Why cultural intelligence matters on global project teams

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954 – 967 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Why cultural intelligence matters on global project teams Linda S. Henderson a,⁎, Richard W. Stackman a , Rikke Lindekilde b a

School of Management, University of San Francisco 2130, Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States b Lindekilde & Partners, Vestergade 49B, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark Received 22 January 2018; received in revised form 21 April 2018; accepted 4 June 2018 Available online xxxx

Abstract Research has established the relevance of cultural intelligence (CQ) for adapting to different cultural contexts and for directly affecting both performance and satisfaction. However, the boundary conditions of CQ have received less attention, in particular regarding global project teams (GPT). The purpose of this paper is to examine how CQ moderates a model of three indirect effects – role clarity, communication norms, and interpersonal trust – on GPT members' performance and satisfaction. Data were collected from 218 virtual GPT members working in a multinational company that recently transitioned to global project teams for R&D. The results of a moderated-mediation analysis reveal that CQmotivation– one's attention and energy toward cross-cultural encounters – significantly moderates GPT members' alignment of their communication norms and role clarity, thus indirectly impacting their project satisfaction and performance. We discuss how CQ-motivation can be influential in forming GPTs and in future research of the processual nature of its boundary conditions. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Cultural intelligence; Global project teams; Satisfaction; Performance; Communication norms; Role clarity; Interpersonal trust

1. Introduction Global projects and teams that cut across different cultures have become a preferred organizational form for multi-national companies and organizations to succeed in today's global economy (Neeley, 2015). At the same time, the cultural component of global work, especially concerning teams, has been understudied in the management (Connaughton and Shuffler, 2007; Cramton and Hinds, 2014; Gibson et al., 2014; Hinds et al., 2011) and project management literatures. This imbalance is especially noteworthy given that “projects are entering an era of increased internationalization” (Konanahalli et al., 2014, p. 423) in which one of the key challenges to the success of global projects and teams concerns the cultural differences that exist among members (Lee-Kelley and Sankey, 2008). ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], (L.S. Henderson), [email protected], (R.W. Stackman), [email protected]. (R. Lindekilde).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.06.001 0263-7863/00 © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Since 2003, a significant and substantial body of multidisciplinary research in cultural intelligence (CQ) has emerged to advance our understanding of “how to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural differences” (Van Dyne et al., 2017, p. 1) and how to recognize the learning capability inherent in this form of intelligence (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008; Earley and Ang, 2003; Ng et al., 2009). This literature, in which CQ refers to “a person's capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (Earley and Ang, 2003, p. 59), has the potential to shed much light upon the challenges inherent in working cohesively across cultures and nationalities on global project teams. Studies in project management have considered the challenges of cross-cultural work (e.g., Fellows and Liu, 2016; Messner, 2015), yet few have examined cultural intelligence in particular (exceptions include Gregory et al., 2009; Konanahalli et al., 2014; and Yitmen, 2013). As Gregory et al. (2009) observed, “The interplay of project management and individual-level cultural intelligence is under-researched and could be given closer attention in future studies in this area”

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

(p. 238). In their model of cultural adaptability in global product development teams, Cramton and Hinds (2014), similarly call for more research of “the personal capacities that contribute to success” in global team work (p. 1076). CQ appears to represent a timely, critical and relevant construct for creating insight about the impact of team members' capabilities on global projects. The essential components of the CQ construct include individuals' cognitions or knowledge about other cultures, motivation to interact within other cultures, and communication behavior that adapts to different cultures (Earley and Ang, 2003). Research results have demonstrated the significance of these CQ components not only as intelligences, but also as determinants of satisfaction and performance (Bücker et al., 2015; Barakat et al., 2015; Oolders et al., 2008; Rockstuhl et al., 2015), which are critical outcomes for project team work. However, Elenkov and Manev (2009) point to the importance of studying CQ in “broader and more complex cognitive, motivational and behavioral frames” (p. 360). Groves and Feyerherm (2011) assert that such “frames” are a necessary boundary condition for future studies of CQ and suggest that future research “test more complex models that move beyond direct effects” (p. 540). Indeed, Schlägel and Sarstedt (2016) call for research of CQ that not only goes “beyond the analysis of direct effects,” but also “draws on intentional theoretical frameworks” (p. 642). When applied to the performance outcomes of global project teams (GPTs) and their members, these arguments strongly support examining CQ within a complex model of important indirect effects. Adequately accounting for the effects of cultural diversity requires “taking potential moderating variables into account” (Gibson et al., 2014, p. 230). Moreover, Schaffer and Miller (2008) argue that as a moderator, individuals'CQ can influence the situational context of cultural diversity. Thus, in the present study, we examine the following research question: How does CQ moderate a model of indirect effects on GPT members' performance and satisfaction? We define a global project team (GPT) as a work team whose

