FINAL REPORT
GRANT #128
Managing Multi-Cultural Teams:
From a cross-cultural to a global
perspective
Miriam Erez
Submitted to the SHRM
June 2011
The two studies summarized in this report were supported by SHRM Foundation. We thank
SHRM Foundation for their generous support.
The first study summarized in this report was based on a cross-cultural team project,
developed and conducted by Prof. Miriam Erez and coordinated by her doctoral student Alon
Lisak. Data for the field study were partially collected by help of Dr. Michaela Schipper,
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, The Netherlands. The two studies
were part of the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Alon Lisak, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Technion, Israel.
1
Abstract
As part of the globalization process, a growing number of employees in Multi-National
Organizations (MNOs) face the new reality of working in Multi-Cultural Teams (MCTs).
Although a plethora of articles concerning MCTs have been published in the last decade, most
of these studies didn't consider the role of leaders and followers in the MCTs as part of their
research models (Lisak & Erez, 2009).
In this research, we suggested a model which emphasized both global leadership behaviors
and followers' openness to cultural diversity as antecedents for desirable MCT outcomes.
Based on Self-Concept-Based Leadership Theories (Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993)
and on global work values typologies (Erez & Shokef, 2008), we asserted that global
leadership behaviors, which convey a collective sense of global identity, interdependence and
openness to cultural diversity, are related to MCT identity. This relation is positively
moderated by followers' openness to cultural diversity. Additionally, MCT identity leads to
MCT
effectiveness.
Our research included two studies: Study 1 consisted of 282 MBA students from 42
nationalities, working in 73 virtual, short term project MCTs. The results of study 1 supported
the suggested model. Study 2 consisted of 274 employees, working in 55 on-going MCTs in 9
MNOs. In this study, the research model was expanded by adding team trust as a mediator of
the interaction relation between global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to
cultural diversity on team identity. The results partially supported this model. Global
leadership behaviors were positively related to team trust and team identity. However, the
strength of this relationship decreased as the level of followers' openness to cultural diversity
increased.
Our research results highlight the importance of considering global characteristics of leaders
and followers in MCT effectiveness models. The theoretical and practical implications of
these findings are discussed in the report.
2
I) Introduction
As part of the globalization process, Multi- National Organizations (MNOs) form
international teams to pool global talent, meet organizational goals and implement complex
business strategies (Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989; Joshi, Labianca &Caligiuri, 2002). As an
outcome of this continuous process, a growing number of employees in MNOs face the new
reality of working in Multi-Cultural Teams (MCTs) (Distefano & Maznewski, 2000), which
can be defined as "a group of people from different cultures working together on activities
that span national borders" (Snell, Snow, Davidson & Hambrick, 1998).
Early definitions of MCTs created a dichotomy between two types of MCTs: collected MCT,
whose members work as a team in the same physical location, and virtual MCTs?, whose
members rely totally on computer- mediated interaction to complete their team assignments
(Stanko & Gibson, 2009). Recently, studies have found mixed results regarding the relations
between the level of virtuality and team effectiveness (see review at Martins, Gilson &
Maynard, 2004) and it was suggested that positive team processes appear in different levels of
virtuality (Fiol & O'Conor ,2005; Wilson, Straus & McEvily, 2006). Therefore, scholars have
shifted away from this dichotomy and started to describe most MCTs on a continuum of
virtuality (Stanko & Gibson, 2009; Webster & Wong, 2008).
MCTs face unique difficulties which characterize the global environment, such as: lack of
shared meaning, communication problems, cultural conflicts and differences in regulations
and work procedures (Cascio & Shurygalio, 2003; Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Halevy & Sagiv,
2008; Vodosek; 2007). Thus, the ability of both the MCT leader and the MCT members to be
effective in their roles is one of the main factors contributing to the creation of an effective
MCT (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002; Maznevski & Distefano, 2000; Vallaster, 2005).
MCTs play a major role in the success of MNOs (multinational organizations) (Earley &
Gibson, 2002). Therefore, a plethora of articles concerning MCTs have been published in the
last decade (Maloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006; Stanko & Gibson, 2009). Surprisingly, most of
these studies didn't consider the role of leaders and followers in the MCTs as part of their
research models (Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Malhorta, Majcharzak & Rosen, 2007) and there
are hardly any empirical studies to test the effects of leaders and followers on the success of
an MCT (Joshi & Lazarova, 2005; Lisak & Erez, 2009).
We suggest two possible explanations for this lack of research literature, both of which can
serve as a starting point for developing a model of effective MCTs:
3
Focus on Cross-Cultural Leadership studies rather than Global Leadership studies for
explaining MCTs phenomena
"There are many leaders who keep their local leadership style, when they lead MCTs. It will
not work for them. When I lead a MCT, I compromise, I'm flexible and I'm sensitive. As a
MCT leader, I must focus on the common subjects and not on the differences…" (Rachel,
MCT leader).
Most research on leadership and culture represents the Cross-Cultural Leadership (CCL)
perspective and not the Global Leadership (GL) perspective (Adler, Miller &Von-Glinow,
2001; Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991, 1996; Osland, Taylor & Mendenhall, 2009). In their recent
review, Osland et al., (2009) found only 14 GL empirical studies which had been published.
Hardly any of these were published in peer-review journals and most were qualitative.
Most of the CCL research examined differences and similarities in leadership characteristics
across cultures (e.g. Dorfman et al., 1997; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Guta, 2004;
Spritzer, Perttula & Xin, 2005; Wendt, Euwema & Emmerik, 2009). Other studies compared
values of expatriates with those of their subordinates in the host country (e.g. Chen, Choi &
Chi, 2002; Shaffer, Harrison & Gilley, 1999; Van-Vianen, Pater, Kristof-Brown & Johnson,
2004). In contrast to the above research, MCTs operate in a global context, where people
from different nationalities work together towards the accomplishment of a global mission. In
such a case, comparisons between two national cultures can be meaningless. Additionally,
understanding leader-followers relations in local teams may not explain leader-followers
relations in a global context, such as MCTs (Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Erez, 2010).
Therefore, in contrast to CCL studies, most GL studies reflect geocentric and synergetic
research methods (Adler, 1983; Osland et al, 2008). Geocentric research focuses on efforts
towards understanding the complexity of cultural issues related to the function of MNOs.
Synergistic research attempts to uncover the universal processes which occur in the global
context, where people from heterogeneous national cultures work in the same organization
(Adler & Bartholomew, 1992; Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991). GL research, therefore, suggests
a different way of thinking, which emphasizes that managing in a global context (such as
MCT) is related to the creation of a new entity which emerges through the interactions of
individuals from different national cultures who work together (Adler, 1983)
Furthermore, CCL studies focus on the national layer of culture, while GL studies focus on
the global layer of culture (Erez, 2010). CCL research explores similarities and differences
between leaders' national cultural values and national clusters (see review at Dickson, DenHartog and Mitchelson, 2003; Dickson, Den-Hartog and Castano, 2009). These values (e.g.
Hofstede, 1980; 2001; Schwartz, 1992; 1999; House et al., 2004) reflect differences in
leadership perceptions and behaviors in different nations and focus, therefore, on the national
4
layer of culture. Recently, Erez and Shokef (2008; see also Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez,
2006) proposed that in the context of MNOs and MCTs, the global work culture emerges as the
most macro-level culture, shared by members of MNOs and of other international organizations
and alliances, operating globally beyond national boundaries. This layer of culture holds a
unique set of global work values, which is shared by global work employees (Shokef & Erez,
2006).
GL researchers attempt to reveal dimensions and components which reflect a unified global
context which leaders operate in (e.g. Bird & Osland, 2004; Lane, Maznevski & Mendenhall,
2004) and therefore refer to the global layer of culture. This new way of thinking can
potentially offer explanations for leadership processes which exist in unique global
environments, such as MCTs.
Based on the above, for better understanding of effectiveness in MCTs, we propose to adopt a
Global perspective, rather than a Cross-Cultural perspective.
Focusing on both leaders and followers rather than adopting a “Leader- Centric” perspective
"A global leader must rely on his/her followers to gain success. An MCT leader is an
orchestra Maestro. Despite the fact that the players are from different cultures, and their
original music was written in different languages, in the end of the day all players need to
write the music together and play it with the Maestro"
(Zvi, MCT leader).
With a few exceptions (e.g. Graen & Cashman, 1975; Fidler, 1967), most of the empirical and
theoretical studies in the general field of leadership have focused on the behaviors and traits
of the leaders. The majority of leadership literature - while ostensibly focusing on the leaders
- has neglected the important role of the followers in defining and shaping the latitude of the
leader's actions (Bass, 1990; Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Hollander, 1992; Howell & Shamir, 2005,
Van-Knippenberg, Van-Knippenberg, De-Cremer & Hogg, 2004 ).
The importance of followers to leadership and team effectiveness has gained a wider
recognition in the last two decades (Hollander, 1992; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kark & VanDijk, 2007; Klein & House, 1995; Meindl 1990, 1995). These researchers and others
criticized the "leader-centric" perspective dominating the literature and emphasized the
contribution of followers to leadership and team success. Some of these theories were
"followers-centric" (e.g. Meindl 1990, 1995), but other focused on the relationships between
leaders and followers, pointing at the influence of followers on the success of the leader (e.g.
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, Howell & Shamir, 2005, Wilson et al., 2010).
As the current GL research is mainly a reflection of the general leadership research (Osland,
2008), it is not surprising that most of the research in the field of global leadership attempts to
5
identify leaders' competencies, which can assist in achieving their tasks (Jokinen, 2005; Joshi
& Lazarova, 2005; Morrison, 2000; Suutari, 2002). Theses studies may be utilized for
understanding effectiveness in MCTs. However, due to the complex global work context
(Shokef & Erez, 2006), the requirement for global integration which influences MCT
effectiveness (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992, 1994) and the fact that MCT followers' adaptation to
the global context is crucial for MCT effectiveness, there is a need to include followers'
factors which contribute to MCT effectiveness in related research models. Hence,
effectiveness of MCTs depends on the global characteristics of both the leader and the
followers and the relations between them.
During the last decades, several MCT studies have examined the manner in which team
members can contribute to team effectiveness. Most of these studies concentrated on
members' contribution to desirable MCT processes and outcomes (see reviews at Gelfand et
al., 2007 and at Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007). Other studies connected global
characteristics of MCT members (e.g. global mindset (Malloney & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2006),
cultural intelligence (Earley & Gardner, 2005) and team identity (Shokef & Erez, 2006)) to
MCT effectiveness. However, these studies neither examined the specific role of followers in
their models, nor did they consider the followers' interaction with their leader for gaining
effective outcomes (Lisak & Erez, 2009). Therefore, in this work, we will consider both the
leader's and the followers' characteristics which contribute to MCT outcomes. Specifically, as
illustrated in Figure 1, we emphasize these factors as two antecedents of team outcomes. The
first factor involves the unique global behaviors of the MCT leader, the second is related to
the MCT followers' openness to cultural diversity, which is a unique global characteristic that
reflects individuals who are open to cultural diversity and are motivated to actively seek new
cultural experiences (Hartel & Fujimoto, 2000; Shokef & Erez, 2006). According to the
model, both global leaders' behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity interact
with each other to create team identity, which is a joint perception of group cohesiveness
(Earley & Mosakowsky, 2000). Team Identity, in turn, contributes to the creation of MCT
effectiveness.
Figure 1
Research Model (study 1)
Followers' Openness
to Cultural Diversity
MCT
Effectiveness
Team Identity
Global Leadership
Behaviors
6
In the next sections we further elaborate on the influence of global leadership behaviors and
followers' openness to cultural diversity on the creation of team identity. Then we will
explain how team identity contributes to the creation of MCT effectiveness.
A. Research Literature and Research Hypotheses
1. Global Leadership Behaviors
a. Current Research in the Field of Global Leadership (GL)
Global leadership can be defined as "A process of 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). Due to the growing presence of
globalization in the last two decades (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001), GL research has gained a
wider attention in the international management community (Osland et al., 2009). Until recent
years, most GL studies focused on global leaders' competencies. Jokinen (2005) defined GL
competencies in three major categories: a. “a core of global leadership competencies”, which
are fundamental to the development of other characteristics and include self-awareness,
engagement in personal transformation and inquisitiveness, b “desired mental characteristics
of global leaders”, which are consist of optimism, self-regulation, social judgment skills,
empathy, motivation to work in an international environment, cognitive skills and acceptance
of complexity and its contradictions, and c. “desired behavioral competencies of global
leaders”, which are explicit skills and tangible knowledge that refer to concrete actions and
produce visible results and include social skills, networking skills and knowledge (See also
Suutari, 2002). Another subject which has received attention during the last few years is the
Global Mindset notion, which is the ability to influence others who are culturally different
(Levy, Taylor, Boyacigiller & Beecher, 2007). This notion includes an Intellectual
Component (Global Business Savvy, Cognitive Complexity, Composition Outlook), a
Psychological Component (Passion for Diversity, Quest for Adventure, Self-Assurance) and a
Social Component (Intercultural Empathy, Interpersonal Impact and Diplomacy), which
present different aspects of effective global leadership (Beechler & Javidan, 2007; Levy et al.,
2007). Despite this theoretical work of the last few years, Jokinen summarized: "Although
the researchers focusing on leadership competencies have described the importance and
causalities of different competencies, they have not often been explicit about the process by
which the competencies affect the performance outcome" (2005, p.204). The absence of
theoretical and empirical research concerning the contribution of global leaders to their units
is specifically reflected in poor knowledge regarding leadership factors needed to lead MCTs
(Joshi & Lazarova, 2005).
Despite the lack of empirical research, much of the discussion regarding the global leader
focuses on the effectiveness of Transformational Leadership (TL) and Charismatic
7
Leadership; both empower their subordinates to perform beyond their own expectations and to
achieve the leader's goals as if they were their own, by inspirational behaviors, intellectual stimuli
and individual consideration for followers. (Bass, 1985, 1997; Brake, 1997; Rosen & Digh,
2000). These theories emphasize the importance of leadership behaviors (rather than leaders'
traits) such as role model behaviors and inspirational behaviors (Joshi, Lazarova & Lio ,2009),
as the main leadership tools for transforming followers' perceptions and behaviors towards the
leader's goals.
Shamir et al. (1993) and Lord et al. (1999) in their Self- Concept Based Theories of Leadership
explained why and how leadership behaviors influence followers' perceptions and behaviors
(Kark & Shamir, 2002).
The self is a collection of modular processing structures (self-schemas) that are elicited in
different contexts and have specific cognitive, affective and behavioral consequences. The
self schemas may reflect the individual identity, the dyadic interpersonal identity and the
collective identity (Brewer & Gardner, 1996, Lord, et al., 1999; Markus & Wurf, 1987).
Based on the assumption that an individual can activate one specific self-identity level at a
time (Baldwin, 1992), Lord et al. (1999) asserted "that leaders can temporarily influence self
structures through activities that influence the accessibility of various self concepts. For
example, by emphasizing similarities among workers, leaders can increase the activation of
collective identities while inhibiting individual-level identities (p.184)". Shamir et al. (1993)
suggested that through charismatic behaviors, such as role modeling and frame alignment, the
leaders can affect the followers' self concept by activating the followers' personal
identification with the leader, or by activating the social, collective identity in the followers'
self concept. Additionally, the theory suggests that saliency of personal identification with
the leader will increase when the leader represents desirable personal components. The
salience of collective identification in the followers' self concept will increase when the leader
defines the boundaries of the collectivity by emphasizing its distinctiveness, prestige and
competition with other groups. By connecting followers’ self-concept to the mission and to
the team, the followers are motivated to contribute to the team and to the organizational
success beyond their self-interests. Therefore, Shamir et al (1993) argued that "charismatic
leaders change the salience hierarchy of values and identities within the follower's selfconcept, thus increasing the probability that these values and identities will be implicated in
action." (p. 584).
The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) examined the leadership characteristics that
contribute to leaders' success in 62 countries and supports the assumption of the universality
of charismatic leadership as a success factor. According to the study, charismatic leaders
reflected charisma, inspiration, visionary and supportive leadership behaviors across countries.
However, the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) examined cross-cultural differences and
8
similarities in successful local leadership behaviors but
did not test for the effect of
TL/charismatic behaviors on the success of leaders of MCTs or other global contexts. Only a
recent study showed a positive effect of inspirational leadership on MCT outcomes (Joshi et al.,
2009). Additionally, TL was found to be a moderator of the relation between cultural diversity and
collective team identification in MCTs (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). Therefore, TL/charismatic
behaviors have a positive impact on MCT processes and outcomes. However, these studies on TL
and charismatic leadership do not explain how leadership behaviors are translated into the specific
values and behaviors which the leader must reflect to achieve desirable outcomes in MCTs.
Related to this subject, one of the MCT leaders in this study said:
"As a leader, I know that I need to care for my people, to coordinate the work and to motivate
them in many directions to achieve our goals. The problem is that it is not always clear how
to implement it in the complex global team that I have… Our company gives general
leadership training but gives almost no training to become an effective MCT leader" (Dan,
MCT leader).
