristics and the global multicultural team context predicts leadership emergence. Therefore, our study extends the limited empirical research in this field and supports both the person-environment fit approach (Kristof, 1996) and related models of the AttractionSelection-Attrition (Schneider, 1987) model and person-team fit (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, et al., 2005). Moreover, this study responds to the call by Gelfand, Erez, and Aycan (2007) to adopt a global perspective to the study of leadership and organizational behavior in the global work context as a substitute to the cross-cultural approach that focuses on crosscultural differences. The traditional cross-cultural approach, which focuses on cross-cultural differences in the perceived leadership characteristics of successful leaders, does not contribute to the understanding of emergent leaders in the global context, which comprises a shared working environment for individuals who are culturally diverse and geographically dispersed. Developing a sense of belongingness to the multicultural team reflects the global

9

identity, which emerges independent of the local national identity (Erez & Gati, 2004). Therefore, local leaders with high levels of local identity and low levels of global identity may not be successful in building a multicultural team (Lisak & Erez, 2013). Rather, leaders who exhibit high global leadership characteristics are perceived by their team members as having a better fit to the global work context and therefore are appointed by their team members as the team leader. Having a better fit to the global work context enables global leaders to serve as role models and to unite the culturally diverse team members into a single coherent global team. Additionally, the current study supports the growing trend of looking at patterns or configurations of personal characteristics rather than examining the independent effects of isolated personal traits on behavior (Foti, Bray, Thompson, & Allgood, 2012; MironSpektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2011). Our findings support our second hypothesis that multicultural team members with high levels of openness to diversity, global identity and cultural intelligence (HH-H pattern) are more likely to emerge as leaders than team members with mixed patterns or members with low levels of these global characteristics (L-L-L pattern). Although each of the global characteristics in our research was valuable for emergent leaders, a high level of all three gave the highest odds to emerge as a leader compared to other combinations. Thus, our study supports the assertion of Bergman and Magnusson (1997) that variables in themselves have a limited meaning, and it is the pattern or profile of these variables operating in the system that takes on meaning. We join the recommendation that the pattern approach should serve as a complement to the traditional variable approach in complex contexts (Foti et al., 2011). 5.1. Managerial relevance The current study reveals that global individual characteristics are important for leadership emergence in multicultural teams. Today, global HR departments exert considerable effort when selecting and training expatriates (Tung & Varma, 2008). Furthermore, most HR programs in global organizations focus on providing knowledge on specific norms and behaviors that are relevant to specific cultures (Bhawuk, 2009; Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). These programs engage a cross-cultural perspective because they emphasize differences and similarities of values and behaviors between countries. However, most of these programs do not consider the features of the global work culture, and they do not focus on the unique characteristics required to succeed in this context. Thus, the effectiveness of these programs in the selection and training of leaders and members of multicultural teams may be limited. Leaders and members of virtual multicultural teams operate in a global cultural context in which values and norms are likely to differ from those in their respective local cultures (Shokef & Erez, 2006). Thus, they should build the norms and values in their multicultural teams that will be shared by all culturally diverse team members to facilitate their adaptation in the global work context. We assert that the selection measures and training programs for multicultural team members and leaders should focus on global characteristics, such as openness to cultural diversity, global identity and cultural intelligence, all of which facilitate adaptation to the global context. 5.2. Limitations and future directions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically examine leadership emergence in multicultural teams. As such, it is not without limitations that must be addressed and that may serve as reference points for future studies. First, our study examines the global characteristics that differentiate emergent leaders from non-leaders on multicultural teams.