955

members are from different national or cultural backgrounds, are geographically dispersed, and rely on communication technologies for defining, planning and implementing their mutual project objectives. To answer our research question, we adopt the two theoretical models tested in our previous study that showed how GPT members' role clarity and interpersonal trust indirectly affected the impact of their communication norms on their performance and satisfaction (Henderson, Stackman, & Lindekilde, 2016). Specifically, role clarity mediated the impact of GPT members' communication norms on their project satisfaction (Fig. 1) and project performance (Fig. 2); interpersonal trust mediated their project satisfaction (see Fig. 1); and both role clarity and interpersonal trust mediated the impact of communication norms on project satisfaction (Fig. 1). In total, these results showed a complexity of indirect effects among global project team (GPT) members and provides a theoretical framework for researching how differences in cultural intelligence (CQ) may moderate these dynamics. Reflective of work by Kirkman and Chen (2011) on maximizing datasets, we utilize previously collected data from our larger study of global project team members in a multinational company (Henderson, et al., 2016), to answer the present research question. This survey data included 218 GPT members who represented 33 distinct global teams. This dataset is relevant to both project management and CQ researchers since it draws from employees who are working in an organization on global project teams (Blomquist et al., 2010; Schlägel and Sarstedt, 2016), and uses items from the validated Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) (Van Dyne et al., 2008). We structured the remainder of this paper in the following manner. First, we establish the current call for research on the cultural components of global work and CQ, its theory base, and its established measurement scale. Next, we integrate CQ research findings relevant to our theoretical models (Figs. 1 and 2) and propose two hypotheses about how CQ might operate

Role Clarity

Trust

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Effect

Independent

Mediating

Dependent

Results

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity, Trust

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Trust

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Fig. 1. Mediation model: individual project satisfaction.

956

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

Role Clarity

Trust

Comm. Norms Alignment

Ind. Project Performance

Effect

Independent

Mediating

Dependent

Results

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity

Ind. Project Performance

Fig. 2. Mediation model: individual project performance.

with role clarity and trust in influencing the way communication norms impact GPT members' performance and satisfaction. The methods section follows and clarifies the subjects and measurements. In the next section, we detail our moderatedmediation analysis. The results show that CQ-motivation significantly moderates GPT members' alignment of their communication norms and role clarity, which in turn indirectly impact their satisfaction and performance. We then discuss how CQ-motivation may be important in the early forming stage of global project teams when establishing communication norms and surmise why CQ-knowledge and CQ-behavior may not be significant for the global, virtual environment of the subjects in this study. We also address how our results might impact the further development and sustainability of GPTs in multinational companies and organizations. The implications section addresses both limitations and contributions along with considerations for research. In particular, with respect to future research, we discuss how researchers might explore CQ as a process that develops over time with global team members' alignment of their communication norms and clarification of their roles. We conclude with a summary of how the paper addresses the research question. 2. Literature review Recent management reviews of the cross-cultural component in global work make a strong case for the general dearth of research-based knowledge. For example, research has focused more on the virtual as opposed to the cultural dynamics in global teams (Gibson et al., 2014). Hinds et al. (2011) argue that the time is now for studies of culture in global work that incorporate a more “behavioral, contextual, and dynamic view” (p. 178). Connaughton and Shuffler (2007) support this stance in their suggestion that research of culture in “multinationalmulticultural distributed teams” (p. 388) should incorporate the different knowledge, motivations and work styles of team members. Similarly, Cramton and Hinds (2014), in their study of nine global software development teams, argue for more research of globally distributed team members' “personal capacities that contribute to success” (p. 1076). Taken