Therefore, there is a need to identify the specific MCT leaders' behaviors which fit in with the
global work context and should serve as models for their MCTs followers (Berson, Erez &
Adler, 2004; Erez & Shokef, 2008; Shokef and Erez, 2006,).
Based on the assertions of Shamir et al. (1993) and Lord et al. (1999), and in the frame of the
global context, we propose that in order to achieve identity and effectiveness in MCT, the leader
must emphasize both global values and a collective sense of identity through his/her behaviors to
bring about the salience of these factors in the MCT, as further explained in the following sections.
b. Global Leadership Behaviors and Their Contribution to Team Identity
The MCT leader faces many challenges which do not exist in local teams.
Cultural
differences and geographical dispersion can lead to cultural misunderstanding and sub-group
faultlines, which may impede the creation of a cohesive and functioning MCT (Brett, Behfar
& Kern, 2006; Earley & Mosakowsky, 2000; Malhorta et al., 2007). Certain leadership roles
may be particularly important for MCT settings. Given the "altered" social context, leaders
must be able to build and maintain a social climate necessary for ensuring an adequate level
of team unity and cohesiveness (Kayworth & Leidner ,2002). Therefore, the leader plays a
central role in the team identity needed for MCT effectiveness.
(1) MCT Leader's Focus on a Collective Global Sense of Identity
Followers' personal identification with the leader can create dependency on the leader, rather than
on the organization, and may therefore impede organizational and team goals in the absence of the
particular leader (Howell & Avolio, 1992, Conger & Kanungo, 1998; 1987).
9
On the other hand, according to the social identity theory, when individuals develop a social
identification with a group (namely, have the perception of oneness with a group of
individuals (Ashford & Mael, 1989)), they base their self-concept and self-esteem partly on
their sense of belongingness to the group.
Therefore, group success and failure are
experienced as personal successes and failures and a high level of identification leads to a
high level of effectiveness (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Tajfel, 1978;
Tajfel & Turner 1979). The emphasis put by the leader on the creation of social-collective
identification, rather than on interpersonal identification gives priority to the considerations of
the organizational unit over the leader's self interest (Howell 1988; Howel & Avolio, 1992).
Indeed, in the long run, collective identification leads to success, empowerment and
interdependence of followers and organizational units (Collins, 2001).
By focusing on
collective aspects, the leader activates the followers' collective identification (Lord et al, 1999,
Shamir et al., 1993) and increases the members' concern for their behavioral contributions to the
collective interest (Wit & Kerr ,2002).
Empirical studies supported the theory, demonstrating a positive relation between the leader's
emphasis on the unit's collective identity and the followers' level of shared values and
identification with their unit (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin & Popper, 1998, 2000). Additionally, teamfocused TL was related to high team identification and team effectiveness (Wu, Tsui and Kinicki,
2010). Therefore, the leader has the ability to influence desirable team processes and outcomes
(Fiol & O'Connor, 2005). A body of research suggests that collective identification is related to
team identity, as team identity reflects a high level of team identification among members (e.g.
Shapiro, Furst, Spreitzer & Van Glinow, 2002; Van der Vegt & Bunderson ,2005; Wu et al,
2010). Team Identity can be defined as a "common perception of group cohesiveness" and as
a "common sense of entitativity" (Earley & Mozakowski, 2000, p.35). Team identity becomes
salient when team members recognize that their membership in the team is more self-defining
than other self-characteristics in regard to the team (Ashford & Mael, 1989; Ellemers, Gilder
& Haslam, 2004). Hence, when a salient team identity exists, individuals are motivated to
engage in behaviors that ensure the welfare of their team (Brickson, 2000). Therefore, by
emphasizing the importance of having a collective global sense of identity and cooperation as
a cohesive unit in their behaviors and actions, can the MCT leaders enhance the saliency of the
collective level in the followers' self and attenuate the salience of their national diversity. This
will lead to facilitation of team identity in the MCT. These collective global identity behaviors will
emphasize subjects, such as the added value that of the MCT compared to a culturally
homogeneous local team (e.g. the ability to produce synergetic knowledge which stems from
valued members from diverse countries), the mutual goal of the MCT and its global implications
and benefits for team members who are part of a global team (e.g. being connected to the global
vision of the MNO; the value of working with people from diverse countries).
10
Furthermore, MCT members may each perceive their leader as very different from their respective
prototypical leader due to their diverse national culture (Kark & Shamir, 2002). This situation may
impede the leader's effectiveness (Lord & Maher, 1991). Therefore, followers' perceptions of
their leaders as sharing the same collective identity has important consequences for leader
effectiveness (Ellmers et al. ,2004).
(2) MCT Leader's Focus on Global Work Values
An interesting question is how MCT members who come from different cultures can accept
and assimilate common values in the MCT.
Erez and Gati (2004) suggested a new, higher layer of culture, located beyond the national
level. This layer of culture - the global work culture - can be defined as "the shared
understanding of visible rules, regulations and behavior and the deeper values and ethics of a
global work context" (Shokef & Erez, 2006). The researchers assert that on this cultural layer,
as on any other layer of culture, global work values facilitate the adaptation of companies to
global demands and help to maintain existence and prosperity (Erez & Shokef, 2008).
Work values can serve as "general constrains of the generation of work related goals and
behaviors" (Lord & Brown, 2001, p.138). Shokef and Erez (2006) argue that the basis of the
team culture in MCTs relies on the global work values, which are the scaffolds of the shared
understanding system in MCTs. They generated a typology of global work values that are
functional in the adaptation of employees to the global work context. This typology includes
strategic and task- related values, such as competitive performance orientation, quality,
customer orientation and innovation, and relational values, such as openness to diversity and
interdependence. A study conducted in four subsidiaries of a large global organization gave
support to this typology (Erez & Shokef, 2008; Shokef, 2006).
Markus and Kitayama (1991, 1994) suggested that cultural values can influence the construct
of the self. These scholars focused on national level values, such as individualism vs.
collectivism, and found a significant impact on the individual's perspective regarding relations
with significant others, which has behavioral implications in everyday life and in the work
context (see also Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto & Norasakkunkit, 1997).
Leaders can change the salience hierarchy of values and identities within the followers' self
concept, to achieve desirable behaviors (Shamir et al.,1993) and global leaders should have the
capacity to install values to inspire others (Kets de Vries & Mead ,1992).
Hence, we argue that global work values can influence perceptions and behaviors of MCT
followers, regarding factors related to success in the global context. Related to this subject, an
important question arises: what are the global work values which can be used as milestones
by the MCT leader to influence the followers to establish team identity in the MCT? We
suggest that the relational global values of interdependence and openness to diversity enable
the MCT leader to gain this effect.
11
(a) Interdependence
Interdependence can be defined as "the extent to which team members cooperate and work
interactively to complete tasks" (Stewart & Barrick, 2000, p.137).Hence, a high level of
interdependence means that team members depend on each other to accomplish their task
(Kiggundu, 1981; Van Der Vegt, Emans & Van De Vliert, 1998).
Interdependence increases the amount of interaction among team members. When the level of
interdependence is high, team members typically communicate more often, support and
influence each other (Somech, Desivilya & Lidogoster, 2009). The intensive interaction
among team members has shown to build team identity (Barrick, et al., 2007) and this pattern
was also found in diverse teams (see review at Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
On the global work culture level, interdependence is an important global work value which
contributes to the success of MNOs, as it supports the unity of these companies (Friedman,
2005; Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). Interdependence facilitates collaboration, coordination
and communication across subsidiaries and cultures (Berson et al., 2004). Indeed, several
MNOs adopted the value of "one company", emphasizing the need to operate as one
organization (Erez & Shokef, 2008; Shokef, 2006).
In MCTs, members face difficulties characterized by national cultural differences and by
geographical dispersion (Earley & Gibson, 2002). This unique context may cause faultlines,
which may impede cooperation and cohesiveness, thus reducing team performance (Chatman
& Flynn, 2001; Polzer, 2004). Therefore, to avoid such negative outcomes, the MCT leader
must actively emphasize the importance of interdependence among team members through
words and actions. Installing a sense of interdependence in the MCT by the leader will lead to
a cooperative frame of action. This means that challenges will be perceived by followers as
common goals and will facilitate the creation of team identity (Earley & Gardner, 2005;
Gibson & Grubb, 2005).
(b) Openness to Diversity
Diversity refers to differences between individuals on any attribute that may lead to the
perception that another person is different from the self (Riordan & McFarlane- Shore, 1997;
Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004).
Openness to diversity can be defined as "the degree of receptivity to perceived dissimilarity"
(Hartel, 2004 p.190). As a value, it refers to a tolerance of difference and respect to diverse
others (Hartel ,2004,). As such, diversity can lead to higher performance only when members
are able to understand each other, combine and build on each others' ideas (Maznevski , 1994).
Hence, in MCTs, acceptance of openness to diversity as a value means that team members are
willing to take the necessary actions to reduce possible negative effects which stem from
cultural misunderstandings (Fujimoto, Hartel, Hartel & Baker ,2000).
12
As a support, a positive contribution of openness to diversity to group decision effectiveness
and interactions was found (Fujimoto, Hartel & Hartel, 2004). Additionally, managing
diversity in the MCT was perceived by MCT leaders and followers as a key factor in the
MCT success (Joshi & Lazarova ,2005) .
Therefore, we assert that the MCT leader stresses the value of openness to diversity by
serving as a role model and by behavioral actions which enhance the saliency of this value in
the MCT. When MCT members accept openness to diversity as a value, they will be more
open to see other team members' perspectives ( Fujimoto et al., 2004) and this, in turn, can
facilitate cross-understanding among team members (Huber & Lewis, 2010) and a shared
meaning, both leading to the creation of team identity.
c. Global Leadership Behaviors
A sense of collective identity, interdependence and openness to diversity can all lead to
positive performance in diverse teams (Roberge & Van Dick, 2010). In such teams,
interdependence is positively related to openness to diversity (Bacharach, Bamberger &
Vashdi, 2005; Hobman et al., 2004) and to the sense of collective identity (Hobman & Bordia,
2006). Additionally, interdependence is positively related to collective identity (Brewer &
Gardner, 1996; Campion, Papper & Medsker, 1996; Cremer & Van Vugt, 1998). These
connections can be explained by the social identity theory, which suggests that
interdependence is an important but insufficient condition for the creation of team identity,
and there is still a need to accept other team members and develop a collective sense of
identity to facilitate this process (Lembke & Wilson, 1998). Therefore, we assert that when
assessing global leadership behaviors, there is a need to assess the collected impact of
interdependence, openness to diversity and collective global identity to explain the creation of
team identity in MCTs.
2. MCT Followership as a Moderator
During the last two decades, a few theories have considered the relations between leaders and
followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1992; Howell & Shamir, 2005, Klein & House,
1995; Shamir et al., 1993; Wilson et al., 2010). These theories explained how followers,
through their relations with the leader, can empower their leader, influence the leader's selfconcept and behaviors and assist in achieving the organizational goals. These theories received
empirical support from studies which consider the followers' characteristics as predictors of
leadership behaviors and outcomes (e.g. Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Pastor,
Mayo & Shamir, 2007; Schyns & Sanders, 2007).
Despite their considerable contribution to understanding the followership phenomenon, many of
these theories and empirical studies emphasized individual differences between followers, which
13
predict different relational patterns with their leader (e.g. Howell & Shamir, 2005). Consequently,
most of these studies didn’t consider team level processes or team level outcomes. Specifically,
these studies didn't define how followers' characteristics moderate the relation between leadership
behaviors and team processes and outcomes.
As most cross-culture and global leadership studies apply a cultural lens to extend leadership
theories (Dickson et al., 2003), it is not surprising that there is almost no research on the role of
followers in the leadership effect on the success of the MCT (see review at Osland et al., 2009).
However, in MCTs, which are complex global contexts, it is vital to understand the contribution
of followers to their leader's and team activities (Graen, 2006). Followers in MCT may interpret or
assist the leader’s behaviors in different ways, limiting or enhancing the leader's success in
creating desirable team processes. Therefore, one of the purposes of this study is to suggest how
MCT followers can moderate the relation between global leadership behaviors and team identity
in MCTs.
An explanation for these relations can be based on one of the main concepts in organizational
behavior, which is the Person-Environment fit (P-E fit). P-E fit can be defined as “the
compatibility between an individual and a particular work environment that occurs when their
characteristics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005, p. 281).
According to this concept, people develop perceptions of fit over time, due to their level of
adaptation to their environment and these perceptions drive individual behavior and choices
(DeRue & Morgenson, 2007).
The construct of Person- Team fit (P-T fit) stemmed from P-E fit and refers to the compatibility
between individual team members and their teams (Kristof, 1996). Studies of P-T fit found
positive relation between team outcomes of satisfaction and commitment and the congruence of
team members' characteristics and team values (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996; Barsade,
Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000).
Based on the above, we assert that global characteristics shared by MCT followers may lead
to desirable team outcomes. Openness to cultural diversity is one such global characteristic.
The cultural diversity of MNOs is embedded in their structure, as they consist of multicultural
subsidiaries (Shokef & Erez, 2006).
Therefore, MNOs need to effectively manage a
heterogeneous workforce both within and across organizational boundaries (Erez & Shokef,
2008; Hartel, 2004).
MCTs embedded in MNOs represent the micro-cosmos of the culturally diverse and often
geographically dispersed global work environment (Appelbaum, Shapiro & Elbaz, 1998; Iles
& Hayers, 1997). MCT members bring to their team different perspectives regarding leadermember relations, members' attitudes and work regulations, which stem from their diverse
national backgrounds (Cascio & Shurygalio, 2003). Studies concerned with the
similarity/attraction paradigm suggest that most individuals prefer to work with similar, rather
14
than dissimilar others. Moreover, dissimilarities among team members may raise adverse
social categorization processes that impair team functioning (See review at Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998). Therefore, accepting cultural diversity becomes important to team success
(Hobman et al., 2004). Additionally, when openness to cultural diversity appeared as a
valuable resource for the organization, members felt more valued and respected and reported
to have high quality team work relations (Ely & Thomas ,2001). Hence, Openness to cultural
diversity may explain positive MCT outcomes (Cochavi, 2006). Individuals who are open to
cultural diversity are motivated to actively seek new cultural experiences, curious regarding
other national cultures and non-judgmental regarding other cultural behaviors and
expectations (Hartel & Fujimoto, 2000; Shokef & Erez, 2006). Furthermore, these individuals
have capabilities to function effectively in diverse cultural settings and contexts (Ang, VanDyne & Koh, 2006), and are willing to accept new cultural values. Therefore, when followers
in MCTs are open to cultural diversity, they will actively seek to interact with other team
members and will regard these cultural interactions as interesting and challenging, rather than
threatening. Such followers will show, from the beginning, more respect to and trust in other
team members despite national cultural differences and they will actively and voluntarily
create positive relations with diverse others, thus increasing team identity in their MCT
(Shokef and Erez (2006).
Followers' willingness to contribute to their team has a positive effect on the relation between
leaders' action and team outcomes (Yun, cox & seems, 2006). A combination between high
level of both leaders' and followers' role behaviors may enhance the level of positive team
cohesiveness and potency (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Taggar & Seijts, 2003). When followers
possess high openness to cultural diversity, they will be initially open to accept their leader's
emphasis on openness to diversity, interdependence and collective sense of global identity
and will be motivated to develop a global collective identity with their multicultural team. On
the other hand, followers who have low levels of openness to cultural diversity will find their
leader's global behaviors potentially threatening and may avoid building an MCT identity.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1: Followers' openness to cultural diversity will moderate the relationship between global
leadership behaviors and team identity. This relation is more strongly positive when
followers' openness to cultural diversity is high, rather than low.
3. MCT Identity and MCT Effectiveness
Leadership behaviors are especially relevant in enhancing positive team processes and
outcomes, which lead, in turn, to team effectiveness (Yukl, 2006). Hence, understanding the
relations between leadership behaviors and team effectiveness must consider the influence of
15
global leadership on team processes and team outcomes (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater,
Spangler, 2004). Therefore, the effectiveness of
MCT leaders depends on their ability to
enhance team identity. Team identity is positively related to Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors (OCB) (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Janssen & Huang, 2008; Van der Vegt , Van der
Vliert & Oosterhof, 2003), and the ability to resolve misunderstandings (Hinds and Weisband,
2003). High level of team identity can reduce "free-ride" behaviors (Eckel & Groosman, 2005;
Shapiro et al., 2002) and enhance participants' involvement in team activities (Witt & Kerr,
2002). As such, team identity is positively related to team performance and team effectiveness
(Scott, 1997; Van der Vegt, Van der Vliert & Oosterhof, 2003) and this relationship was
found in MCTs (Earley & Mozakowski ,2000; Vallaster , 2005).
Therefore, we suggest that high team identity in the MCT can be very valuable for MCT
effectiveness. When team identity is high, team members view team goals and activities as an
important part of their selves and actions (Ashford & Mael, 1989; Haslam, Powell & Turner,
2000) and will, therefore, contribute to accomplish them (Van Der Zee, Atsma & Brodbeck,
2004).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: Team identity will be positively related to MCT effectiveness.