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 10

A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

However, it does not examine how these characteristics shape the team processes of cooperation and trust. We suggest that team members with high levels of global characteristics displays behaviors that contribute to creating a safe team communication climate and strengthens team identity. Team members recognize the contributions of certain team members to team building, and they are more likely to elect these members as their leaders. Thus, future research should focus on the mediating behaviors between global characteristics and leadership emergence in MCTs. Second, similar to other studies of multicultural teams (e.g., Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Sarker, Sarker, & Schneider, 2009), participants in this study were MBA students who were working on a short-term assignment in the context of multicultural virtual teams as a partial fulfillment for their course requirements. In this sense, it simulates short-term action teams whose members unite to perform short-term missions (Saunders & Ahuja, 2006). Future research should generalize the present findings by examining the same global characteristics in stable, long-term multicultural teams in multi-national organizations (MNOs). Third, in this study we examine the global personal characteristics of multicultural team members prior to their participation in the multicultural team project. However, research has demonstrated that these global characteristics are malleable and may be developed as team members gain work experience in the global context (Erez et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013; Pless et al., 2011). Therefore, future research may take a longitudinal approach to examine how these global characteristics develop over time and how they influence leadership emergence over the long run. 6. Conclusions This study takes a global focus rather than a cross-cultural focus as it examines the global characteristics of emergent leaders on multicultural teams. These characteristics – cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to diversity – enable the global leader to better navigate the team in the global context. These qualities, as they are reflected in the way this person interacts with others on the multicultural team, influence team members to elect this person as their leader. Consistent with the person-environment fit approach, we demonstrate that the likelihood of emerging as a leader is significantly higher for team members with global characteristics that fit the global context. Our study also highlights the strong predictive power of the pattern approach compared to the predictive power of independent traits. Finally, this study has practical applications when selecting and training global leaders and global members. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Ayala Cohen and Etti Doveh for their helpful statistical advises. This study was supported by the SHRM Foundation (Grant no. 128). The interpretations, conclusions and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the SHRM Foundation. An early version of this article was presented at the August 2013, 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL, USA. References Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–15). Armonk, NY: M. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1): 100–123. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., & Tay, C. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision

making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3): 335–371. Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10): 774– 783. Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J. W., & Fleenor, J. W. (2009). Are cultural characteristics associated with the relationship between self and others’ ratings of leadership? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4): 876–886. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 615–668. Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the ‘‘E’’ to E-leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4): 325–338. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497– 529. Bergman, L., & Magnusson, D. (1992). Stability and change in patterns of extrinsic adjustment problems. In D. Magnusson, L. Bergman, G. Rudinger, & B. To¨restad (Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research: Stability and change (pp. 323– 346). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9(2): 291–319. Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology, 49(1): 162–191. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2009). Intercultural training for the global workplace: Review, synthesis, and theoretical explorations. In R. S. Bhaght & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture organizations and work (pp. 462–488). Cambridge: University Press. Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). Defining the content domain of intercultural competence for global leaders. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25: 810–828. Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2004). Global competencies: An introduction. The Blackwell handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell. Boone, C., van Olffen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A., & de Brabander, B. (2004). The genesis of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing’. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 633– 656. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588–606. Butler, C. L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Sutton, C. (2012). The global leader as boundary spanner, bridge maker, and blender. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(2): 240–243. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546–561. Cascio, W. F., & Shurygalio, S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4): 362–376. Chatman, I. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459–484. Chen, X. P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from US real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 93–106. Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118: 116–131. Coˆte´, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 496–508. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, T. P. J. (2010, August). Ticking in different ways: The dialectical struggle to resolve cross-national differences in distributed teams. San Diego, CA: American Psychological Association Convention. Deng, L., & Gibson, P. (2008). A qualitative evaluation on the role of cultural intelligence in cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2): 181–197. De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Klehe, U. C. (2009). Employees’ challenging job experiences and supervaisors’ evaluations of promotability. Personnel Psychology, 62(2): 297–325. DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and personrole fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general selfefficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5): 1242. Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5): 487–505. Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2006). The impact of emergent leader’s emotionally competent behavior on team trust, communication, engagement, and effectiveness. Research on Emotion in Organizations, 2: 25–55. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowsky, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 26–49. Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 167–230. Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6): 755–780. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the microlevel of the individual to the macro-level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53: 583–598. Erez, M., Lisak, A., Harush, R., Glikson, E., Nouri, R., & Shokef, E. (2013). Going global: Developing management students’ cultural intelligence and global identity in virtual culturally diverse teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3): 330–335. Ettorre, E. (2000). Recognizing diversity and group processes in international, collaborative research work: A case study. Social Policy and Administration, 34(4): 392–407. Flaherty, J. E. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 192–205). Armonk, NY: M. Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self, know thy leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 702–717. Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 347–355. Foti, R. J., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2011). The Pattern-Oriented approach: A framework for the experience of work. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(1): 122–125. Fujimoto, Y., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hartel, G. F. (2004). A field test of the diversity-openness moderator model in newly formed groups: Openness to diversity affects group decision effectiveness and interaction patterns. Cross Cultural Management, 11(4): 4–16. Fujimoto, Y., Hartel, C. E. J., Hartel, G. F., & Baker, N. J. (2000). Openness to dissimilarity moderates the consequences of diversity in well-established groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 38(3): 46–61. Gelfand, M., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479–514. Gershenoff, A. B., & Foti, R. J. (2003). Leader emergence and gender roles in all-female groups. Small Group Research, 34(2): 170–196. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 451–495. Glew, D. J. (2012). Effects of interdependence and social interaction-based person-team fit. Administrative Sciences, 2(1): 26–46. Glikson, E., & Erez, M. (2013). Emotion display norms in virtual teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1): 22–32. Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(5): 535–566. Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2003). Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton, FL: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Ha¨rtel, C. E. J. (2004). Towards a multicultural world: Identifying work systems, practices and employee attitudes that embrace diversity. Australian Journal of Management, 29(2): 189–200. Hartel, C. E. J., & Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Diversity is not the problem-openness to perceived dissimilarity is. Journal of Management & Organization, 6(1): 14–27. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2003). Consequences of feeling dissimilar from others in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3): 301–325. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement. Group & Organization Management, 29(5): 560–587. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hollander, E. P. (1974). Processes of leadership emergence. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4): 19–33. Hollander, E. P., Fallon, B. J., & Edwards, M. T. (1977). Some aspects of influence and acceptability for appointed and elected group leaders. The Journal of Psychology, 95(2): 289–296. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1–55. Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. (2010). Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. The Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 6–26. Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences in leadership emergence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3): 207–219. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675–689. Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams. Group & Organization Management, 31(1): 124–153. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4): 29– 64. Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity: Workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 703–729. Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20(1): 240–252.