collectively, the results of these research studies offer significant support for examining cultural intelligence – with its knowledge, motivational and behavioral components – in the dynamic context of global project teams. Hofstede (1980) provided the initial foundation of researchbased knowledge about general cultural differences that focused on work-related values. Hofstede's model, which is derived from national cultural differences, includes dimensions of power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, orientation to time, and indulgence restraint (Hofstede, 2010). While Hofstede's work offers critical perspective on these different national cultural values, there is a “tenuous link of cultural values to action [or behavior]” (Earley and Peterson, 2004, p. 104). Alternatively, the foundation research of CQ considered several questions about the importance of individuals' knowledge, motivation and behavior related to working across and in different cultures. As early developers stated, “CQ research aims to provide insight into the age-old sojourner problem of why some people thrive in culturally diverse settings, but others do not” (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008, p. 3). Based on the work of Sternberg (1990) concerning different human intelligences, Earley and Ang (2003) explicated a parsimonious theoretical model of cultural intelligence that incorporates three domains: knowledge, motivation and behavior. CQ-knowledge is “concerned with the structure and interrelatedness of cognitions that are relevant for comprehending and functioning within a culturally dissimilar context” (Bhagat, 2006, p. 490). Relevant cognitions can include a person's knowledge about other cultures in terms of the systems, symbols, values, norms, beliefs, rules and/or practices that shape the context for cross-cultural communication. Moreover, the cognitive domain encompasses knowledge about both cultural universals as well as differences that enable a person to discriminate between one's own culture and that of another. In the motivational domain of CQ, the emphasis relates to an individual's energy, drive and confidence toward interacting with others from and being immersed in other national cultures. Drawing from expectancy theory of motivation, Earley and Ang (2003) focused primarily upon the dimension of selfefficacy to show how it underpins an individual's attitudes to

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

engage in cross-cultural encounters. As Ang and Van Dyne (2008) state, “those with high motivational CQ direct attention and energy toward cross-cultural situations based on intrinsic interest and confidence in cross-cultural effectiveness” (p. 6). Following from the attitude-behavior framework, the third domain of CQ– behavior – shifts away from internal propensities of CQ to observable actions of engagement in cross-cultural encounters. Van Dyne et al. (2008) detail the structure of the CQ-behavioral component, which comprises a broad range of both verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors: “Individuals with high behavioral CQ are flexible and can adjust their behaviors to the specifics of each cultural interaction” (p. 7). Recent research results by Alexandra (2018) show that the development of both CQ-motivation and CQbehavior have a positive relationship with individuals' propensity to change stereotypes. Alternatively, Alexandra (2018) found that individuals with a high social dominance orientation reported lower propensity to change stereotypes following cross-cultural contact and, as a result, showed lower development in CQ-knowledge, CQ-motivation and CQ-behavior. The predominate measure for CQ, the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), was developed and validated by Van Dyne et al. (2008) based on the work of Earley and Ang (2003). The CQS instrument covers the three foundation domains of CQ– cognitive, motivational and behavioral – and the additional domain of meta-cognitive, which refers to an individual's awareness of cultural differences. In a series of six studies, these researchers established the reliability, generalizability, and validity of the CQS. Subsequent studies have supported the reliability and validity of the CQS including the dimension of meta-cognitive (knowledge), which refers to how individuals go about generating cultural knowledge (Van Dyne et al., 2017). Several studies in project management have explored cultural aspects of projects and teams. For example, drawing from Weick's conceptualization of sense making, Fellows and Liu (2016) maintain that culture provides a context and set of cues within which project members make sense of one another and their mutual endeavors. From the perspective of global teams, Messner (2014) developed a measure of intercultural communication effectiveness in which he explored how effective individuals are applying their intercultural competencies in actual intercultural interactions. The results showed promise for identifying shortcomings in relevant skills, e.g., communication needed for international teamwork.In regards to studies of CQ and project management in particular, Konanahalli et al. (2014)– using the CQS– found that CQ significantly predicted general, interaction and work adjustment of British expatriates working on international construction projects. Taking a macro view of CQ,Yitmen (2013) developed new measures for organizational CQ and found that “CQ is positively associated with cross-cultural competence and international strategic alliances” among his sample of 185 project team members in the Turkish construction industry (p. 22). Most relevant for the present study are the results of Gregory et al. (2009) who explored cultural intelligence in the context of a global project team. In their qualitative study of an