4. Global Leadership Behaviors and MCT Effectiveness
Previous studies found an indirect effect of leadership behaviors on team and individual
outcomes (e.g. Jung & Avolio, 2000; Podsakoff, et al., 1990). Our rationale is that due to the
global complexity of the MCT environment, global leadership behaviors will influence the
emergence of team identity in the MCT, and that team identity will enable team effectiveness.
Indeed, recent empirical finding have suggested that the relation between leadership and team
effectiveness in MCTs is intervened by team identity (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). As
followers' willingness to contribute to their team has a positive effect on the relation between
leaders' actions and team outcomes (Yun et al., 2006), it will be easier for the leader to
enhance team identity when the followers are adaptable to the MCT, given their high
openness to cultural diversity. In such a case, followers will indirectly contribute to the
creation of team effectiveness through their positive interaction with their global leaders'
behaviors.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H3: Global leadership behaviors will be related to team effectiveness through team
identity. This relation will be moderated by followers' openness to cultural diversity, with a
stronger positive effect of the leader when followers' openness to cultural diversity is high,
rather than low.
16
In our research we examined MCT effectiveness models in two studies. Study 1 was
conducted on 73 MCTs of MBA students. Study 2 examined a wider MCT effectiveness
model on 55 MCTs belonging to 9 MNOs. We will present these two studies and offer
insights in the discussion sections.
II) Study 1
A. Methods
1. Participants
The sample consisted of 282 MBA and graduate students from 8 Universities in 6 countries
(USA [3], Israel, HK, India, Spain and Finland). They belonged to 42 nationalities, thus
representing a high cultural variety. 41% of the participants were Europeans, 26% Asians, 15%
Israelis and 14% North- Americans. The average age was 27.32 years (SD= 5.66), and 64
percent were men. All participants were students of a cross-cultural management course in
their respective universities and they participated in this study as part of their multi-cultural
team project.
2. Procedure
The study was conducted in English (since it serves as the academic and business
international language). Therefore, a high level of English proficiency was the preliminary
requirement for participation in this study. Average self-report of English mastery was 4.55
(SD=0.70, 1-5 scale).
Participants were divided into 73 virtual MCTs of four (86 percent) or three members each.
The allocation of members to MCTs was random, with a few constraints: (a). each MCT
member was from a different nationality and held a different native tongue (e.g. there were
no Spanish and Colombian members in the same MCT). (b). in 61 MCTs (84 percent), all
members were from different universities. In the remaining 12 MCTs (composed of 4
members each), there were no more than two students from the same university. These two
students belonged to different classes and kept no physical contact during the study. A t- test
didn't reveal any differences on the core variables between these groups; therefore, we
gathered all teams to one sample.
Figure 2 describes the time line of study 1, which continued 28 days (4 weeks) with two main
phases:
Phase 1: The first 10 days of the project were the "getting to know each other" phase. MCT
members interviewed each other and got involved in discussions that expanded their
acquaintance with each other. At the end of this phase each MCT was asked to "nominate the
most suitable team member" as a team leader.
Phase 2: At this stage, the team task assignment began and lasted for18 additional days. The
17
goal of each MCT was to develop guidelines for an expatriate who was going to be posted in
a country selected by the team. The MCT leaders led their teams during this assignment,
following instructions from the study coordinator.
All participants filled out three web-based questionnaires, at the following points in time:
before the beginning of Phase 1 ("Time 1"), at the beginning of phase 2 ("Time 2") and at the
end of the project ("Time 3").
Figure 2
Time Line of Study 1
Day 1
Phase 1: "Getting to
know each other"
Time 1
Measures:
Openness to
cultural diversity
Day 28:
End of Study
Day 10
Phase 2: Assignment
Time 2
Measures:
Team Identity
Time 3
Measures:
Team Identity.
Global Leadership
Behaviors.
Team Effectiveness
3. Measures
Global Leadership Behavior Scale (GLBS)
In the absence of an existing measure to empirically test global leadership behaviors, we
developed a short scale; which is the Global Leadership Behaviors Scale (GLBS) (see GLBS
development procedure in Appendix 1).
In the end of the assignment phase ("time 3"), all 209 MCT followers filled out the GLBS,
referring to their MCT leader. The GLBS included 12 items , with a 5 point Likert type scale
(1- not at all, 5- frequently, if not often) consisting of three subscales: Collective Sense of
Global Identity (CGI- e.g. "Emphasizes the importance of having a global collective sense of
mission"), Openness to Diversity (OTD- e.g. "Serves as an example of proper behavior
towards employees from different nationalities") and Interdependence (IND- e.g. "Inspires
team members to think together about solutions to team tasks") (see full measure in Appendix
2).
According to Floyd and Widaman (1995), an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with
Common Factor Analysis as extraction method should be used to understand the relations
among a set of measured variables in terms of underlying latent variables. Common Factor
Analysis attempts to represent only the common variance of each variable. This common
variance is shared with other observed variables, as a result of the dependence of the
measured variables on the latent variables.
Therefore, an EFA using Common Factor Analysis method with promax rotation supported
this three-factor model, explaining the expected common variance proportion of 106.00
18
percent. Alpha Crobnach's reliability was 0.93 for CGI items, 0.85 for OTD items and 0.89
for IND items. The Alpha Cronbach's reliability of the 12- item- scale was 0.91.
We used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method to compare the three-factor model with
other possible models, using Mplus Version 6 (Muthe´n& Muthe´n, 2010).
In the present study, a preference was given to fit indices that were less sensitive to sample
size, such as the Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA), the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; also known as NNFI- Non-Normed fit Index)
(Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; Marsh & Hau, 1996). For RMSEA, it is suggested that a
value of .08 represents reasonable errors of approximation (Brown & Cudeck, 1993). For CFI
and TLI, values greater than .90 are usually considered satisfactory (Hoyle, 1995).
The three-factor model had significantly better fit than any other possible combination.
Therefore, the three subscales construct was well established.
Table 1: Study 1- CFA – Comparison between GLBS Factor Structures.
Model
χ2
Df
CFI
TLI RMSEA Δχ2- comparison
with 3 factor model
3 factor model
131.09***
51
.95
.93
.08
-
2 factor model
327.38***
53
.84
.77
.14
Δχ2 (2)= 196.29***
477.64***
53
.76
.64
.17
Δχ2 (2)= 346.55***
421.04***
53
.79
.69
.16
Δχ2 (2)= 289.95***
659.31***
54
.59
.50
.25
Δχ2 (3)= 528.22***
(CGI/OTD+IND)
2 factor model
(IND /CGI+OTD)
2 factor model
(OTD/ CGI+IND)
1 factor model
N=209, *** p<0.001
OTD- Openness to diversity , IND- Interdependence, , CGI- Collective sense of global identity.
Second order model of GLBS
GLBS is identified by three subscales. However, as suggested in our theory, global leadership
behaviors can be seen as one, unified phenomenon when different global behaviors of the
leader operate in the same direction to achieve effectiveness in the MCT.
A common statistical procedure which can estimate the connection of the three factors (CGI,
OTD, IND) to one global leadership phenomenon is the calculation of a second-order CFA
model (House, et al., 2004; Rindskopf & Rose, 1988). However, a second order model which
relies on three factors as first order, leads to a just-identified model (a model which has one
unique set of parameter estimates that perfectly fit the data (Brown, 2006) and therefore,
measures of fit of the second order model, give no meaningful information, as they present
19
the same fit as the first order model (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Hence, we used an alternative
approach based on Chen et al., (2010).
First, we tested our two hypotheses, with each of the subscales separately as a dependent
variable (instead of using the full GLBS as a dependent variable). Each subscale exhibited
relationships with outcomes similar to the full GLBS (See Table 3 and Table 4 in the results
section).
Secondly, we aggregated the items of each subscale to one score, then calculated the overall
GLBS Crobnach's Alpha of the three aggregated scores, which demonstrated sufficient
reliability of  = .75. Third, these subscales were highly correlated (r = .71, p < .001,
between CGI and IND, (r = .69, p < .001, between OTD and IND and (r = .51 p < .001,
between CGI and OTD), suggesting high common variance between the subscales.
In addition to Chen et al.'s (2010) suggestions, a CFA of second-order model was conducted,
using the three subscales as a first- order factor. Using the loading of each of the subscales on
the second order factor, construct reliability (an assessment of the variance in the indicators
explained by the common underlying latent construct (Gerbing & Anderson , 1988)) was
calculated. The construct reliability of CGI, OTD and CGI, explained by the common latent
variable, was 0.83. This result reflects a high level of variance, explained by the common
underlying latent construct. Finally, variance extracted estimates, which assess the amount of
variance captured by a construct's measure in relation to variance due to random measurement
error (Fornell & Larcker ,1981) was calculated and found to be 0.63. It is acceptable that a
level of .50 or higher supports the consistency among items on a scale (Fomell & Larcker
1981).
Thus, given the above results and our conceptualization of global leadership behaviors as a
multidimensional construct which contains three subscales (Collective Sense of Global
Identity, Openness to Diversity and Interdependence), we measured the three subscales as one
12- item scale of GLBS (   0.91).
2. Openness to Cultural Diversity – this scale consists of six items, using a 7 point Likert type
scale (from 1 -"very inaccurate" to 7 -"very accurate‟) (i.e., "I often spend time with people
from cultural groups other than my own"), based on Hobman Bordia and Gallois, (2003), and
Henry (1986). Cronbach's Alpha was 0.77. All participants filled the scale before the
beginning of the study (time 1). However, only followers' responses were used in the analysis.
3. Team Identity- was measured by a three-item scale of Earley and Mozakowski, (2000)
("The feeling we were all sharing a common set of beliefs and values was strong in our team";
"Our team members had a strong sense of belonging to their team" and "Our team acted as a
20
single, cohesive team"). Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("Strongly
Disagree") to 5 ("Strongly Agree"). Cronbach's Alpha was 0.85. Followers filled this scale
twice: in the middle of the study (Time 2- T2) and at the end of the study (Time 3 -T3).
Aggregation of GLBS, Openness to Cultural Diversity and Team Identity to the Team Level
Following Bliese's (2000) recommendation, a within-group coefficient of agreement of Rwg(j)
was used (James, 1982; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). Additionally, intraclass correlations
of ICC(l), and ICC(2), which are statistics commonly used to justify aggregation of data to
higher levels of analysis, were used (e.g., Bartko, 1976; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). ICC (1)
compares the variance between units of analysis (e.g. MCTs) to the variance within units of
analysis using the individual ratings of each respondent. ICC(2) assesses the relative status of
between-and within-variability, using the average ratings of respondents within each unit
(Bartko, 1976). As a preliminary step, ANOVA ("F -test") was used to contrast within-group
variance with between-group variance (Bliese, 2000).
For GLBS the results were: mean Rwg(j)= 0.86, ICC(1)= .29 (F= 2.19, p<.001), ICC
(2)= .54. For Team Identity the results were: mean Rwg(j)= 0.82, ICC (1)= .27 (F= 2.08,
p<.001), ICC(2)=.52. All these were comparable to the median or recommended ICC values
reported in the literature (James, 1982; Schneider, White and Paul, 1998). We thus concluded
aggregation was justified for these variables.
For Openness to Cultural Diversity, high within-group agreement was received (mean
Rwg(j)= 0.90). Additionally, ICC (1) = 0.12 (F=1.38, P<0.055), ICC (2)= .27, suggesting
lower ICC(2) level than expected. However, similar levels of ICC (2) were reported in recent
studies (e.g. Bacharach & Bamberger, 2007; Liao & Rupp, 2005;Wu, et al., 2010) given
sufficient between-group differences (significance or approach to significance F-test, see
Ilies ,Wagner & Morgeson, 2007), high within-group consensus ( high Rwg(j)), and small
sample size (Bliese, 2000; Liao & Chuang, 2007; Kirkman et al., 2009 ). Since the Openness
to Diversity measure was defined by all these conditions, aggregation was concluded.
Independence- Last, following Podsakoff et al. (2003)'s suggestions regarding same-source
bias avoidance, we compared different CFA models to assure that these scales were
independent of each other. The five-factor model (the three subscales of GLBS, team-identity
scale and openness-to- cultural-diversity scale), was the only model which yielded acceptable
fit measures (χ2[179]= 364.45, p<.001; RMSEA=.07; TLI= .91; CFI= .93) and had significant
large chi-square difference in comparison to other factor models, thus suggesting low
probability for same-source bias.
Team Effectiveness - was measured by MCT leaders' report at the end of the study (Time 3).
This scale consisted of seven items based on Tjosvold, Poon and Yu's (2005) team
effectiveness scale. The scale consists of two components of team effectiveness, which are:
productivity (e.g. "Team members met or exceeded their productivity requirements" and
21
commitment (e.g. "Team members felt highly committed to the goals of their work".) Items
were on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 5 ("Strongly Agree").
Exploratory Factor Analysis using Component Principal Analysis extraction method revealed
that all items were loaded on one factor, explaining 70.82% of the total variance. The
Cronbach's Alpha was 0.85.
Control Variables
Team Identity (time 2): team identity was measured at the beginning of the team assignment
phase (Time 2), before the leader's nomination, and served as a control variable. Cronbach's
Alpha was 0.76.
Participants were randomly assigned to teams; hence, we were not expected any effects of age
diversity or gender composition in teams. Still, we controlled for age (using Blau’s [1977]
index) and gender (proportion of women in each team). Neither of these variables had main
effects (   0.15, n.s. for age and   0.09, n.s. for gender) on team effectiveness and on
team identity (   .09, n.s. for age and   .04, n.s. for gender). Additionally, their
inclusion didn't change the results concerning our hypotheses.
Therefore, we chose not to
incorporate these variables in the analyses reported below (see Homan et al., 2008).
B. Results
1. Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 summarizes means, standard deviations and correlations at the team level. Team
identity (Time 3) correlated with global leadership behaviors (r=.61, p<.001) and with
followers' openness to cultural diversity (r= 0.27, p<0.05). Additionally, global leadership
behaviors significantly correlated with team effectiveness (r= .33, P<0.01). Finally, there was
a positive and significant correlation between team identity (time 3) and team effectiveness
(r=.38, p<0.01).
Table 2: Study 1- Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variables
M
SD
1
1. Team Identity (Time 2)
3.48 0.44 -
2. Global Leadership
3.38 0.57 .34**
22
2
-
3
4
Behaviors
3. Followers' Openness to Cultural
5.19 0.53 .21†
.12
-
Diversity
4. Team Identity (Time 3)
3.79 0.58 .55*** .61*** .27*
-
5. Team Effectiveness
3.93 0.72 .19
.38**
N= 73 MCTs . † p< 0.1
.33**
-.05
*p< .05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
2. Testing the Research Hypotheses
To examine the research hypotheses, a path analysis model of simultaneous linear regressions
was conducted.
Our first hypothesis predicted that followers' openness to cultural diversity will moderate the
relationship between global leadership behaviors and team identity, and that this relation will
be more strongly positive when followers' openness to cultural diversity is high, rather than
low. Therefore, we conducted three steps of linear regression with predictor variables for
team identity. We entered team identity (Time 2) as a control variable in the first step. For
main effects, we entered global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural
diversity as the second step and the interaction between them as the third step. Both global
leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity were centered (the mean
subtracted from each variable, leaving deviation scores) to reduce multicollinearity between
these variables and their interaction (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher & Rucker, 2003).
As expected, a positive and significant interaction effect was found between global leadership
behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity on team identity (T3) (   0.17,
p<0.05, Step 3). This model explained 56% of the variance in team identity T3 (F(4,68)=
21.22, P<.001, See Table 3, Step 3), and significantly contributed to the explained variance of
team identity, compared to main effects only model (Δ R²= .03, P<.05).
To examine the nature of this interaction, we conducted a simple slope analysis (Aiken &
West, 1991), which presented the regressions slopes of team identity on global leadership
behaviors in three levels of followers' openness to diversity (a. High - one standard deviation
above the mean, b. at the mean level, and c. Low - one standard deviation below the mean).
The results, illustrated in Figure 3, revealed that the higher the level of followers' openness to
cultural diversity, the higher the positive relation between global leadership behaviors and
team identity.
When followers' openness to cultural diversity was high (   0.75, t(68) = 4.72, p<.001), or
at the mean level (   0.46, t(68) = 5.23, p<.001), the global leadership behaviors' scale was
significantly and positively related to team identity. However, when the level of followers'
openness to cultural diversity was low, the relations between global leadership behaviors'
23
scale and team identity were not significant (   0.17, t(68) = 0.96, ns). These results
supported Hypothesis 1.
Table 3: Study 1- Regression Analysis of Team Identity on Model Variables (H1)
DV: Team Identity (time 3)
Variables
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
.55***
.36***
.35***
.48***
.45***
.14†
.16*
Control (step 1)
Team Identity (time 2)
Step 2: Main Effects
Global leadership behaviors (GLBQ)
Followers openness to cultural diversity
(OTCD)
Step 3: Interactions
GLBQ X OTCD
.17*
R²
Δ R²
F
.30
.53
.56
.30***
.23***
.03*
30.97*** 25.78***
21.22***
N= 73 MCTs. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
† P<.10, *P<.05, ** P<.01, *** P<.001
The second hypothesis was that team identity will positively contribute to team effectiveness.