11

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 246–255. Kayworth, T. R., & Leinder, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3): 7–40. Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1): 77–89. Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task and relation leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 146–162. Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1): 27–51. Kim, Y. J., & Van Dyne, L. (2011). Cultural intelligence and international leadership potential: The importance of contact for members of the majority. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61(2): 272–294. Kirpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2004). An evolutionary-psychological approach to self esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 52–77). MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1–49. Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53: 643–671. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person–team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73: 935–957. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281–342. Li, M., Mobley, W., & Kelly, A. (2013). When do global leaders learn best to develop cultural intelligence? An investigation of the moderating role of experiential learning style. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12: 32–50. Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2013). The contribution of leaders’ ‘‘Glocal’’ identity to psychologically safe communication climate and to leadership effectiveness in MCTs. 2013 AOM meeting. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3): 167–203. Lovvorn, A. S., & Chen, J. S. (2011). Developing a global mindset: The relationship between and international assignment and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9): 271–283. Lloyd, S., & Ha¨rtel, C. (2011). Subgroup formation and team climate in culturally diverse work teams. Australian Journal of Psychology57(1). 136-136. Magnusson, D. (1995). Individual development: A holistic, integrated model. In P. Moen, G. L., Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context (pp. 19– 60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Magnusson, D. (1999). Holistic interactionism: A perspective for research on personality development. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 219–247). New York: Guilford Press. Magnusson, D., & Torestad, B. (1993). A holistic view of personality: A model revisited. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 427–452. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1): 63–87. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 737–774. Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 740–760. Neisser, U. (1993). The perceived self: Ecological and interpersonal sources of self-knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4): 511–526. Nielsen, S. (2009). Why do top management teams look the way they do? A multilevel exploration of the antecedents of TMT heterogeneity. Strategic Organization, 7(3): 277–305. O’Shea, P. G., Foti, R. J., Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Bycio, P. (2009). Are the best leaders transformational and transactional? A pattern-oriented analysis. Leadership, 5: 337–359. Osland, J., & Bird, A. (2006). Global leaders as experts. In Mobley, W., & Weldon, E. (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol 4, pp. 123–142). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Osland, J., Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Global leadership: Progress and challenges. In R. Baghat & R. Steers (Eds.), Handbook of culture, organization and work (pp. 245–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osland, J. (2013). An overview of the global leadership literature. In M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, M. L. Maznevski, M. J. Stevens, & G. K. Stahl (Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice and development (2nd ed., pp. 40–79). New York: Routledge. Oyserman, D. (2004). Self concept and identity. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 5–24). MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The impact of a performance crisis on attributions of charismatic leadership: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 1991 Eastern Academy of Management Meetings. Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24: 293–309.

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

G Model

WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12 12

A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(2): 237–260. Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. (2003). A primer on interaction effects in multiple linear regression. Retrieved November10. Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3): 471–481. Riordan, C. M., & McFarlane-Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 342–358. Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 206–220). NY: M.E. Sharpe. Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond General intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4): 825–840. Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Schneider, C. (2009). Seeing remote team members as leaders: A study of US-Scandinavian teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(1): 75–94. Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In K. S. Cameron & D. S. Whetten (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models (pp. 27–54). New York: Academic Press. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437–454. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48: 747–773. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3): 462. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577–594. Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a shared understanding in multicultural teams. In B. Mannix, M. Neale, & Y. R. Chen (Eds.), National culture and groups: Research on managing groups and teams. 9 (pp. 325–352). San Diego, CA: Elsevier JAI Press. Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence and global identity in multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van-Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence. Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 177–191). Armonk, NY: M. ¨ o¨rni, A., Uusitalo, L., & Hyo¨na¨, J. (2011). The impact of salient Simola, J., Kuisma, J., O advertisements on reading and attention on web pages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(2): 174. Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 9: 147–160. Snell, S. A., Snow, C. C., Davidson, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1998). Designing and supporting transnational teams: The human resource agenda. Human Resource Management, 37(2): 159–172.

Sorrentino, R. M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over time: The functional value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6): 1091–1099. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2009). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 690–709. Stanko, T. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2009). The role of cultural elements in virtual teams. In R. S. Bhaght & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture organizations and work (pp. 273–304). Cambridge: University press. Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Research, 37(6): 662–700. Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4): 899– 926. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: NelsonHall. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96: 506–520. Tung, R. L., & Varma, A. (2008). In P. Smith, M. Peterson, & D. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 278–367). CA: Sage publications. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1008–1022. Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (2002). Leadership and cooperation in groups: Integrating the social dilemma and social identity perspectives. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1): 155–184. Vignovic, J. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration: Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2): 265–276. Webster, J., & Wong, W. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1): 41–62. Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. J. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3): 358–370. Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). The use of person-environment fit in the selection process. In Ferris, G. (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol 17). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wolfinger, R. D., Tobias, R. D., & Sall, J. (1991). Mixed models: A future direction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual SAS Users Group Conference (pp. 1380–1388). Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: What do emergent leaders do? Information and Organization, 14(1): 27–58. Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of World Business, 47(4): 592–603.

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002