957

IT offshore outsourcing project in Germany and India, Gregory et al. (2009) showed how the dynamic of “cognitive, motivational and behavioral cultural intelligence gradually leads to the formation of a negotiated culture” (p. 238). Negotiated culture was defined as the “sum of … behavioral adaptations that are negotiated around … cultural differences” among GPT members (Gregory et al., 2009, p. 237). Indeed, it is adaptive performance that has received research support in several studies of CQ. For example, CQ has been found to predict peer-rated task performance in multicultural teams (Rockstuhl et al., 2015), mediate the relationship between openness to experience and adaptive job performance (Oolders et al., 2008), and directly affect adaptive performance (Groves and Feyerherm, 2011). However, as Oolders et al. (2008) maintain, “all performance is essentially adaptive” (p.148). Whether it be adapting to novel or complex situations – including different projects, teams and cultures – adaptive performance is the “proficiency with which people alter their behavior to meet the demands of the environment, an event, or a new situation” (Pulakos et al., 2000 in Oolders et al., 2008, p.148). In the present study, we set out to understand how the foundation elements of CQ– knowledge, motivation and behavior – operate within a complex model of important indirect effects on the project performance as well as satisfaction outcomes of global project team (GPT) members. Toward this end, we investigate how CQ operates with the significant indirect effects of role clarity and trust in influencing the way communication norms impact GPT members' performance and satisfaction. 3. Theoretical framework and hypotheses In the context of global project teams whose members are virtually connected, establishing communication norms and aligning them over time become paramount in team members' ability to function effectively and perform work tasks competently (Henderson, et al., 2016). Communication norms can include agreements among team members that guide their interactions such as how they will initiate and respond to different types of messages over geographies, cultures, and time zones; how they will share different types of information over different media; or how they will prioritize the importance of different types of messages (Cramton and Orvis, 2003). Reaching agreement regarding the types of norms is a process, which can occur openly, for example at the beginning of a project, or may emerge over time from tacit agreements among GPT members based on cultural differences and expectations (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007), or not emerge at all. Research results by Krumm et al. (2013) show that alignment of group norms may be less likely on culturally diverse teams. However, it appears that when teams develop communication norms in particular, members' misunderstandings decline, which in turn positively impacts project outcomes (Verburg et al., 2013). Interestingly, research of CQ has shown that it facilitates team norming processes in culturally diverse teams (Adair etal., 2013) and also increases communication effectiveness in diverse environments (Bücker et al., 2014). These findings

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

958

may be due in part to the positive impact of multi-cultural communication practices, which cause less stress within global project members, similar to communication with people from the same culture (Kiznyte et al., 2015). However, our recent research results (Henderson, et al., 2016) suggest a more complex dynamic based on our finding that GPT members' role clarity “fully mediates the relationship between [their] communication norm alignment and [their] individual project performance” (p. 1725). For members of GPTs, their communication with one another can be facilitated by increased clarity regarding their roles and responsibilities on the project and team (Lee-Kelley and Sankey, 2008). “It is likely that through the establishment of . . . initial communication norms, GPT members develop alignment over time. During this alignment process, they create role clarity for themselves and in relation to others” (Henderson, et al., 2016, p.1725). Similarly, role clarity has a “connective influence” between CQ and aspects of organizational culture such that cross-cultural role stressors (i.e., conflict, ambiguity or overload) appear to “act as a conduit either positively or negatively between cultural intelligence and organizational culture” in particular with regards to task performance (Kubicek et al., 2017, pp. 1 and 19). Studies of CQ have also generated results showing not only its impact on performance, but also satisfaction. Bücker et al. (2014) found that CQ increases communication effectiveness and job satisfaction for managers in multi-national enterprises. These researchers' measurement of communication effectiveness contains face validity with the measure of communication norm alignment in GPTs by (Henderson, et al., 2016). Research results from Barakat et al. (2015) show that job satisfaction

facilitates the effect of CQ on performance. In addition, Diao and Park (2012) show a positive relationship between CQ and job satisfaction. Based on the aforementioned research as well as drawing from Gibson et al. (2014), who advocate for taking potential moderating variables into account when studying cultural diversity, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1. GPT members' cultural intelligence (CQ) will moderate the positive relationship between their communication norm alignment and role clarity such that when CQ is higher the relationship between communication norm alignment and role clarity is stronger. This applies to both dependent variables: satisfaction (see Fig. 3) and performance (see Fig. 4). Working effectively on global project teams (GPT) also requires a meaningful level of interpersonal trust between members. In their now classic study of communication and trust in global virtual teams, Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) showed that communication interactions characterized by social openness, relative predictability and timeliness helped to facilitate team members' experience of swift trust. Expressing and inferring trusting communication messages from othersforms the foundation for feeling less vulnerable and generates less uncertainty in global, or multi-cultural, contexts (Sarker et al., 2011). When studying cross-cultural team members' differences from the perspective of their CQ, Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) found that CQ positively influences trust between cross-cultural dyads, weakening perceptions of their cultural differences. Luu and Rowley (2016) similarly found that CQ has a positive influence on