To examine this hypothesis, a simultaneous linear regression was conducted. We regressed
team effectiveness on team identity (T3), in the presence of all model variables (see Table 4).
The results yielded that this model explained 18% of the variance in team effectiveness
(F(5,67)= 2.99, P<.05). Team identity (Time 3) was the only variable that significantly
predicted team effectiveness (   0.34, p<.05). These results supported hypothesis 2.
In line with hypotheses 1 and 2, Hypothesis 3 was examined by the conditional indirect effect
of global leadership behaviors on team effectiveness, through team identity, at different levels
of followers' openness to cultural diversity.
24
Figure 3: Study 1- Followers' Openness to Cultural Diversity as a Moderator of the Relation
between Global Leadership Behaviors and Team Identity
4.6
Team Identiy
(Scale 1-5)
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
-1.5
0
Global Leadership Behaviors (S.D.)
Followers' Openness to
Cultural Diversity (S.D)
-1
0
1.5
1
Table 4:Study 1- Results of Simultaneous Regression of Team Effectiveness on
Model Variables (Hypothesis 2)
F
Variables

DV: Team Effectiveness
2.99*
Team Identity (Time 2)
-.01
Global leadership behaviors (GLB)
.15
Followers' openness to cultural diversity (OTCD)
-.15
GLB X OTCD
.01
Team Identity (Time 3)
.34*
df
R2
5, 67
.18
N=73 MCTs. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p< 0.001
A conditional indirect effect can be described as "the magnitude of an indirect effect at a
particular value of a moderator" (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007, p.186). In this study, the
conditional indirect effect was described by the product (Path a X Path b) of the path from
global leadership behaviors to team identity (Path a) and the path from team identity to team
effectiveness (path b), at various levels of followers' openness to cultural diversity (Bauer,
Preacher & Gil, 2006; Hayes, 2009) .
To test the significance of this conditional indirect effect, we calculated 95 percent confidence
intervals derived from bias-corrected bootstrap estimates (MacKinnon, Lockwood, &
Williams, 2004). Bootstrap is a nonparametric approach to effect-size estimation and
25
hypothesis testing that makes no assumptions about the shape of the distributions of the
variables. This approach can circumvent power problems introduced by asymmetries and
other forms of non-normality in the sampling distribution of an indirect effect. It can also be
effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes than methods which assume normality (as in
this current study)( Schneider, et al., 2005; Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
Our results, demonstrated in Table 5, yielded that the indirect effect of global leadership
behaviors on team effectiveness through team identity was amplified as followers' openness
to cultural diversity level increased. More specifically, under low level of followers' openness
to cultural diversity (one standard deviation below the mean level), the indirect effect was
non-significant ( B  .07 , Upper limit 95% (UL) = 0.33, Lower Limit 95% (LL)= -0.04).
However, under a moderate level of followers' openness to cultural diversity (at the mean),
the indirect effect was positive and significant ( B  .20 , UL = 0.44, LL = 0. 04), and was
amplified under the higher level of followers' openness to cultural diversity (one standard
deviation above the mean level) ( B  .32 , UL = 0.75, LL = 0. 06). Hence, these results
supported hypothesis 3.
Table 5: Study 1- Conditional Indirect Effect of Global Leadership Behaviors on Team
Effectiveness, Through Team Identity, in Different Levels of Followers'
Openness to Cultural Diversity
Level of followers'
Indirect effect
Lower Limit CI
Upper Limit CI
openness to cultural
estimate
(.95)
(.95)
diversity
(B)
High (+ 1 S.D)
.32
.06
.75
Mean
.20
.04
.44
Low (- 1 S.D.)
.07
(-.04)
.33
N= 73 MCTs
C. Discussion
Study 1 proposed a research model for MCT effectiveness. The results supported the research
hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that global leadership behaviors will be positively related to team
identity. Study results demonstrated the relation of global leaders' behaviors to team identity.
Demonstrating behaviors which emphasize the collective identity (Brewer and Gardner’s,
1996), such as interdependence, openness to diversity and a collective sense of global identity
by the leader, led to a higher team identity level. These results contribute to the existing
literature in two ways; first, they give support to self- concept based theories of leadership
(Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993) in the global context. These theories propose that the
26
ability of the leader to influence team processes and outcomes depends on leadership
behaviors which enhance the collective level of followers' identity.
Second, this study
contributes to the global leadership field, by being the first to present global leadership
behaviors which stem from typologies of global work values (Shokef & Erez, 2006) and are
connected to the global context.
Moreover, as predicted in hypothesis 1, the relation between global leadership behaviors and
team identity was positively moderated by the level of MCT followers' openness to cultural
diversity. The higher the level of followers' openness to cultural diversity, the stronger the
positive relation between global leadership behaviors and team identity. When followers'
openness to cultural diversity was low, the relation between global leadership behaviors and
team identity was not significant. This moderated effect of the followers' openness to cultural
diversity demonstrated the importance of taking into consideration the followers' role in teams
in general (Baker & Gerlowski; 2007) and in MCTs in particular. Followers' adaptation to the
global context by demonstrating high levels of openness to cultural diversity facilitated the
emergence of team identity. This finding suggests that in MCTs, the fit of the followers'
global characteristics to the global context facilitates the global leader's effect on team
identity, which further influences team effectiveness. As such, this study supports the PersonTeam fit model (Kristof, 1996).
Additionally, the results supported hypothesis 2, which predicted that team identity will lead
to MCT effectiveness. The results provide additional support to the crucial role of team
identity in achieving MCT effectiveness (Gelfand et al., 2007; Van Der Zee et al., 2004;).
Additionally, these findings support the social identity theory (Ashford & Mael, 1989)
regards team identity as necessary for team effectiveness. Team identity reflects the
willingness of team members to "strongly subscribe to a common set of values or beliefs"
(p.22), and therefore, act toward team goal accomplishment.
Finally, the results which supported hypotheses 3, highlight the importance of understanding
the contribution of intervening variables, such as team identity, to the relation between
leadership behaviors and team effectiveness (Shamir et al., 1993). Additionally, the
moderated effect of followers' openness to cultural diversity on this relation indicates that the
followers have an indirect ability to influence team effectiveness. As such, followers'
influence must be taken into consideration in addition to their direct contribution to team
processes.
To summarize, the results of Study 1 highlighted the important role played by both leaders
and followers in MCTs. The results demonstrated that global leadership behaviors indirectly
influenced team effectiveness through team identity and this indirect effect is positively
conditioned by followers' openness to cultural diversity.
27
Limitations: Despite these valuable results, there are limitations to this study. Participants in
Study 1 were MBA students who worked in short – term virtual MCTs. Therefore, additional
studies should test for the research model in stable, long term MCTs. Study 2, which was
conducted in ongoing industry MCTs, was designed to overcome this limitation and therefore
expanded both the research model and its external validity.
III) Study 2
A. Introduction, Research Literature and Research Hypotheses
Study 2 aims to test the research model presented in Study 1 in a real work context (MNOs)
of multicultural team members, who work together on ongoing projects and whose level of
virtuality may vary on a continuum between collected teams and pure virtual teams. (LeNobel, 2010; Stanko & Gibson, 2009; Webster & Wong, 2008). Short -term project teams,
such as in Study 1, differ from ongoing teams with regard to relational team processes. In
ongoing teams, members anticipate future interactions with each other beyond the imminent
deadline and outcome. As such, ongoing team members are led by the "shadow of the future"
(Axelrod, 1984), which is the anticipation of future interactions that have an impact on
present relational team processes. This is a key element in ongoing teams that does not exist
in temporary teams. Anticipation of working again with team members is likely to alter the
behaviors in such a way that it may encourage relationship processes that contribute to team
identity (Bouas & Arrow, 1996). In contrast, temporary, short -term action teams are mainly
concerned with effectively accomplishing the goal of the current task, and therefore may
differ in quantity and quality of relational processes in the teams (Saunders & Ahuja, 2006).
Study 2 aims at overcoming the limitations of study 1 in three ways: first, the participants in
this study are employees who work for MNOs as members of MCTs. Second, the MCTs in
study 2 represent a wide range of virtual levels. Third, MCT members work on ongoing
projects for relatively long periods.
Ongoing team processes emphasize interpersonal relationships more than short-term
temporary teams. For example, building team trust seems to be important in ongoing teams in
order to build team identity. Therefore, in Study 2 we included team trust in our research
model. The meaning of team trust differs between ongoing teams and short term teams
(especially, short term virtual MCTs, as in study 1) as will be further discussed (Jarvenpaa,
Shaw & Staples, 2004; Panteli & Duncan, 2004; Saunders & Ahuja, 2006).
Most studies conceptualized and measured trust as an expectation or a belief that one can rely
on another person's actions and words and/or that this person has good intentions toward
himself (Dirks, ,2000). In their review, Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998) suggested
two necessary conditions for trust building. The first is risk which is the perceived probability
of loss, as interpreted by a person who conveys trust (Chiles & McMackin, 1996). The second
28
is interdependence, suggesting that the interest of an individual or a party can't be achieved
without reliance upon others who share the same interest (Wageman, 1995).
Early trust studies focused on the basic dyadic relations arising from attributes associated with
the trustful person (Dirks, 1999). However, in the last decades, research has shifted towards
the collective level of trust, which consists of multiple members and is more complex than the
dyadic trust (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995; Rousseuu et al.,1998). Team trust is defined
as a "shared psychological state in a team that is characterized by an acceptance of
vulnerability based on expectations of intentions or behaviors with others within the team"
(Gibson & Manuel ,2003, p.59). Perceptions of trust reside on the individual level, but the
meaning of trust as a team level construct comes for a shared quality of these individual level
perceptions (De Jong & Elfring , 2010) .
Jarvenpaa and colleagues (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), who studied
trust in short term virtual teams, found that members in such teams developed models of
"swift trust". Swift trust is a form of depersonalized action that allows team members to act as
if trust were present from the start of the project, as it enables members to take action and deal
with uncertainty, ambiguity and vulnerability that arise while working with strangers on
complex, interdependent tasks (Meyerson, Weick & Kramer, 1996; Saunders & Ahuja, 2006).
However, this kind of team trust is focused on task completion and not based on the trust
associated with embedded relationships in social networks. In other words, the process of
trust creation in short term teams may be temporary, fragile and may lack the antecedents of
trust building as in ongoing teams ( (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999;
McKnight, Cummings & Chervany , 1998). Short-term teams reported either a negligible or
conditional effect of trust on team outcomes (e.g., Aubert & Kelsey, 2003; Dirks, 1999;
Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004), unlike ongoing teams that reported a positive effect of
trust on team outcomes (De Jong & Elfring, 2010; Rispens, Greer, & Jehn, 2007; Spreitzer
Noble, Mishara & Cooke ,1999). Therefore, in Study 2 we plan to include trust as a factor in
the research model.
Team Trust as a Mediator of Team Identity
The research on trust examined its direct (e.g. Friedlander, 1970; Klimoski & Karol, 1976)
and indirect effects on other team processes and outcomes (Dirks (1999). For example, team
trust positively influenced team identity ( Fiol & O'Connor ,2005). Moreover, team trust
enhanced team members' involvement in team activities and contributed to the collective
action (Spreitzer et al., 1999). O'Hara- Devereaux and Johansen (1994) argued that trust in
MCTs prevents the geographical and organizational distance of global team members from
becoming a psychological distance. They viewed trust as "the glue of the global workspace"
(p.243).
29
Trust in MCTs reflects the willingness of team members to take risks despite the possibility
that other team members will not understand them, due to cultural differences. Hence, trust in
MCTs facilitates team members' shared understanding and their willingness to cooperate as a
cohesive team (Spreitzer, Shapiro & Von-Glinow, 2002). A high level of trust facilitates a
high level of interdependence among MCT members, which enables the emergence of team
identity (Gibson & Manuel, 2003; Webster & Wong, 2008). Additionally, some scholars
suggested that trust is related to positive team processes, such as a higher level of
communication (Cascio & Shurgalio, 2003; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Gibson & Manuel, 2003;
Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Wilson et al., 2006), which further strengthens team identity in
MCTs (Erez, 2009). Previous studies found positive relationships between transformational
leadership and trust, suggesting that leaders who demonstrate TL behaviors are effective in
motivating their followers to identify with team goals beyond their self-interest (Jung & Avolio,
2000). Additionally, this positive relation was found between inspirational leadership behaviors
and team trust in MCTs (Joshi et al , 2009).
Based on the above, we plan to include team trust in our model as a mediator of the
relationship between global leadership behaviors and team identity. Individuals who perceive
themselves as different from others with regard to salient attributes are more likely to feel
anxious and self-conscious compared to those who belong to less socially distinctive
categories (Kramer, 2001). In diverse teams, this process may impede the level of mutual trust
(Kramer, 1994; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). However, the Social Identity Theory suggests
that by redefining group boundaries into a super ordinate category, group members are
willing to categorize others in the same category with themselves (Tujfel, 1978; Turner, 1982;
Van Dick, 2001). Therefore, by emphasizing the collective identity level, rather than the
individual identity level, the leader can enhance the salience of shared characteristics of the
diverse team members, and thus enhance trust and confidence in the team (Roberge & VanDick, 2010; Shamir et al., 1993). As a support, Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neal (1998)
found that the benefits of demographic diversity are more likely to emerge in organizations
that make organizational membership salient through their shared organizational culture and
encourage people to categorize one another as sharing a common interest, rather than those
that emphasize individualism and distinctiveness among members.
Based on the above, global leadership behaviors emphasize the salience of collective global
identity which enables MCT members to categorize members from other cultures in the same
social category of the global context. By creating a sense of inclusiveness, these leaders instill
mutual trust among MCT members (Dirk, 1999; Polzer et al., 2006). In addition, openness to
diversity conveys the willingness to interact with culturally different others and to pay them
respect (Hartel, 2004). Hence, openness to diversity can facilitate the creation of mutual trust
in the MCT (Lloyd & Hartel, 2003). Therefore, global leaders who emphasize
30
interdependence, which enables the development of a shared meaning system, and who
emphasize openness to diversity, set the conditions for trust building in MCTs .
Additionally, we assert that MCT followers' openness to cultural diversity has a positive
effect on the relation between global leadership behaviors and team trust. When MCT
followers possess high levels of openness to cultural diversity, they will naturally be more
open to accept their leaders' global behaviors which emphasize interdependence, a sense of
shared global identity and acceptance of others as part of their in-group, and this will enable
them to build trust.
Based on all the above, we assert that global leadership behaviors will be related to team
effectiveness through team trust and then team identity. This argument is supported by a recent
empirical study in MCTs which found that inspirational leadership was related to team
performance through team trust (Joshi et al., 2009), and by studies suggesting that team trust
explains the relations between antecedent factors to team outcomes (e.g. Dirks, 1999; 2000).
Additionally, following study 1, we assert that the level of followers' openness to cultural diversity
will positively moderate the indirect relation between global leadership behaviors and MCT
effectiveness.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1: Followers' openness to cultural diversity will moderate the relationship between global
leadership behaviors and team trust.
This positive relationship will be stronger when
followers' openness to cultural diversity is high, rather than low.
H2: Team trust will mediate the moderate effect of global leadership behavior by followers'
openness to diversity on team identity.
H3: Team identity will be positively related to MCT effectiveness.
H4: Global leadership behaviors will be related to Team effectiveness through Team trust
and then Team identity. This relation will be moderated by followers' openness to cultural
diversity, with a stronger positive effect when followers' openness to cultural diversity is high,
rather than low.
Figure 4 integrates all three hypotheses into the research model.
Study 2- Research Model
Followers' Openness
to Cultural Diversity
Global Leadership
Behaviors
Team Trust
Team Identity
31
MCT
Effectiveness
B. Methods
1. Participants
The initial sample consisted of 356 leaders and followers of 68 MCTs from 9 MNOs. The
MNOs operated in varying industries: Hi-Tech (Medical Technology, IT, Management
Operations, Software Services), Global Transportation (food, oil, and replacement),
Accounting and Global HRM.
Only MCTs that met the following criteria were included in the final sample: a. Followers'
intra-team response rate was of at least 50 percent (one team was omitted), given that at least
two followers responded (4 teams were omitted), and that followers were from at least two
different nationalities. b. That the MCT leader responded (8 teams were omitted). 55 MCTs
met both criteria and were included in the study. These MCTs consisted of 274 members (55
leaders and 219 followers). Mean team size was 5.78 members (SD = 2.17, median= 5),
ranging from 3 to 11 members. Followers' response rates ranged from 50 percent to 100
percent, with a mean of 85 percent (SD=17.31). The number of MCTs for each MNO ranged
from 4 to 9 teams (M=6.11). Mean team longevity was 31 months (SD=24.78, median=24),
ranging from 3 to 120 months.
In 41 teams, the leaders served in this position since the team had been first established. In
additional 14 team leaders were nominated later on. A t-test between these two types of
teams on the model core variables didn't reveal any significant differences . Therefore, we
considered all teams as one sample for this study.
