Presentation on theme: "Affective and cognitive trust in multicultural work groups and the role of Cultural Intelligence as a moderator of the effects of cultural diversity Thomas."— Presentation transcript:
Affective and cognitive trust in multicultural work groups and the role of Cultural Intelligence as a moderator of the effects of cultural diversity Thomas Rockstuhl & Kok-Yee Ng Special thanks to David A. Kenny
2 3 February 2014 Agenda 1.Theory Development 2.Empirical Testing (Experimental Methods) 3.Empirical Testing (Field Methods) 4.Additional Methods 5.Discussion
3 3 February 2014 Motivation Growing number of employees work in MCTs (Grensing- Pophal, 2002) Challenge to create MCTs that work effectively remains (Montaya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001) Cultural diversity broadens range of perspectives, skills, and insights (Maddux & Galinsky, 2006), yet cultural barriers can cause misunderstandings (Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2006) Trust particularly relevant in global collaborations where uncertain and incomplete knowledge of group members is common (Child, 2001)
4 3 February 2014 Diversity and performance The simple model of diversity… Has received no empirical support… in reviews (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Williams & OReilly, 1998) in meta-analysis (Stewart, 2006; Webber & Donahue, 2001) Cultural Diversity Performance +
5 3 February 2014 Diversity and performance (2) Cultural Diversity Performance Trust / Cohesion Creativity / Resources - + + + …because the two effects likely cancel each other out (e.g., Reagans et al., 2004)
6 3 February 2014 But what about levels of analysis? Explanations of negative effects rely on Social Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987) and Similarity-Attraction-Paradigm (Byrne, 1971) Essentially located at the Relational or dyadic level of analysis Problem best addressed by SRM (e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2006) Examine trust as outcome because conceptualized as individual, dyadic, and group-level construct (Rousseau et al., 1998)
7 3 February 2014 Cognitive and affective foundations of trust (McAllister, 1995) Cognitive foundations of trust exist if the partner reliably and dependably meets the actors expectations More likely to depend on partners role performance than social categorization processes H1: Cognitive trust is not reciprocal H2: Cognitive trust does not depend on dyadic cultural diversity Affective foundations of trust exist in the emotional bonds between individuals Likely to depend on social categorization processes H1: Affective trust is reciprocal H2: Affective trust is negatively related to dyadic cultural diversity
8 3 February 2014 Cultural Intelligence… The capability of an individual, group, or organization to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity - Earley & Ang, Cultural Intelligence, Stanford University Press, 2003 Cultural intelligence helps individuals and organizations (i) overcome cultural barriers, and (ii) synergize differences to achieve win-win outcomes.
9 3 February 2014 … may dampen negative effects of cultural diversity… based on Sternbergs (1986) integrative framework of intelligences: mental CQ: Cognitive – processes and strategies of knowing (metacognitive); knowledge (cognition) motivational CQ: drive & interest in learning and adapting to other cultures behavioral CQ: flexibility in enacting appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions across cultures CQ may change the flexibility of process of identification and categorization (Moynihan et al., 2006) Diversity trainings essentially aim at competencies that are related to high CQ (Roberson, 2006)
10 3 February 2014 …by affecting the social categorization process! Individuals high in mental CQ possess more flexible self- concepts (Moynihan et al., 2006) that integrate new cultural aspects more easily and thus reduce feelings of dissimilarity Individuals high in behavioral CQ are more likely to enhance the sense of familiarity by putting the other party at ease (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004) H3: The actors mental CQ positively moderates the negative effect of dyadic cultural diversity H4: The partners behavioral CQ positively moderates the negative effect of dyadic cultural diversity
11 3 February 2014 Sample & Measures 259 students from 40 project teams at NBS age 22 years (SD=1.9) 75 % female 197 local Singaporean, the rest exchange students from 9 countries group diversity range: 0 - 0.81 623 dyads of which 199 (32%) are cross-cultural Affective Trust (McAllister, 1995) 3 items ( α =0.89) Cognitive Trust (McAllister, 1995) 3 items ( α =0.86) CQ (Ang et al., 2006) mental CQ (4 items meta-cognitive; α =0.77 / 6 items cognitive; α =0.87) behavioral CQ (5 items; ; α =0.81) CQ assessed at project start, trust at project end (4 months)
12 3 February 2014 Not all types of trust are relational… Affective TrustCognitive Trust Actor Variance0,2790,170 Partner Variance0,0340,084 Actor-Partner Covariance0,0110,005 Group Variance0,0330,030 Dyadic Covariance0,1030,008 Error0,2720,099 * * * * * * * * p <.01 Reciprocity: Affective Trust 0.379 Cognitive Trust 0.082
13 3 February 2014 …or affected by dyadic cultural diversity Ethnic background of partner only affects affective trust but not cognitive trust Effect is quite large (Cohens d = -0.91) Supportive of Social Categorization Process * p<.05; ** p<.01
14 3 February 2014 But Cultural Intelligence does matter… p<.1; * p<.05; ** p<.01
15 3 February 2014 …in reducing negative effects of cultural diversity! mono-cultural dyad cross-cultural dyad
16 3 February 2014 Future directions Group-level trust? issues of subgroup formation trust-climate vs. group trust Linking Trust back to performance Moderator or Mediator Development of Trust over time… Training interventions for CQ?
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.