Cultural Intell. (CQ) Role Clarity

Trust

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Effect

Independent

Mediating

Results

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity, Trust

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Trust

Ind. Project Satisfaction

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity //or// Trust

Hypothesized ModeratedMediation

Moderating

CQ-knowledge CQ-motivation //or// CQ-behavior

Fig. 3. Hypothesized moderating-mediation model: individual project satisfaction.

Dependent

Ind. Project Satisfaction

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

959

Cultural Intell. (CQ) Role Clarity

Trust

Comm. Norms Alignment

Ind. Project Performance

Effect

Independent

Mediating

Results

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity

Hypothesized ModeratedMediation

Comm. Norms Alignment

Role Clarity

Moderating

Dependent Ind. Project Performance

CQ-knowledge

Ind. Project Performance

CQ-motivation //or// CQ-behavior

Fig. 4. Hypothesized moderated-mediation model: individual project performance.

individuals'knowledge-based and identity-based trust. In order to understand how CQ operates with interpersonal trust for global project team members, we build upon our previous finding that interpersonal trust operates dynamically with communication norm alignment and role clarity to significantly impact GPT members' satisfaction with their project and their team. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2. Cultural Intelligence (CQ) will moderate the positive relationship between communication norm alignment and interpersonal trust such that when CQ is higher the relationship between communication norm alignment and interpersonal trust is stronger. This applies only to the dependent variable of satisfaction (see Fig. 3). Our hypotheses of CQ necessarily overlap with the variables from our previous model (Henderson, et al., 2016), which is expected since the indirect effects of role clarity and trust on how communication norms influence GPT member performance and satisfaction form the nucleus of our measurement strategy. 4. Methods Prior to data collection, a Northern European engineering and manufacturing MNC– with operations in Europe, Asia, and North America, had recently implemented a global change effort. The MNC, the target organization for our study, was shifting its domestic product focus to grow revenues in the United States and in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) markets. To accomplish this, the MNC created project teams that operate 24 hours a day across multiple time zones with a primary focus on worldwide cross-culturally managed product development. These cross-cultural project teams use English as their common language for communication. The overall goal

was to establish a global business with competencies distributed in hubs around the globe reducing centralization at the Northern Europe headquarters. A global project director, whose primary responsibility was to develop and implement global projects to generate increased profits, led the research and development project group. With a consultancy group, a survey was developed to better understand the work and communication qualities and dynamics of 33 distinct project teams. Of the 301 GPT members participating in the survey, 218 returned completed responses. Respondents represent the following geographic areas: 59% Northern Europe; 13% Asia; 11% Central Europe; 9% North America; and 8% a mix of other nationalities. The survey was divided into the following sections: 1) demographics, 2) communication norms alignment, 3) role clarity, 4) interpersonal trust, 5) cultural intelligence; 6) virtual project team members' satisfaction with their project team, and 7) GPT member's self-reported rating of their job performance. Respondents also provided their frequency of communication usage with particular technological media. All but one measure employed a 7-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Communication norms alignment (five items) was adapted from a literature review of communication and norms (Henderson, et al., 2016). Role clarity (six items) was drawn from the foundational work of Rizzo et al. (1970). We used the four-item interpersonal trust scale developed by Raghuram et al. (2001). Four items from West et al. (1987) were used to measure members' satisfaction with their project team. Fifteen items specific to knowledge, motivational, and behavioral cultural intelligences came from Van Dyne et al. (2008). To measure performance, three items adapted from Early et al. (1987) utilized a 7-point scale ranging from (1) very poor to (7) very good. Finally, for communication