Participants were from 22 nationalities, representing a high cultural variety: 29 percent were
from the Netherlands, 23 percent were other Europeans, 20 percent Indians, 11 percent NorthAmericans and 9 percent Israelis. Mean Age was 38 years (SD =9.14); mean tenure in the
organization was 6.89 years (SD=6.78, Median=4.00), and mean tenure of 24.2 months in the
MCT (SD= 23.93, Median=18). Mean education in years was 17.27 (SD=2.53) and 81
percent were men.
2. Procedure
The relations with the MNOs were established through connections with focal persons. The
focal person provided a "Team Map" with basic information about MCT participants, which
was necessary to relate the participants to their MCTs.
Instructions were sent to the
participants directly by e-mail, or by the focal person. The procedure was discreet, and each
participant received a personal entrance code to a web- survey. Data were collected by a 20minute-web-based survey in English, one for the MCT leader and one for the MCT followers.
Communication in these MCTs was in English.
3. Measures
32
Global Leadership Behaviors Scale (GLBS) – consisted of 12 items, filled out by the
followers, as in study 1.
Exploratory factor analysis using a common factor analysis method with promax rotation
revealed a three- factor model of three subscales (4 items each), as in Study 1: Collective
Sense of Global Identity (CGI), Openness to Diversity (OTD) and Interdependence (IND),
explaining expected common variance proportion of 103.39%.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) served to validate the three-factor structure model.
Table 6 presents all possible combinations of factors model. The three-factor model was
significantly better than all other possible combinations. Alpha Crobnach's reliabilities were
0.93, 0.88 and 0.89 for CGI, OTD, IND, respectively.
Relying on Chen et al.'s (2010) procedures, we examined the convergence of CGI, OTD and
IND subscales to one common scale of GLBS.
First, we tested our 3 hypotheses, with each of the subscales separately as a dependent
variable (instead of using the full GLBS as a dependent variable). Each subscale exhibited
similar relationships with outcomes, such as the full GLBS.
Secondly, we aggregated the items of each subscale into one overall GLBS, with  = .73.
Additionally, these subscales were highly correlated (r = .68, p < .001, between CGI and
IND; r = .67, p < .001, between OTD and IND and r = .45, p < .001, between CGI and OTD),
suggesting a high common variance between the subscales.
Table 6: Study 2- CFA – Comparison between GLBS Factor Structure
Model
χ2
df
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
Δχ2- comparison with
3 factor model
3 factors model
146.31***
51
.94
.92
.09
-
407.56***
53
.81
.72
.17
Δχ2 (2)= 261.25***
594.02***
53
.71
.57
.22
Δχ2 (2)= 447.41***
481.05***
53
.77
.66
.19
Δχ2 (2)= 334.74***
720.34***
54
.55
.45
.24
Δχ2 (3)= 574.03***
(GCI, OTD, IND)
2 factors model
(CGI/OTD+IND)
2 factor model
(IND/GCI+OTD)
2 factor model
(OTD/GCI+IND)
1 factor model
N=219, *** p<0.001
OTD- Openness to diversity , IND- Interdependence, CGI- Collective sense of global identity.
CFA of a second order model was conducted, using the three subscales as first factors level.
Using the loading of each of the subscales on the second order factor, construct reliability was
33
calculated (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The construct reliability of CGI, OTD and IND,
explained by the common latent variable, was sufficient (0.80). Last, variance extracted
estimates were calculated and found to be 0.60, supporting the consistency among items in
this scale (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Thus, given these results, we aggregated the three subscales to a one twelve-item scale of
GLBS with Cronbach's Alpha of 0.91.
Openness to Cultural Diversity- To emphasize the cultural aspect of openness to diversity, we
created two new items which reflect openness to cultural diversity ("I enjoy doing jobs with
people from different cultural background" and "I make an extra effort to listen to people who
hold a different cultural background"). These items were gathered with two openness to
cultural diversity items from the measure used in Study 1 ("I often spend time with people
from cultural groups other than my own" and "I usually solve communication problems
caused by cultural differences easily") (Based on Hobman et al., 2003, and Henry ,1986).
Therefore, this scale consisted of four items assessing openness to cultural diversity, using a 7
point Likert type scale.
An Exploratory Factor Analysis, using principal component analysis as an extraction method,
revealed that all four items were loaded on the same factor and explained 57.95% of the total
variance. The Cronbach's Alpha of this scale was 0.74.
Team Trust- was measured by a three-item scale, based on Spreitzer et al., (1999) ("Team
members take actions that are consistent with their words", " I can rely on my team members
to deliver their parts as promised" and " Team members are straightforward with each other").
Followers' responses were on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("Not at all") to 5 ("Very
Great Extent"). An Exploratory Factor Analysis, using principal component analysis as
extraction method, revealed that all three items loaded on the same factor and explained
69.43% of the total variance. Cronbach's Alpha was 0.77.
Team Identity- was measured by followers' report, using the three-item scale of Earley and
Mozakowski, (2000), as in Study 1. Cronbach's Alpha was 0.84.
Aggregation of GLBS, Openness to Cultural Diversity, Team Trust and Team Identity to Team
Level
Rwg (j) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), ICC (1) and ICC (2) (Bartko, 1976), with a
preliminary ANOVA ("F -test") (Bliese, 2000), were conducted.
For GLBS the results were: mean Rwg(j) =0.88, ICC(1) = .26, ( F= 2.36, p<.001) and ICC (2)
=.58. For Team Trust the results were: mean Rwg(j)= 0.87, ICC (1) = .25 (F= 2.32,
34
p<.001) ,ICC 2 =.57. For Team Identity the results were: mean Rwg(j) =0.81, ICC (1) =.29
(F= 2.60, p<.001), ICC 2 = .62. All of these were comparable to the median or recommended
ICC values reported in the literature (James, 1982; Schneider et al.,1998). We thus concluded
that aggregation was justified for these variables.
For Openness to Cultural Diversity the results were: a high within-group agreement was
received (mean Rwg(j)= 0.86). Additionally, ICC (1) = 0.10 (F=1.41, P<0.05), ICC (2) = .27,
suggesting lower ICC (2) level than expected. These results can be explained by the small
sample size in each team, high diversity of the participating organizations and the high interagreement in teams (Bliese, 2000; Kirkman et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2010). Since the openness
to diversity measure was defined by all these conditions, aggregation was conducted.
Measures Independence - following Podsakoff et al.'s (2003) suggestions regarding samesource bias avoidance, we compared different CFA models to assure that these scales were
represented separately. A six-factor-model ( the three subscales of GLBS, team trust scale,
team identity scale and openness to cultural diversity scale), was the only model which
yielded acceptable fit measures (χ2[194]= 341.86, p<.001; RMSEA=.06; TLI= .93; CFI= .95)
and had significant large chi-square difference compared to all other models, thus suggesting
low probability of same-source bias.
Team Effectiveness- was measured by MCT leaders' reports, using the seven-item-teameffectiveness scale of Tjosvold et al., (2005), as in Study 1. Alpha Cronbach was 0.86.
Control Variables
Team Size- Team Size, which may be related to team cohesiveness and intrateam
communication (e.g., Bantel & Jackson, 1989), was measured as the number of team
members.
Age Diversity- Age Diversity in teams may have implications on group processes and
outcomes (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Due to the wide range in age in our sample (20-50 years), we
used Age Diversity as a control variable in our model.
Cultural Diversity- Cultural Diversity may have implications for team trust, team identity and
team performance in MCTs (e.g. Earley & Mozakowski, 2000, Polzer et al., 2006). Therefore,
we included this variable as a control in our model.
To measure age diversity and cultural diversity, we used Blau’s (1977) index of heterogeneity,
calculated by the formula: 1   p i . In this formula, p is the proportion of a team in the
2
respective diversity category and i is the number of different categories represented on the
team. The index varies from 0, indicating no diversity, to a theoretical maximum of 1.
Following Kearney and Gebert (2009) for age diversity, we categorized participants by 5-year
35
increments (i.e., 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, etc.). Cultural diversity was measured by the
proportion of nationalities in each of the MCTs.
Team Virtuality-
Team virtuality may have implications for team processes and team
performance (Hartel et al., 2005; Martins et al., 2004). Hence, we used this variable as a
control. Team virtuality was measured by cumulative leaders' reports of the number of faceto-face meetings that the MCT held in one month (Webster & Wong, 2008). Range scores
where from zero (pure virtual MCT) to 30 (located MCT).
Additional potential controls were recognized in recent literature of MCT studies: Team
Longevity, Gender, Members’ team tenures (in months), Organizational tenure (in years) and
relation to organization (Joshi et al., 2009; Kearney et al., 2009; Wu et al, 2010). To examine
the impact of these potential controls, research models with all these control variables were
conducted. The findings revealed that none of these additional potential controls showed
significant main effects on team effectiveness, team identity and team trust. Additionally,
these controls didn't change the pattern results of the core model variables. To reserve model
power (Wu et al., 2010) and to avoid Type II error (Homan et al., 2008), we excluded these
five controls from the research model.
C. Results
1. Descriptive Statistics
Table 7 summarizes means, standard deviations and correlations at the team level. Global
leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity positively and significantly
correlated (r=.47, p<.001). Both of them positively and significantly correlated with team
trust (r=.56, p<.001 for global leadership behaviors and r=.37, p<.01 for followers' openness
to cultural diversity). Additionally, only the global leadership behaviors' scale significantly
correlated with team identity (r=.56, p<.001) and none of these two predictors significantly
correlated with team effectiveness. Team trust and team identity significantly correlated with
each other (r=.67, p<.001) and with team effectiveness (team trust: r=.39, p<.01; team
identity: r=.44, p<.01).
Table 7: Study 2- Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
1. Cultural
0.54
0.18
-
2. Team Size
5.78
2.17
-.13
-
3. Virtuality
11.51
13.09
.18
-.19
-
4. Age Diversity
0.63
0.12
.01
.41**
-.02
4
Diversity
36
-
5
6
7
8
3.68
0.48
-.16
-.03
.08
-.06
-
5.30
0.53
.11
-.24†
.31*
-.10
.47***
-
7. Team Trust
3.74
0.44
-.01
-.08
.14
-.18
.56***
.37**
-
8. Team Identity
3.80
0.46
-.14
.05
-.01
-.02
.56***
.18
.67***
-
9. Team
3.93
0.58
.05
-.19
.09
.01
.18
.06
.39**
.44**
5. Global
Leadership
Behaviors
6. Followers'
Openness
to Cultural
Diversity
Effectiveness
N= 55 MCTs,
† p< 0.1
*p< .05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
2. Testing the Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 predicted that followers' openness to cultural diversity will moderate the
relationship between global leadership behaviors and team trust, and that this relation will be
positively stronger when followers' openness to cultural diversity is high, rather than low.
To examine this hypothesis, we conducted linear regression in steps, with predictor variables
for team trust. We entered the control variables (cultural diversity, team size, virtuality and
age diversity) in the first step. For main effects, we entered global leadership behaviors and
followers' openness to cultural diversity as the second step and the interaction between them
as the third step. Global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity
were centered.
Table 8, Model 1, summarizes the results. The interaction Model (Model 1, Step 3) explained
40% in team trust variance (F(7,47)=4.44, P<.01). Additionally, this model contributed a
significant variance in comparison with a model with main effects only (Δ R²=.06, P<.05). As
expected, the results yielded a significant interaction effect between global leadership
behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity on team trust. However, the interaction
unexpectedly reflected a negative direction (   -0.25, p<.05).
A simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) of the results revealed that when followers'
openness to diversity was low (one standard deviation below mean) (   0.84, t(47) = 4.07,
p<.001) or (with lower intensity) at the mean level (   0.48, t(47) = 3.94, p<.001, See figure
5), the global leadership behavior's scale was positively and significantly related to team trust.
However, when the level of followers' openness to cultural diversity was high (one standard
deviation above mean), the relations between the global leadership behaviors and team trust
was not significant (   0.12, t (47) = 0.56, ns).
37
Hypothesis 2 predicted that team trust will mediate the moderated effect of global leadership
behavior by followers' openness to diversity on team identity.
To examine this hypothesis we followed Klein et al.'s (2001) procedures, who built upon
Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger's (1998)'s mediation model. According to Kenny et al. (1998), a
variable (M) mediates the relationship between an antecedent variable (X) and an outcome
variable (Y) if (a) X is significantly related to Y; (b) X is significantly related to M; (c) after X
is controlled for, M remains significantly related to Y; and (d) after M is controlled for, the XY relationship is non- significant. Kenny et al. (1998) described the second and third of these
steps as "the essential steps in establishing mediation" (p. 260). The first step, they
commented, "is not required, but a path from the initial variable to the outcome is implied if
[the two middle steps] are met" (Kenny et al., 1998, p. 260). Furthermore, the last step is
necessary only to prove a complete mediation effect. Accordingly, to test this hypothesis, we
conducted linear regressions in steps, with predictor variables for team identity. We entered
the control variables (cultural diversity, team size, virtuality and age diversity) in the first step.
For main effects, we entered global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural
diversity as the second step and the interaction between them as the third step. Last, we
entered team trust as a mediator (step 4). Global leadership behaviors and followers' openness
to cultural diversity were centered. Table 8, Model 2, summarizes the results.
Table 8: Study 2- Results of Regression Analysis of Team Trust (H1) and Team
Identity (H2) on Model Variables
Model 1: Team Trust
Variables
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Model 2: Team Identity
Step
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
1
Control (step 1)
Cultural diversity
-.03
.06
.08
-.13
-.02
-.01
-.05
Virtuality
.14
.05
.06
.03
-.01
-.01
-.04
Team size
.-.06
-.03
-.06
.13
.13
.11
.15
Age diversity
.01
.04
.03
-.24
-.21
-.21
-23*
.52***
.52 ***
.58***
.58***
.28*
.10
.06
-.07
-.09
-.13
Step 2: Main Effect
Global leadership
behaviors (GLBQ)
Followers' openness
to cultural diversity
38
(OTCD)
Step 3: Interactions
GLBQ X OTCD
-.25*
-.15
-.01
Step 4+5:
Mediators
Team Trust
.58***
R²
. 02
.34
.40
.07
.36
.38
.58
Δ R²
. 02
.32***
.06*
.07
.29***
.02
.20***
F
.29
4.10**
4.44**
.37
4.75***
4.27***
7.86***
N= 73 MCTs. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
† P<.10, *P<.05, ** P<.01, *** P<.001
Figure 5: Study 2- Followers' Openness to Cultural Diversity as a Moderator of the Relation
between Global Leadership Behaviors and Team Trust
4.5
Team Trust
(Scale 1-5)
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
-1.5
Followers' Openness to
Cultural Diversity (SD)
0
Global Leadership Behaviors (SD)
-1
0
1.5
1
This model didn't reveal a significant effect of the interaction between global leadership
behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity on team identity (   -0.15, p<.20,
step 3) which was both non-significant and negligible effect. However, this model revealed a
significant positive relation of global leadership behaviors to team identity (   0.58, p<.001,
both step 2 and 3).
Additionally, in the presence of all other research variables, team trust was positively related
to team identity (   0.58, p<.001, Model 2, step 4), and the relation of global leadership
39
behaviors to team identity dropped to the value of 0.28 (   0.28, p<.05, Model 2, step 4).
Hence, team trust partially mediated the relationship between global leadership behaviors and
team identity (Model 2, step 3 compared to step 4), when the relationship between team trust
and global leadership behaviors was significant this model explained 58% of the variance in
team identity (F (7, 47) =7.86, P<.001).
Other perspective of the examination of the results yielded that the first step in Kenny et al.'s
(1998) mediation procedure was not supported (the moderated effect was not significantly
related to team identity). However, the second and third steps in Kenny's et al.'s (1998)
procedure, which are the essential for establishing mediation, were significant: (b) the
interaction effect of global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity
was related to team trust (hypothesis 1) and (c) team trust was related to team identity after
controlling for global leadership behaviors and for followers openness' to cultural diversity
(hypothesis 2). Additionally, since it is possible to have significant indirect effects in the
absence of a significant total effect (Hayes, 2009), we examined the conditional indirect effect
(Preacher et al., 2007) of global leadership behaviors on team identity, as represented by the
combined relation between global leadership behaviors and team trust (path a) and team trust
and team identity (path b), in three levels of followers' openness to cultural diversity (lowone standard deviation below mean, at the mean and high- one standard deviation above the
mean) .
To examine the significance of this conditional indirect effect, we used 95 percent confidence
intervals derived from bias-corrected bootstrap (Bauer et al. 2006; Preacher et al., 2007),
using Mplus 6 (Muth'en & Muth'en, 2010). The results, as summarized in Table 9,
demonstrated that the indirect effect of global leadership behaviors on team identity through
team trust was amplified as followers' openness to cultural diversity decreased. Specifically,
when followers' openness to cultural diversity was low, the indirect effect was positive and
significant ( B  .51 .UL=.90, LL= .21). The same pattern, with lower intensity, was received
under the condition of mean level of followers' openness to cultural diversity ( B  .29 , UL
= .61, LL =. 11). However, when followers' openness to cultural diversity was high, there was
no significant indirect effect between global leadership behaviors and team identity ( B  .07 ,
UL = .39, LL =-. 24).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that team identity will positively contribute to team effectiveness in
MCTs. A linear regression model of team effectiveness on team identity in the presence of all
the research model variables (see Table 10) explained 31% of the variance in team
effectiveness (F (9, 45) =2.44, P<.05).
40
Table 9: Study 2- Conditional Indirect Effect of Global Leadership Behaviors on Team
Identity, Through Team Trust in Different Levels of Followers' Openness
to Cultural Diversity
Level of followers'
Indirect effect
Lower Limit CI
Upper Limit CI
openness to cultural
estimate
(.95)
(.95)
diversity
(B)
High (+ 1 S.D)
.07
(-.24)
.39
Mean
.29
.11
.61
Low (- 1 S.D.)
.51
.21
.90
N= 55 MCTs
Moreover, team identity was the only core variable that positively and significantly related to
team effectiveness (   0.49, p<.05). These results supported hypothesis 3
The results of study 2 represent three significant effects. The first is a moderation effect of
followers' openness to cultural diversity on the relation between global leadership behaviors
and team trust. The second is a positive effect of team trust to team identity and the third is a
positive effect of team identity to team effectiveness.
Table 10: Study 2- Results of Simultaneous Regression of Team Effectiveness on
Model Variables (Hypothesis 3)

Variables
DV: Team Effectiveness
Cultural diversity
.07
Virtuality
.05
Team size
-.30*
Age diversity
.21
Global leadership behaviors (GLB)
-.10
Followers' openness to cultural diversity (OTCD)
-.11
GLB X OTCD
-.04
Team Trust
.13
Team Identity
.49*
F
df
R2
2.24*
9, 45
.31
N=55. MCTs. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p< 0.001
Hypothesis 4 predicted that there would be a conditioned indirect effect between global
leadership behaviors and team effectiveness, through team trust and then team identity, at
different levels of followers' openness to cultural diversity. This relation was expected to be
more strongly positive when followers' openness to cultural diversity was high, rather than
low.
To test this hypothesis we multiplied the coefficients of team trust on global leadership
behaviors (path a), with the path of team identity on team trust (path b) and the path of team
41
effectiveness on team identity (path c), at three levels of followers' openness to cultural
diversity (low- one standard deviation below the mean level, at the mean level, and high- one
standard deviation above the mean level) (path a X path b X path c). To examine the
significance of this conditional indirect effect, we used a 95 percent confidence interval
derived from bias-corrected bootstrap (Bauer et al. 2006; Preacher et al., 2007). The results,
demonstrated in Table 11, yielded an indirect effect of global leadership behaviors on team
effectiveness through team trust and then team identity, which was amplified as followers'
openness to cultural diversity decreased.
Table 11: Study 2- Conditional Indirect Effect of the Relation between Global Leadership
Behaviors and MCT Effectiveness, Through Team Trust and Then Team
Identity, in Different Levels of Followers' Openness to Cultural Diversity
Level of followers'
Indirect effect
Lower Limit CI
Upper Limit CI
openness to cultural
estimate
(.95)
(.95)
diversity
(B)
High (+ 1 S.D)
.04
(-.13)
.28
Mean
.18
.05
.47
Low (- 1 S.D.)
.31
.10
.71
Specifically, under the condition of followers' low openness to cultural diversity, this indirect
effect was positive and significant ( B  .31 .UL=.71, LL= .10).The same pattern, with lower
intensity, appeared under the condition of mean level of followers' openness to cultural
diversity, ( B  .18 , UL = .47, LL =. 05). However, when followers' openness to cultural
diversity was high, there was no significant indirect effect ( B  .04 , UL = .28, LL =-. 13).
The results, therefore, demonstrate that global leadership behaviors have a significant
conditional indirect effect on team effectiveness and that followers' openness to cultural
diversity moderates this relation. This relation was more strongly positive when followers'
openness to cultural diversity was low rather than high. Although there was a positive indirect
effect of global leadership behaviors on team effectiveness, this relation was moderated by
followers' openness to cultural diversity in a different direction than predicted, and
therefore it gave only a partial support for the hypothesis.
C. Discussion
Study 2 expanded on Study 1 by testing the research model in a field study, where
participants were members of ongoing MCTs working in MNOs. Furthermore, the research
model of Study 2 also included team trust as an emergent team variable which enhances team
identity.
42
Hypothesis 1 predicted that global leadership behaviors will be positively related to team trust
and that this positive relationship would be stronger when followers' openness to cultural
diversity was high, rather than low. As expected, a positive relationship was found between
team trust and global leadership behaviors, which stress interdependence, openness to cultural
diversity and collective sense of global identity. These findings support the social identity
theory (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1982; Van Dick, 2001), which predicted that by redefining
group boundaries into a super ordinate category, group members would be willing to
categorize others in the same category with themselves and build trust. Additionally, it
supports the prediction of the self-concept based leadership theories (Lord et al., 1999;
Sahmir, 1993), which suggested that by emphasizing the collective identity level, rather than
the individual identity level, the leader can enhance the salience of shared characteristics of
the diverse team members, thus promoting trust and confidence in the team.
Interestingly, the moderating effect of followers' openness to cultural diversity was in a
different direction than expected and then found in Study1. In Study 1, the relationship
between global leadership behaviors and team identity increased as followers' openness to
cultural diversity increased. Yet, in Study 2, when follower's openness to cultural diversity
increased, the effect of global leadership behaviors on team trust (and indirectly on team
identity) decreased. The question, therefore, is why the positive relation of global leadership
behaviors to team trust decreased when followers' openness to cultural diversity was high, and
vice versa.
Previous research showed that in ongoing MCTs, team members are encouraged to
communicate with each other to understand what tasks the other team members are assigned,
so they can gain a better understanding of shared roles and mutual team goals (Coutu, 1998;
Saunders & Ahuja, 2006) Therefore, the leader's influence becomes less significant when the
followers themselves are motivated to work together as a team (Manz, 1986; Manz & Sims,
1987). In Study 2, ongoing MCTs, whose followers had a high level of openness to cultural
diversity, succeeded in developing team trust regardless of their leaders, as they were
motivated to interact with diverse others. Yet, when team members themselves did not have a
high level of openness to cultural diversity, leaders with global leadership behaviors
influenced their followers by emphasizing the global unified factors, and were therefore more
successful in building trust than leaders with low global leadership behaviors.
Our second hypothesis predicted that team trust would mediate the interaction effect of global
leadership behavior and followers' openness to cultural diversity on team identity. This
hypothesis was not supported, as there was no significant interaction effect on team identity.
However, there was a positive relation between global leadership behaviors and team identity
and this relation was partially mediated by the level of team trust. Additionally, there was a
significant conditional indirect effect of global leadership behaviors on team identity through
43
team trust, at different levels of followers' openness to cultural diversity. These findings shed
some light on the role of leaders and followers in establishing MCT trust and identity: First,
these results suggest that in ongoing MCTs, global leadership behaviors help build team trust
when team members do not have the necessary characteristics to work as a global team.
Additionally, followers indirectly influence team identity via their interaction effect with their
global leaders on team trust.
Second, these results support, in the global context, the importance of building team trust,
which influences team identity and team outcomes (De Jong & Elfring, 2010; Mach, Dolan &
Tzafrir, 2010; Pillai , Schriesheim & Williams, 1999). Interestingly, the total effect of global
leadership behaviors on team identity was only partially mediated by team trust. These results
suggest that unlike followers' activities, the leader's global behaviors have a direct impact, and
an indirect impact (through team trust on team identity.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that team identity was positively related to team effectiveness in
MCTs. The findings of both Study 1 and Study 2 supported the importance of team identity
on team effectiveness; as such, they offer a wide external validity to this phenomenon. This
relationship has already been discussed in Study 1.
Hypothesis 4 predicated that there would be a positive conditional indirect effect of global
leadership behaviors on team effectiveness through team trust and then team identity, in
different levels of followers' openness to cultural diversity. Two interesting patterns were
replicated from study 1: first, there was a positive indirect effect of global leadership
behaviors on team effectiveness through intervening variables (team trust and then team
identity). Second, this indirect effect was moderated by followers' openness to cultural
diversity.
IV) General Discussion
A. Theoretical Implications
The global context of the MCT is both complex and challenging. To create an effective MCT,
members from different national cultures must develop a sense of team identity (Earley &
Mosakowski, 2000). Only a few empirical studies provided some knowledge regarding the
factors that influence team identity and team effectiveness in MCTs. Most of these studies
didn’t consider the role of leadership in MCTs (see Joshi et al, 2009; Kearney & Gebert, 2009,
as exceptions) nor did they consider the role of the followers.
Therefore, the main purpose of the present research was to develop a theoretical model of the
relationship between the global characteristics of leadership, the followers' characteristics,
and their effects on building MCT trust, MCT identity and MCT effectiveness. We propose
that team identity in MCTs develops when team members bridge over their diverse cultural
differences to build their collective identity as a team, based on shared global values and
44
behaviors (Adler, 1983; Shokef & Erez, 2006). Our research is the first to theorize and
empirically test the effect of global leadership behaviors on building team trust and team
identity and their consequent team effectiveness in MCTs. Our research is also the first to
theorize and test the leader-followers’ interaction effects on MCT processes and outcomes.
Our results considerably support our research model, which proposes that globally driven
factors, including global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to diversity, influence
MCT processes and outcomes.
1. Global Leadership Behaviors
In both of our research studies, we found that global leadership behaviors were positively
related to team identity in MCTs. These findings generalize the self-concept based theories of
leadership in the global context (Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Accordingly, global
leaders' behaviors enhance the salience of collectiveness in followers' self, over and above
their cultural borders. Followers experienced a higher level of team trust and team identity
when their global leaders demonstrated a high level of global behaviors, emphasizing the
acceptance of each other's cultural diversity, relying on each other and developing a unified
global identity.
Additionally, our suggested global leadership behaviors supported the behavioral aspect of
charismatic/transformational leadership theories (e.g. Bass, 1985, Conger & Kanungo, 1987;
1998), in a global context, as we relied on inspirational leadership behaviors rather than
leaders' traits, to explain MCT outcomes. However, unlike these theories, which suggested a
general set of principles, we identified leadership behaviors that are most relevant to inspire
global employees in culturally diverse contexts, taking into consideration the fact that
diversity has a strong impact on members' perceptions and behaviors (Van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007). These behaviors consist of collective global identity, openness to diversity
and interdependence, adapting leadership behaviors to the culturally diverse context, and thus
highlight the need for fit between specific leadership behaviors and specific dimensions of
diversity, which has been recently emphasized by others (Klein et al., 2011). Our results
supported these arguments, showing that in the MCT context, global leadership behaviors
significantly contributed to MCT processes, exceeding the impact of TL behaviors. Hence, in
the global context of MCTs, global leadership behaviors offer an added value over and above
the more generic measure of transformational leadership.
Although it was not tested in our research, this argument might be appropriate in other
contexts which involve other types of diversity (Klein et al., 2011; Somech, 2006).
2. Followers' Openness to Cultural Diversity
45
One objective of our research was to examine the moderation effect of MCT followers'
openness to cultural diversity on the relationship between leader behaviors and MCT
processes and outcomes. In both of our research studies, followers' openness to cultural
diversity moderated this relationship. These results generalized to the global work context
findings from previous studies which examined the effect of leaders-followers interaction as a
predictor of effectiveness (e..g Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). Moreover, while
most of these studies focused on leaders-followers relations as a predictor of leadership
effectiveness, our research examined leaders-followers interaction effect as a predictor of
MCT processes and outcomes.
Additionally, since a high level of openness to cultural diversity of followers was related to
positive processes and outcomes of the MCT in both studies, our results demonstrate the
importance of followership characteristics which fit the team context which members operate
in. Hence, our results support the Person-Team fit approach, which highlights the importance
of compatibility between members and their team (Kristof, 1996),
An interesting finding was the different direction of this interaction effect in study 1 and in
study 2. In temporary, student MCTs, followers' openness to cultural diversity positively
moderated the relation between global leaders' behaviors and team identity, with stronger
effects of global leadership behaviors on team identity when followers' openness to cultural
diversity was high. Yet, in ongoing MCTs in MNOs, when followers' openness to cultural
diversity was high, there was no significant relation between global leadership behaviors and
team trust, and this relation was significantly positive when followers' openness to cultural
diversity was moderate or low. Additionally, in ongoing MCTs there was a conditional
indirect effect through team trust on team identity in the same direction.
These differences can be explained by the different nature and task types of ongoing and
temporary teams, and by the different followers' roles connected to it. In ongoing long term
teams, members are organized around well defined functions, for long maintaining tasks
(Cohen & Bailey, 1997). To achieve these long lasting missions, it is important to develop
clear role definitions, so that individual members can develop expertise in a set of tasks over
time. However, team members must make an independent effort to learn other members' roles
and find how they can work together to achieve team goals. These processes are conducted by
continuous interactions among team members, based on their understanding that they have
long term work relations (Coutu, 1998; Saunders & Ahuja, 2006). When followers have a
high level of openness to cultural diversity, their ability to communicate for this coordination,
despite their diverse background, is higher and their understanding of the contribution of
other team members to team success will lead to a higher level of trust. Hence, in such a
condition, the leaders' impact on the creation of trust is less meaningful than in teams with a
low level of followers' openness to cultural diversity. On the other hand, temporary teams are
46
defined by short-term, well-defined tasks, with a clear deadline and with a high level of
leaders' coordination (Gevers, 2004; Hackman, 1990). In temporary MCTs, followers are
expected to adapt rapidly to the global context in order to accomplish specific missions,
which are closely coordinated by the leader (Saunders & Ahuja, 2006). In this case, a high
level of followers' openness to cultural diversity allows leaders with high, rather than low
global leadership behaviors to influence MCT processes and outcomes in a short time. Yet,
the absence of these global followers' characteristics impedes the leader's efforts. Hence, we
suggest that moderation effect of followers' openness to cultural diversity on the leader – team
relationships is determined not only by the followers' global characteristics, but also by the
nature of their MCT task – whether short or long term.
3. Team Identity
According to the social identity theory, team identification of members is an important
antecedent of team effectiveness, as it is related to the members' willingness to contribute to
team success (Ashford & mael, 1989; Haslam et al., 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In both of
our studies team identity, which reflects a high level of team identification among members
(Shapiro et al., 2002) and is connected to their social identity (Lembke & Wilson, 1998), was
the only factor that positively explained MCT effectiveness in the presence of all other model
variables. Additionally, our research demonstrated that team identity is essential for team
effectiveness both in ongoing and in temporary MCTs. Therefore, it supported – in different
types of MCTs - the argument, that in order to enable effective teamwork, an MCT must
develop team identity to function as an effective team (Earley & Mozakowski, 2000; Eckel &
Grossman, 2005; Mortensen & Hinds, 2001; Shokef & Erez, 2006). These results emphasize
the need of MCT leaders who are interested in effectiveness, to act toward the creation of
strong MCT identity as an initial condition and to preserve this sense of identity during the
MCT activity.
4. Team Trust
In study 2, trust was included as a factor for a research model of MCT effectiveness in
ongoing MCTs. While in short-term MCTs (such as study 1), a "swift trust" allowed members
to conduct their well-defined mission without creating strong personal relations as a base for
trust (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998;1999), - in ongoing MCTs, which rely on long term relations
between team members, trust is an important antecedent for identification with the team and
for the creation of team identity (e.g Kirkman et al., 2002; Spreitzer et al., 1999). Our results
(as discussed in study 2) supported this argument, as trust partially mediated the relations
between global leadership behaviors and team identity, emphasizing that a global leader must
reflect behaviors which contribute to the creation of both team trust and team identity in the
47
MCT. Our suggested behaviors of openness to diverse others, interdependence and a
collective sense of global identity contributed to both.
Additionally, in their conceptual work, Spreitzer et al (2002) highlighted the importance of
leaders' actions to enhance the level of trust in MCTs. However, they noted that the question
referring to the contribution of MCT followers' to this process remained open. The interaction
effect, which demonstrated that a high level of followers' openness to cultural diversity
decreased the strength of the relation between global leadership behaviors and team trust,
suggests an insight regarding MCT followers' roles in ongoing MCTs. When followers'
openness to cultural diversity is high - they are self-motivated toward the creation of team
trust, and the leader's actions regarding trust are less meaningful.
5. The Conditional Indirect Effect of Leaders and Followers on MCT Effectiveness
As part of our hypotheses, we examined the indirect effect of leaders' global behaviors on
MCT effectiveness, through team trust (study 2) and team identity.
Based on previous studies which found only an indirect effect of leadership behaviors on
team and individual outcomes (e.g. Jung & Avolio, 2000; Podsakoff, et al., 1990), our
rationale was that due to the global complexity of the MCT environment, global leadership
behaviors would influence the emergence of team identity in the MCT, and that team identity
would enable team effectiveness. By using the method of bootstrap, which proposes the use
of small samples when testing for mediation (Hayes, 2009; Schneider et al., 2005), we found
support for this argument. Moreover, in both studies, this relationship was conditioned by the
level of followers' openness to cultural diversity.