960

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

Table 1 Survey Questions. Project Communication Norms Alignment: Think about your job in relation to your current primary global virtual team. (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). α = 0.871. ▪ My norms of using different media for work purposes are entirely aligned with the other team members. ▪ My norms of when to communicate are entirely aligned with the other team members. ▪ My norms of providing feedback are entirely aligned with the other team members. ▪ My norms of including non-work content in virtual communication are entirely aligned with the other team members. ▪ My norms of when to respond to a virtual request are entirely aligned with the other team members. Project Role Clarity: Think about your job in relation to your current primary global virtual team. (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). α = 0.905. ▪ I feel certain about how much authority I have. ▪ There are clear, planned goals and objectives for my job. ▪ I know that I have divided my time properly. ▪ I know what my responsibilities are. ▪ I know exactly what is expected of me. ▪ Explanation is clear of what has to be done. Trust: Think about “trust” in your current primary global virtual team. (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). α = 0.870. ▪ I trust my virtual team leader. ▪ My virtual team leader trusts me. ▪ I trust my virtual team colleagues. ▪ My virtual team colleagues trust me. Project Satisfaction: Think about your job satisfaction in relation to your current primary global virtual team. (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). α = 0.751. ▪ I am satisfied with my job. ▪ I am enjoying working with my co-workers. ▪ My efforts are appreciated. Project Performance: Think about your performance in relation to your current primary global virtual team. (Very poor to Very good). α = 0.839. ▪ How would you rate your overall job performance? ▪ How would you rate your ability to get required assignments completed on time? ▪ How would you rate the quality of your performance? ▪ I am satisfied with my performance. Cultural Intelligence: Read each statement and select the statement that best describes your capabilities. Select the answer that best describes you as you really are. (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree). α (CQ-knowledge) = 0.884; α (CQ-motivation) = 0.860; α (CQ-behavior) = 0.852. ▪ CQI know the legal and economic systems of other cultures. knowledge: I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures. I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other cultures ▪ CQI enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. motivation: I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me.

I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a crosscultural interaction requires it. ▪ CQI use pause and silence differently to suit different crossbehavior: cultural situations. I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it. I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it. I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it. Communication: How often do you communicate with other virtual team members through the following media? Face-to-Face, Web, Telephone, Same Time, Email ([1] Never, [2] Once a month, [3] Once a week, [4] Several times a week, [5] Once a day, [6] Several times daily, [7] Almost continuously).

frequency items, respondents indicated on average how often they used a given communication media: face-to-face, telephone, email, and Sametime.1 Relevant survey questions are provided in Table 1. Regarding the reliability and validity of the measures, exploratory factor analysis with principle component extraction and varimax rotation was applied to assess the psychometric properties of the measures and to protect against the threat of common method variance since the constructs were measured by the same method (Conway and Lance, 2010; Podsakoff etal., 2003). The result was an eight-factor model with eigenvalues greater than one. The model confirmed the three distinct CQ factors of knowledge, motivation and behavior. The model also delineated project communication norms alignment, project role clarity, interpersonal trust, individual project satisfaction, and individual performance satisfaction. One irregularity was uncovered where a lone satisfaction item loaded with the three performance items, and it was included as a project performance item. Cronbach's Alphas for all eight resulting factors were above 0.75 and are reported in Table 1. 5. Analyses and results We provide demographic variables, descriptive statistics, and bivariate correlation coefficients in Tables 2 and 3. To formally test the hypotheses, we used the Preacher and Hayes (2004) bootstrapping approach, employing Model 8 from Hayes'PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) with communication norms alignment (independent variable), role clarity and trust (mediating variables), cultural intelligence (moderating variable), and individual project satisfaction or individual project performance (dependent variables). The PROCESS model first introduced by Hayes in 2013 has become increasingly popular in business and marketing 1 A product of IBM, SameTime provides social communications for the business environment by offering a unified user experience for instant messaging, online meetings, voice, video, data and more (www.ibm.com/usen/marketplace/sametime). Functionality includes rich presence including location awareness, rich media chat, group and multi-way chat, and web conferencing.

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

961

Table 2 Demographic and media variables frequencies. Gender Male Female

Age 180 38

82.6% 17.4%

Tenure with GPT

40 and under 41 and over

Co-located w/ Project Mgr.