These results may suggest that in MCTs the leader's ability to lead toward effectiveness is
facilitated by his/her influence on desirable team processes and outcomes. Additionally,
followers' global characteristics, which enable them to adapt to the global context, may have a
long and indirect impact on the success of the leaders' efforts. Therefore, in MCTs, followers'
impact on team processes and outcomes must be considered beyond their direct and visible
influence.
Summary of Theoretical Implications
There is a lack of empirical and theoretical research regarding leadership and followership
roles in MCTs and their contribution to MCT identity and MCT effectiveness (Osland et al.
2009).
Our current research contributed to the understanding of this phenomenon by
introducing the constructs of global leadership behaviors and of followers' openness to
cultural diversity. First, global leadership behaviors were related to leadership effectiveness
through their direct relation on team trust (in study 2) and team identity. As such, our results
indicate that leadership behaviors in MCT should reflect and communicate global work
values to the followers (Erez & Gati, 2004).
48
Second, followership was found to be an important factor, which had a moderated effect on
the influence of the leader on building MCT trust and MCT identity, and a conditional effect
on the indirect relation between global leadership behaviors and MCT effectiveness.
This research examined our model in two studies on two different samples: one of temporary
MCTs, consisting of MBA students, and the other - consisting of ongoing long term MCTs
operating in MNOs. These two studies enabled to generalize our model across two global
work contexts and two types of MCTs.
B. Practical Implications for HR practice
HR departments of MNOs invest a great amount of resources and effort in the selection and
training of expatriates (Tung & Varma, 2008), supported by academic research on the
characteristics of successful expatriates and their motivation and family situation (e.g. Chen
et al., 2010; Kraimer, Wayne & Jaworski, 2001, Takeuchi, Shay & Li, 2008; Takeuchi,
Tesluk, Yun & Lepak, 2005). Furthermore, most global HR programs in MNOs concentrate
on knowledge training and behavior modification training relevant for specific cultures
(Bhawuk 2009; Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). All these programs are guided by a cross-cultural
perspective which emphasizes differences and similarities of values and behaviors among
countries. Despite their important contributions, these programs do not take a global
perspective, which focuses on the global work culture and the unique characteristics of its
workforce, being geographically dispersed and culturally diverse (Shokef & Erez, 2006).
Adaptation to the global work culture and to managing a global work force may require
different characteristics than the ones needed for an expatriate who is going to be located in
one particular culture. As such, the effectiveness of existing programs in selection and
training of leaders and followers in MCTs may be limited. The two studies in this report,
conducted on two different samples, in two different contexts, propose that programs for
selecting and training professionals and managers to work in the global work context should
reflect a "global mindset", rather than a "cross-cultural mindset".
Such global characteristics, as openness to cultural diversity, global identity, cultural
intelligence and global leadership behaviors, reflect the cultural values of the global work
context and enable leaders and followers to adjust to this context. These characteristics could
serve as predictors of the successful adaptation to the global context and as predictors of
leadership success.
In addition to the findings summarized in this report, additional analyses demonstrated that
emerging leaders in MCTs scored significantly higher on the above global characteristics than
their followers (Lisak, Erez & Schipper, 2011).
Based on our research model and empirical findings we propose the following
recommendation for Human Resource Management.
49
Overall, we propose that global HR departments should adopt and implement a global
mindset approach rather than a cross-cultural approach to human resource management. By
global mind-set we mean emphasis on openness to cultural diversity, a global identity, global
team identity, cultural intelligence and for the leader- global leadership behaviors. These
characteristics enable leaders and followers to adjust to the global context and therefore,
could serve as predictors of global leaders' success. Specifically, we propose the following
recommendations to global HR departments for selection, training and development of global
leaders and professionals.
•
Selection programs: In addition to existing test batteries for selection and placement of
global managers and professionals, this research suggest to specifically assess global
characteristics, such as openness to cultural diversity, global identity, cultural intelligence,
global leadership behaviors (for managers) and demographics reflecting a multi-cultural
experience (e.g. living in more than one country, speaking more than one language). In
addition, assessment centers should include role-play in serving as members and managers of
multicultural teams.

Training programs: Training programs for MCT leaders should consist of two important
components:
a.
Theoretical and practical knowledge about global work values and behavioral norms, and
specifically about global leadership behaviors that help followers overcome their cultural
barriers and work together as one unified team.
b. Training simulations, which offer opportunities for potential global managers to practice
their global leadership behaviors in simulated virtual multicultural teams, where they get 360degree feedback from the followers, peers, trainers and experienced global managers that
enable them to take corrective actions and adjust their behaviors accordingly.

a.
Global Leadership career development programs: We recommend two such programs.
Exposure to the global work context. Our findings showed that exposure to the global
work context with its structural complexity and cultural diversity, positively influences the
development of a global mindset and of the global characteristics and leadership
characteristics necessary to adjust and successfully function in the global work context.
Potential global leaders and professionals should get involved in global activity, visit other
sites and join virtual multi-cultural teams to gain a global experience.
b.
Mentoring programs. Assign experienced mentors to newly appointed global leaders
who share their experience, and offer, guidance advice, feedback and help them in coping
with new global challenges.
50
C. Limitations and Future Research
Our research has some limitations. Although the data was collected from two different
samples, the total number of MCTs in each sample was not large enough to allow for testing
the theoretical model by using Structural Equation Models (e.g. Kline, 2005)). A larger
sample may support our results using additional analysis methods, with higher level of
statistical power.
Second, the different directions of the interaction effects in study 1 and in study 2, raise
additional questions which should be examined in future research. In our discussion we
suggested that the moderation effect of followers' openness to cultural diversity on the leader
– team relationships is determined not only by the followers' global characteristics, but also
by the nature of their MCT task – whether short or long term. This argument can be related to
the notion of "Substitute for leadership". Kerr and Jermier (1978) suggested that when task
demands are well known, this task-related knowledge, whatever its source, can be regarded as
"a substitute for leadership." They have further suggested that when substitutes for leadership
were salient, the causal link between leader behavior and subordinate performance would be
weak. Essentially, subordinate performance would be primarily influenced by the substitutes
for leadership rather than by any direct action or behavior on the part of the leader (see also
Mans & Sims, 1980). Followers' characteristics of experience level, knowledge level and
training can serve as substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1976). Hence, in long term
MCTs, the level of followers' international experience, international knowledge and
international training may serve as substitutes for leadership. In such a case, the link between
global leadership behaviors and MCT processes and outcomes will be reduced. In the present
study, the teams in Study 2 already existed and the data was collected in a single time, after
the MCTs had already been operating for long periods. To validate the substitutes for
leadership explanation future research should examine this phenomenon longitudinally,
looking for the differences in the leadership effect across different phases of the team life
cycle - at the beginning, similar to the case of Study1, and in an advanced phase of the team
life cycle, as in Study 2. Second, in both studies we measured global leadership behaviors,
team identity and team effectiveness at the same time, and therefore this limits the empirical
support of the causal relationships, whether from the leadership and team processes to team
outcomes or from positive team outcomes back to team processes and to leadership behaviors.
A longitudinal study will allow hypothesizing in these directions by assessing the model
variables at different time periods.
Another interesting question that could clearly be answered by a longitudinal study is the
developmental relations between global leadership behaviors and followers openness to
cultural diversity. In our research we referred to followers' openness to cultural diversity as a
stable global characteristic. However, the high and positive significant correlation between
51
global leadership behaviors and followers' openness to cultural diversity (r=.47, p<.001) in
study 2, may suggest that global leaders' behaviors have a continuous positive impact on the
development of followers' openness' to cultural diversity. In Study 1, we assessed team
members' openness to cultural diversity before they even elected their leaders. Therefore, no
effect of global leadership behaviors on followers' openness to cultural diversity can be
assumed. On the other hand, followers' openness to cultural diversity at the end of the project
may be influenced by the leaders' global characteristics. Only a longitudinal study can allow
to test for the effect of global leadership behaviors on the development of followers' openness
to cultural diversity.
References
Adkins, C. L., Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1996). Value congruence between co-workers and its relationship
to work outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 21(4), 439.
Adler,N.J. (1983). A typology of Management Studies Involving Culture. Journal of International Business
Studies, 14 (2), 29-47.
Adler, N. J., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing globally competent people. The The Academy of Management
Executive, 6(3), 52-65.
Adler, N. J., Miller, E. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2001). Conclusion: Future issues in global leadership
development. Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Innovations, 255–271.
Adler, N., & Boyacigiller, N. (1996). Global management and the 21st century. Handbook for International
Management Research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, , 537–58.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence.
Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (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.
Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B., & Elbaz, D. (1998). The management of multicultural group conflict. Team
Performance Management, 4(5), 211-234.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael. F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14,
20–39.
Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small
Group Research, 34(5), 575.
Axelrod, Robert (1984): The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. A. (2007). 9/11 and new york city firefighters' post hoc unit support and control
climates: A context theory of the consequences of involvement in traumatic work-related events. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(4), 849.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Vashdi, D. (2005). Diversity and homophily at work: Supportive relations
among white and african-american peers. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 619.
Baker, S. D., & Gerlowski, D. A. (2007). Team effectiveness and leader-follower agreement: An empirical study.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 12(1), 15–23.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
461-461.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the
top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107-124.
Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The moderating role of top
management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(3), 544.
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart's content: A model of
affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802-836.
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 762765.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1992). What is a global manager? Harvard Business
Review, 70(5), 101-108.
Bartlett, C.A. & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management: Beyond
52
strategy and purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 79-88.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Harper.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management applications
(3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130−139.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and
moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
11, 142-163.
Beechler, S., & Javidan, M. (2007). Leading with a global mindset. In M. Javidan, R.M. Steers and M.A. Hitt (eds).
Advances in International Management: The Global Mindset,(19)(pp.131-169). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, ,.
Berson, Y., Erez, M., & Adler, S. (2004). Reflections of organizational identity and
national culture on managerial roles in a multinational corporation. Academy of
Management Best Paper Proceedings.
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 In R.S. Bhaght and R.M. Steers (Eds). (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of culture organizations
and work (pp. 462-488) Cambridge: University press.
Bird, A., & and Osland , J. S. 2004 . “Global competencies:an introduction”, in H.Lane , M. Maznevski , M.
Mendenhall , and J. Mcnett (eds.), The Handbook of Global Management (pp. 57–80). Oxford :Blackwell.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with
membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,4(2-3), 153-178.
Boyacigiller, N. & Adler, N.J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science
in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262-290.
Brake, T. (1997). The global leader: Critical factors for creating the world class organization. Chicago: Irwin
Professional Publishing.
Brett, J; Behfar, K.,& Kern, M. (2006). Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams. In B. Mannix, Neale, M.,
and Chen, Ya-Ru (Eds.). National culturand groups. Research on Managing Groups and Teams,9, 233-262.
Brewer, M., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? levels of identity and self representations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Brickson , S. (2000). The Impact of Identity Orientation on Individual and Organizational Outcomes in
Demographically Diverse Settings. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82-101.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., et al. (2000). Cultural variation of
leadership prototypes across 22 european countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
73(1), 1-29.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research The Guilford Press.
Brown, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A.
Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and
effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 429-452.
Cascio, W.F. & Shurygalio, S.(2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 362-376.
Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the
motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481-498.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and
consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The
influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 749-752.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 273-287.
Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Chi, S. C. (2002). Making justice sense of local-expatriate compensation disparity:
Mitigation by local referents, ideological explanations, and interpersonal sensitivity in china-foreign joint
ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 807-817.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., Farh, C. I. C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When does cross-cultural motivation
enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the moderating roles of subsidiary support
and cultural distance. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1110-1130.
Chiles, T. H., & McMackin, J. F. (1996). Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost
economics. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 73-99.
Cochavi, I. (2006). The development of Global identity. Unpublished thesis, Technion,
Haifa, Isarel.
53
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor
to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239.
Collins, J. (2001). Level five leadership. Harvard Business Review , 68–74.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations Sage Publications, Inc.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multicultural distributed teams. Small Group
Research, 38(3), 387.
Coutu, D. L. (1998). Trust in virtual teams. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 20-21.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1998). Collective identity and cooperation in a public goods dilemma: A matter
of trust or self-efficacy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 3(1), 1-11.
De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing work teams? the mediating
role of reflexivity, monitoring and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity
construction in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: The
effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5),
1242-1253.
Dickson M.W., Den-Hartog, D.N. & Castano, N. (2009). Understanding leadership across culturs. In R.S. Bhaght
and R.M. Steers (Eds). Cambridge Handbook of Culture Organizations and Work (pp.219-244). Cambridge:
University press.
Dickson, M.W., Den-Hartog, D.N. and Mitchelson, J.K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context:
Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729-768.
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E. & Spangler, W.D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team
performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17 (2), 177-193.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 445-455.
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(6), 1004-1012.
Distefano J.J. & Maznewski, M.L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management.
Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell Shozo, J. P. (1997). Leadership in western and asian countries: Commonalities and
differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274.
Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams. Small Group
Research, 31(3), 328.
Dvir, T. & Shamir,B.(2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A
longitudinal study. The Leadership Querterly,14, 327-344.
Earley, P. C., & Gardner, H. K. (2005). Internal dynamics and cultural intelligence in multinational teams. JLC
Cheng and MA Hitt (Series Eds) and DL Shapiro, M.Von Glinow and JLC Cheng (Vol.Eds), Managing
Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives, Oxford: Elsevier, , 3–31.
Earley, P.C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
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.
Eckel, C.C. & Groosman, J.G. (2005). Managing diversity by creating team identity. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization. 58 (3), 371-392.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers' preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence
of follower values and personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 153-179.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity
perspective on leadership and group performance. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 459-478.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group
processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
Erez, M. (2010). Cross cultural and global issues in organizational psychology. in
Zedeck, S. (Editor). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Washington DC: The American Psychological Association.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro-level of the individual to the
macro-level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 583–598.
Erez, M., & Shokef, E. (2008). The culture of global organizations. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management
Research"; Sage Publications,
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the
contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19-32.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment
instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
54
Fridman T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the globalization world in the twenty first centary. NY: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Friedlander, F. (1970). The primacy of trust as a facilitator of further group accomplishment. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 6, 387-400.
Fujimoto Y., Hartel C.E.J. & G.F. Hartel ( 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., and Aycan, Z. 2007). Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior, Annual Review of
Psychology, 58,479-514.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192.
Gevers, J. M. P. (2004). It’s about time we align: Meeting deadlines in project teams. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven,
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual collaboration
effectiveness. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
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.
Gibson, C. B., & Grubb, A. R. (2005). Turning the tide in multinational teams. Managing Multinational Teams:
Global Perspectives (Advances in International Management, Volume 18), Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, 18, 69-95.
Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. A. (2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual
teams. In C.B Gibson and S.G. Cohen (eds). Virtual Teams that Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team
Effectiveness. (pp. 59-86).San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint,.
Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A.K. (2001). The quest for global dominance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Graen, G.B. (2006). In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lesson in Leadership from Project GLOBE: A
Response Viewed from the Third Culture Bonding (TCB) Model of Cross-Cultural Leadership. The Academy
of Management Perspectives, 20(4), 95-101.
Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations:A developmental
approach, In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp.143-166). Kent, OH: Kent State
University Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermemberexchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. Leadership
Quarterly,6, 219–247.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Work teams in organization: An orienting framework. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that
work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork (pp. 1-14). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Halevy, N. & Sagiv, L.(2008). Teams within and across cultures. in Smith, P., Peterson, M., & Thomas, D. (Eds.)
“Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research” (pp 253-268); Sage publications..
Härtel, 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.
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.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research.
Human Resource Management Review, 15 (1), 69-95.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social identity, Self-categorization, and work motivation:
Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied
Psychology, 49(3), 319-339.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.
Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
Henry, G.B. (1986). Diversity awareness inventory. Virginia: Hampton University mainstreaming outreach project.
Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In C.B.
Gibson and S.G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work (pp. 21-36). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley
Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). The role of team identification in the dissimilarity-conflict relationship.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 483.
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement. Group &
Organization Management, 29(5), 560.
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.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: National differences in thinking and organizing. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage,
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across
nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hollander, E. P. 1992. Leadership, followership, self, and others. Leadership Quarterly, 3: 43–54.
55
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008).
Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and
performance of diverse work groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222.
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.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J.A.
Conger and R.N. Kanungo (eds). Charismatic Leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness.
(pp.213-236). San-Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? The
Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43-54.
Howell, J.M. & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationship and
their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1),96-112.
Hoyle, R.H. (1995). The structural equitation modeling approach: Basic concepts and
fundamental issues. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications
(pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. (2010). Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. The
Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 6-26.
Iles, P., & Hayers, P. K. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model and case
study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95-117.
Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences
in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2),
219-229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98.
Janssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual differentiation as complementary
drivers of team members' citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(1), 69.
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.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science,
10(6), 791-815.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R. & Staples, D.S.(2004). Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in
global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250-267.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 29(3), 199-216.
Joshi, A., Labianca, G., & Caligiuri, P. M. (2002). Getting along long distance: Understanding conflict in a
multinational team through network analysis* 1. Journal of World Business, 37(4), 277-284.
Joshi, A.& Lazarova., M. B (2005). Do “global” teams need “global” leaders?: Identifying leadership competencies in
multinational teams. D. L. Shapiro, M. A. Von Glinow, J. Cheng, eds. Managing Multinational Teams: Cultural,
Organizational, and National Influences.(pp 281-302). Elsevier Press, Oxford, UK.
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.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects
of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. 2002. The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective
selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and
charismatic leadership: The road ahead, vol. 2: 67–91. Amsterdam: JA1 Press
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in
leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500.
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.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. Handbook of Social
Psychology 4(1) , 233-265.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403.
Kets de Vries, M. & Mead, C. (1992). The development of the global leader within the multinational corportation.
In Puclik, V., Tichy, N.M. and Barnett, C.K. (eds). Globalizing Management. Creating and leading the
competitive organization: John Wiley & Sons: New York:NY.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management Review,
6(3), 499-508.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation
and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. The Academy of
Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764.
56
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual
team success: Lessons from Sabre, inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67-79.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in
the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the united states and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811-824.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. 1995. On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
6,183–198.
Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’ values differ:
The moderating role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 2536.
Klimoski, R. J., & Karol, B. L. (1976). The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 630-633.
Kline, R.B.(2005). Structural Equation Modeling. The Gilford press: New-York.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. E. N. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The
mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 71-99.
Kramer, R. M. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Origins and consequences of collective paranoia. Motivation
and Emotion, 18, 199−230.
Kramer, R. M. (2001). Organizational paranoia origins and dynamics. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23,
1−42.
Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-Organization Fit: An integrative of review of its conceptualization, measurement and
implication. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1−49.
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(2), 281-342.
Lane , H. W. , Maznevski , M. L. , and Mendenhall ,M. E. ( 2004 ) “Hercules Meets Buddha”, in H. W. Lane , M.
Maznevski , M. E. Mendenhall ,and J. McNett (eds.), The Handbook of Global Management: A Guide to
Managing Complexity. Oxford : Blackwell , pp. 3–25.
Le-Nobel, E.J.M. (2010). From virtual teams to team virtuality: The impact of relative team virtuality on
interpersonal team processes and team effectiveness. Unpublished thesis, Erasmus University, The
Netherlands.
Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. G. (1998). Putting the" team" into teamwork: Alternative theoretical contributions for
contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51(7), 927.
Levy, O., Taylor, S., Boyacigiller, N. A., & Beechler, S. (2007). Global mindset: A review and proposed
extensions. In M. Javidan, R.M. Steers and M.A. Hitt (eds). Advances in International Management: The
Global Mindset,(19). (11–48). Emerald Group Publishing Limited,.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource
examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 1006-1019.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A crosslevel multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242-256.
Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2009). Leaders and followers in multi-cultural teams: Their effects on team communication,
team identity and team effectiveness. Proceeding of the 2009 International Workshop on Intercultural
Collaboration, 81-88.
Lloyd, S., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2003). The intercultural competencies required for inclusive and effective culturally
diverse work teams. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 3, 1-7.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly,
12(2), 133-152.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of
follower self-concepts in the LeaderFollower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 78(3), 167-203.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance.
Boston (Mass.) UA
Mach, M., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S. (2010). The differential effect of team members' trust on team performance:
The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771794.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution
of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
Malhorta, A., Majchrzak, A. & Rosen, B.(2007). Leading Virtual Teams. Academy of Management Perspective
(Feb), 60-70.
Maloney, M.M. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2006). Building Bridges, Windows and culture: Mediating Mechanisms
between team heterogeneity and performance in global teams. Management International Review, 46 (6),
697-720.
57
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585-600.
Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory
perspective. Academy of Management Review, , 361-367.
Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of selfmanaging work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106-129.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 38(1), 299-337.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of
selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-568.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The
effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,103(3), 391-410.
Marsh, H.W., & Hau, K.T. (1996). Assessing goodness-of-fit: Is parsimony always
desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364-390.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L.L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from
here? Journal of Management, 30 (6), pp: 805-835.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding global cultures: Metaphorical journeys through 17 countries. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25(3)
Maznevski, M.L. & Distefano, J.J. (2000). Global leaders are team players: Developing global leaders through
membership in global teams. Human Resource Management, 39 (2), 195-208.
Meindl, J. R. 1990. On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Research in Organizational
Behavior,12, 159–203.
Meindl, J. R. 1995. The romance of leadership as a followercentric theory: A social constructionist approach.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329–341.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational
relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Kramer, R.M and T.R.
Tyler (eds). Trust in Organizations: Frontieres of Theory and Research. (pp. 166-195): Thousand Oaks: Sage
publications.
Morrison, A.J. (2000). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management, 39 (2-3), 117-132.
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 212–238.
O'Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Global work: Bridging distance, culture, and time. Jossey-Bass
Publishers: San Francisco.
Osland, J. (2008). An overview of the global leadership literature. In M. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G.
Oddou, and M. Maznevski, Global Leadership: Research, Practice and Development,( pp. 34-63). London:
Routledge.
Osland , J. and Bird , A. (2006) . “Global leaders as experts”, in W. Mobley , and E. Weldon (eds.), Advances in
Global Leadership , vol 4. (pp. 123–42). Stamford, CT : JAI Press.
Osland, J., Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Global leadership: Progress and challenges. In R. Baghat and R.
Steers (Eds.) Handbook of Culture, Organization and Work. (Pp 245-271). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Panteli, N., & Duncan, E. (2004). Trust and temporary virtual teams: Alternative explanations and dramaturgical
relationships. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 423-441.
Pastor, J. C., Mayo, M., & Shamir, B. (2007). Adding fuel to fire: The impact of followers' arousal on ratings of
charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1584-1596.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25(6), 897.
Podsakoff , P.M., Scott, B., & Philip, M. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers'
trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
879.
Polzer, J. T. (2004). How subgroup interests and reputations moderate the effect of organizational identification on
cooperation. Journal of Management, 30(1), 71.
Polzer, J.T.; Crisp, C.B.; Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Kim, J.W.(2006).Extending the faultline model to geographically
dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal,49(4), 679- 692.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717.
Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. (2003). A primer on interaction effects in multiple linear regression. Retrieved
November, 10.
58
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory,
methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1), 51-67.
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.
Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). It could be worse: A study on the alleviating roles of trust and
connectedness in intragroup conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(4), 325-344.
Roberge , M.E. & Van Dick , R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how does diversity
increase group performance?. Human Resource Management Review, 20 , 295–308.
Rosen, R. & Ding, P. (2000). Global Literacies: Lessons on business, leadership and national culture. Simon&
Shoster, New-York: NY.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline
view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
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.
Schneider, B., Mayer, D. M., Ehrhart, M. G., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding organizationcustomer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1017.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service
quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests
in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48(1),
23-47.
Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. (2007). In the eyes of the beholder: Personality and the perception of Leadership1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2345-2363.
Scott, S.G.(1997). Social identification effects in product and process development teams. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 14, 97-127.
Shaffer MA, Harrison DA, & Gilley KM. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and differences in the expatriate
adjustment process. Journal of International Business Studies, 30.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military
units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units:
Direct and indirect Relationships1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 612-640.
Shapiro, L.S., Furst, S.A., Spreitzer, G.M. & Glinow, M.A.V. (2002). Transnational teams in the electronic age:
Are team identity and high performance at risk?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 455-467.
Shokef, E. (2006). Global work cultural: Developing a new measure of organizational culture of multinational
organizations. PhD dissertation, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology.
Shokef, E. & Erez, M. (2006). Global Work Culture and Global Identity, as a Platform for a Shared Understanding in
Multicultural Teams. In: B. Mannix, Neale, M., and
Chen, Ya-Ru (Eds.), National culture and groups: Research on Managing Groups
and Teams. 9, pp. 325-352. Elsevier JAI Press: San Diego, CA.
Shokef, E. and Erez, M. (2008). Cultural Intelligence and Global Identity in Multicultural Teams, pp. 177-191. In:
Soon, Ang and Linn Vandyne (Eds). Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. Theory, Measurement and Applications,
Armonk:M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and
recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422445.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull, 86(2),
420-428.
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.
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in
functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The
effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., & Cooke, W. N. (1999). Predicting
process improvement team performance in an automotive firm: Explicating the roles of trust and
empowerment. In: Mannix, Neale & Wageman (Eds), Research on Managing Groups andTeams (Vol. 2, pp.
71–92).
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: An examination of the effectiveness of
transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 205227.
59
Spreitzer, G. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2002). Helping transnational team members to sense trust:
A counterintuitive approach to leadership. Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership, ( 4),
(pp.203–233). Elsevier Science Ltd.
Stanko, T.L. and Gibson, C.B.(2009). The role of cultural elements in virtual teams. In R.S. Bhaght and R.M.
Steers (Eds). Cambridge Handbook of Culture
Organizations and Work (pp. 273-304). Cambridge: University press.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of
intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-148.
Suutari, V. (2002). Global leader development: An emerging research agenda. Carrier development international,
7(4), 218-233.
Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective-efficacy and team
performance. Human Performance, 16(2), 131-156.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of group relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: BrooksCole.
Takeuchi, R., Shay, J. P., & Li, J. (2008). When does decision autonomy increase expatriate managers' adjustment?
an empirical test. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 45-60.
Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S., & Lepak, D. (2005). An integrative view of international experience.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 85-100.
Tjosvold, D., Poon, M., & Yu, Z. (2005). Team effectiveness in china: Cooperative conflict for relationship
building. Human Relations, 58(3), 341.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational
attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549-579.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future
directions. London: Lexington Books.
Tung, R.L. and Varma, A.(2008). in Smith, P., Peterson, M., & Thomas, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural
Management Research (pp 367-278). Sage publications.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and
intergroup relations (pp. 15−40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vallaster, C. (2005). Cultural diversity and its impact on social interactive processes. International Journal of
Cross-Cultural Management, 5 (2), 139-163.
Van Der Vegt, G.S. & Bunderson, J.S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The
importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 532-547.
Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome
interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23(2), 124.
Van Der Vegt, G.S., Van De Vliert, E. & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational
citinzeship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 46 (6), 715-727.
Van Der Zee, K., Atsma, N., & Brodbeck, F. (2004). The influence of social identity and personality on outcomes
of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 283.
Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and
organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265-283.
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 Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. The Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
515-541.
Van –Knippenberg , D., Van -Knippenberg, B, De Cremer, D. &. Hogg, M.A. (2004). Leadership, self and identity:
A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.
Van Vianen, A. E. M., De Pater, I. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Johnson, E. C. (2004). Fitting in: Surface-and
deep-level cultural differences and expatriates adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 697–709.
Vodosek, M.(2007). Intergroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes.
International Journal of conflict management, 18(4), 345-375.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1)
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.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of
research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computermediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16-33.
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? the impact
of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. The Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 358372.
60
Wit, A. P., & Kerr, N. L. (2002). " Me versus just us versus us all" categorization and cooperation in nested social
dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 616-637.
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. The Academy
of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. New york: Pearson prentice hall.
Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of leadership and follower
self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 374-388.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Measurement Development- Global Leadership Behaviors Scale (GLBS)
Interviews with MCT leaders and followers
Semi-structured interviews were conducted, both with MCT leaders (5 interviews) and with
MCT members (2 interviews), all of whom worked in MNOs. All interviewers volunteered
for these sessions.
Open-ended interviews were designed to learn about the interviewees' perceptions of
important factors in MCT effectiveness. Conclusions from these interviews served for the
item generating process.
Item generation
Based on insights from these preliminary interviews and on the existing typologies of global
work values (e.g. Shokef & Erez, 2006), a list of 20 items, written in English, was generated
to reflect the three subscales of global leadership behaviors: Collective Global Identity (CGI),
Openness to Diversity (OTD) and Interdependence (IND). A few of the items reflecting the
above three scales of global leadership behaviors relied upon existing questionnaires (MLQ
5X-Short of Bass and Avolio (1995) - for several items of GCI and OTD; Van der Vegt,
Emans and Van de Vliert, 2001- for items of IND). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert
type scales by the followers who evaluated their team leaders.
First pilot sample
Sampling of participants was based on a “Snow Ball” method – volunteers were contacted
through personal connections and were encouraged to recruit their acquaintances to join in, by
filling out a web-based questionnaire.
31 MCT members from 15 nationalities completed their web-bases questionnaires.
89
percent of them worked in Hi-Tech MNOs and 83 percent had MCT tenure of more than three
months. The average age was 36 years (SD=10.18) and 69 percent of the participants were
men. 39 percent were Israelis, 32 percent were Europeans, 16 percent Asians and 13 percent
Americans. For preliminary item analysis, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), using
61
principal components analysis extraction method with promax rotation, was conducted.
Following the analysis results, we omitted eight items, leaving the four items with maximum
load on each of the three factors representing our global leadership behaviors subscales.
Alpha Cronbach reliability was 0.83 for CGI items, 0.90 for OTD items and 0.90 for IND
items. The Alpha Cronbach reliability of the 12-item-scale was 0.93.
Validation study- MCT project
The 12-item GLBS was validated on an academic multi-cultural team project of MBA and
graduate students. This project used an identical procedure to that of study 1, with one
exception: the study lasted 21 days (7 days for the "getting to know each other" phase and 14
days for the assignment phase).
The sample included 329 participants working in 84 virtual MCTs of 3-4 members each.
Participants were from 10 universities in 8 countries (U.S.A [3], Israel, U.K. Hong-Kong,
Spain, Italy, Germany and Switzerland) representing 34 nationalities. The average age was
26.23 years (SD=4.93). 54 percent were men.
In the end of the study all 245 MCT followers filled out the web based GLBQ concerning
their MCT leader.
In this sample, an EFA, using the common factor analysis method with promax rotation,
revealed support for the three-factor model (See Table 1). Alpha Cronbach reliability scales
were 0.92 for CGI, 0.77 for OTD 0.84 for IND and 0.89 for the complete scale.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) served to validate the three-factor structure of
GLBS, using Mplus Version 6 (Muthe´n& Muthe´n, 2010).
The CFA analysis yielded an acceptable fit level (The three- factor model: χ2[51]= 131.09,
p<.001; RMSEA=.08; TLI= .92; CFI= .94), significantly better than the one-factor Model
(χ2[54] =506.38, p<.001; RMSEA=.19; TLI=.57; CFI= .65), as indicated by the significant
large chi-square difference (three-factors vs. one-factor Δχ2[3]= 371.28, p<.001). These
results support the suggested three-subscale model of CGI, OTD and IND.
Table 1: Validation Sample- EFA
F1 (CGI)
Emphasizes the need to strengthen the global values shared by all team
members.
0.89
Talks about the global values of our team.
0.88
Articulates a compelling global vision.
0.84
Emphasizes the importance of having a global collective sense of
mission.
62
0.78
F2 (OTD)
F3 (IND)
F1 (CGI)
F2 (OTD)
Treats each team member with respect, taking his/her cultural
background into consideration.
F3 (IND)
0.71
Serves as an example of proper behavior towards employees from
different nationalities.
0.70
Treats team members as individuals and not as members of a nationality.
0.61
Enjoys working with team members from different cultural backgrounds.
0.60
Emphasizes that team members should work closely to do their work
properly.
0.85
Emphasizes that team members should depend on each other in order to
achieve the common team goals.
0.76
Inspires team members to think together about solutions to team tasks.
0.44
Encourages us to obtain information and advice from other team
members in order to complete our work.
0.38
Proportion of explained common variance (%) (Total= 106.47)
76.87
21.92
7.67
N=245 . Common factor analysis with promax rotation. KMA=0.88.
Loading of .35 and above appear in the list.
CGI- Collective sense of global identity, OTD- Openness to diversity, IND- Interdependence.
Apendix 2: Global Leadership Behavior Scale (GLBS)
This questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your formal team leader during the
project. Please answer all items and judge how frequently each statement fits the leader's
behavior during the project. Please note: your answers are anonymous (Study 1)
Please indicate how frequently each of the following statements describes your multi-cultural
team leader's behavior. Please note: your answers are anonymous.
(Study 2)
My team leader...
1 Talks about the global values of
our team.
2 Emphasizes the need to strengthen
the global values shared by all
team members.
3 Articulates a compelling global
vision.
4 Emphasizes the importance of
having a global collective sense of
mission.
5 Enjoys working with team
members from different cultural
backgrounds.
6 Treats team members as
Not at
all
Sometimes
Fairly
Often
Frequently ,if
not always
1
Once
in a
while
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
63
7
8
9
10
11
12
individuals and not as members of
a nationality.
Serves as an example of proper
behavior towards employees from
different nationalities.
Treats each team member with
respect, taking his/her cultural
background into consideration
Emphasizes that team members
should depend on each other in
order to achieve the common team
goals.
Emphasizes that team members
should work closely to do their
work properly
Inspires team members to think
together about solutions to team
tasks.
Encourages us to obtain
information and advice from other
team members in order to
complete our work.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
64