Time Zone

Yes No

Same as PM Different from PM

159 59

72.9% 27.1%

Communication: Face-to-Face Never Once a month Once a week Several times a week Once a day Several times daily Almost continuously

44 103 6 27 1 21 16

114 104

52.3% 47.7%

178 40

81.7% 18.3%

One year or less More than one year

Communication: Telephone 20.2% 47.2% 2.8% 12.4% 0.5% 9.6% 7.3%

Never Once a month Once a week Several times a week Once a day Several times daily Almost continuously

25 56 48 56 6 24 3

Member Location 123 95

56.4% 43.6%

Headquarters Not Headquarters

Communication: Email 11.5% 25.7% 22.0% 25.7% 2.8% 11.0% 1.4%

Never Once a month Once a week Several times a week Once a day Several times daily Almost continuously

122 96

56.0% 44.0%

Communication: SameTime 4 11 23 61 21 64 34

1.8% 5.0% 10.6% 28.0% 9.6% 29.4% 15.6%

Never Once a month Once a week Several times a week Once a day Several times daily Almost continuously

48 33 34 56 9 29 9

22.0% 15.1% 15.6% 25.7% 4.1% 13.3% 4.1%

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations. Mean S. D. Member Location at HQ Co-Located w/ Proj. Mgr. Age Gender Tenure w/ Project Team Comm. Norms Alignment Role Clarity Trust CQ-knowledge CQ-motivation CQ-behavior Satisfaction Performance

Mem. Loc.

Co-Loc. Age

Gender Tenure Norms Clarity Trust

0.44 0.27

0.50 0.45 0.52 ⁎⁎

0.48 0.17 0.44 24.18

0.50 0.38 0.50 4.83

−0.39 ⁎⁎ −0.14 ⁎ 0.00 0.16 ⁎

−0.09 −0.06 −0.12 0.15 ⁎

0.02 −0.04 −0.14 ⁎ −0.18 ⁎⁎ 0.12 0.07

31.11 22.84 21.59 26.98 24.49 16.93 21.89

6.28 3.30 5.61 4.36 4.46 2.62 3.09

−0.08 0.02 −0.21 ⁎⁎ −0.19 ⁎⁎ −0.13 −0.13 ⁎ −0.14 ⁎

0.04 0.09 −0.07 −0.03 −0.01 0.00 −0.19 ⁎⁎

−0.02 −0.06 0.01 −0.11 −0.02 −0.03 0.00

0.04 0.14 ⁎ 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.19 ⁎⁎

0.10 −0.04 0.13 ⁎ 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.13 ⁎

0.45 ⁎⁎ 0.43 ⁎⁎ 0.28 ⁎⁎ 0.25 ⁎⁎ 0.25 ⁎⁎ 0.39 ⁎⁎ 0.24 ⁎⁎

0.34 ⁎⁎ 0.25 ⁎⁎ 0.26 ⁎⁎ 0.22 ⁎⁎ 0.52 ⁎⁎ 0.34 ⁎⁎

0.16 ⁎ 0.21 ⁎⁎ 0.12 0.44 ⁎⁎ 0.22 ⁎⁎

CQKnow

CQMotiv

CQBeh

0.48 ⁎⁎ 0.43 ⁎⁎ 0.26 ⁎⁎ 0.26 ⁎⁎

0.48 ⁎⁎ 0.40 ⁎⁎ 0.25 ⁎⁎

0.22 ⁎⁎ 0.13

Satisf.

0.48 ⁎⁎

n for all variables is 218 ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01.

research, and it is considered on par with structural equation modeling (SEM),2 as both the PROCESS model and SEM contemplate the specified model as a whole rather than in pieces (Hayes et al., 2017). Hayes et al. (2017) demonstrate that for models based entirely on observed variables, such as those in the present study, the results for both the PROCESS MODEL and SEM are substantively identical. We tested whether the positive association between communication norm alignment and role clarity (Hypothesis 1) and between communication norm alignment and trust (Hypothesis 2) are contingent upon the level of participant's cultural intelligence (CQ) with respect to CQ-knowledge, CQ2 SEM and bootstrapping emerged as more valid and powerful methods for testing intervening variable effects as compared to the Baron and Kenny (1986) causal steps approach for mediation analysis (Hayes, 2009; Zhao et al., 2010).

motivation, and CQ-behavior. In support of hypothesis 1only the interaction effect of CQ-motivation was significant (ß = −0.077, S.E. = 0.017; p < .001) (see Table 4). The interaction effect was not significant for CQ-knowledge and CQ-behavior. Regarding hypothesis 2, there were no significant interactions with respect to the three CQ measures (knowledge, motivation, or behavior) and the relationship between communication norm alignment and trust, and thus, hypothesis 2 was not supported. The full moderation-mediation results (Model 8) are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Following Weiss et al. (2017) we analyzed the interaction pattern for CQ-motivation in more detail by drawing the simple slopes for this moderation effect (see Fig. 5) for two conditional values of the moderator. The interaction was plotted at one standard deviation above and below the mean of cultural intelligence motivation. While higher CQ-motivation did result

962

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

Table 4 Moderated-mediation analyses: two-way interaction coefficients for role clarity and trust. Coefficient (Std. Error) Role Clarity Comm. Norms × CQ-knowledge Comm. Norms × CQ-motivation Comm. Norms × CQ-behavior Trust Comm. Norms × CQ-knowledge Comm. Norms × CQ-motivation Comm. Norms × CQ-behavior

0.003 (0.015) −0.077 (0.017) ⁎⁎⁎ −0.044 (0.018)

LLCI – ULCI

−0.109 to −0.044

0.010 (0.001) −0.001 (0.010) −0.017 (0.010)

⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

in higher role clarity at both the lower and higher levels of communication norm alignment, the most pronounced effect on role clarity occurred when CQ-motivation was low and communication norm alignment was high. We address this finding in more detail in the Discussion section. Finally, we conducted one post hoc analysis to test the potential alternative role of CQ- motivation as just another mediator, not a moderator, in the model. CQ-motivation was included as a mediator along with role clarity and trust. CQ-motivation was a significant mediator for the satisfaction model (Effect: 0.167; LLCI-UPCI: −0.017 to −0.003), but not for the performance model. 6. Discussion Recent researchers have called for more attention to the cultural dynamics of global teams and projects (Cramton and Hinds, 2014; Connaughton and Shuffler, 2007; Gibson et al., 2014; Hinds et al., 2011; Gregory et al., 2009). Our study addresses this call by extending previous research of global project team members (Henderson, et al., 2016) to examine the impact of their cultural intelligence (CQ). To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine CQ with virtual global project team members and thereby also extends previous CQ research. We place CQ within a theoretical framework or boundary condition of indirect effects on global project team members' satisfaction and performance (Elenkov and Manev, 2009; Groves and Feyerherm, 2011). Specifically, we test how CQ moderates the way GPT members' role clarity and interpersonal trust indirectly affect the impact of communication norms on their performance and satisfaction. The results partially confirm hypothesis 1 in that the motivation factor of CQ significantly moderates how role clarity mediates the relationship between communication norms and job satisfaction (Fig. 3) and job performance (Fig.4). Drawing from Groves and Feyerherm (2011), our results show the importance of GPT members' motivational CQ as a function of the global project team context – the dynamic interplay among clarifying roles and aligning communication norms as these influence GPT members' satisfaction with and performance on their projects. In this way, we demonstrate support for an important boundary condition of indirect effects for CQ-motivation on global project teams.

Previous research has supported the unique explanatory power of CQ-motivation. Results have shown CQ-motivation positively related to interactional adjustment (e.g., Ang et al., 2007), cultural adaptation (Ang et al., 2007), general, interactional or work adjustment (Huff et al., 2014; Templer et al., 2006; Wu and Ang, 2011), and psychological well-being in intercultural settings (Peng et al., 2014).Moreover, motivational CQ strengthens the relationship between psychic distance and multicultural team performance leading to greater team effort and higher team performance (Magnusson et al., 2014). Our results show that CQ-motivation significantly boosts the relationship between GPT members' role clarity and the alignment of their communication norms, positively impacting their satisfaction and performance. As shown in Fig. 5, when GPT members'CQ-motivation is high, their role clarity increases with higher levels of alignment in their communication norms. Unexpectedly, this interaction pattern becomes more pronounced for those low in CQ-motivation who report higher levels of role clarity when the alignment of their communication norms is high. We surmise that those GPT members low in motivational CQ may not adjust as well to cross-cultural environments and rely instead upon their role descriptions and the communication norms of their team or those embedded in the larger organizational culture for adapting to their global project (Cramton and Hinds, 2014). Given the nature of the subjects in our study (GPT members), the lack of significant findings in hypothesis 1 for CQ-knowledge and CQ-behavior may be due to the phrasing of the items in the CQ Scale (Table 1) and our subjects' reliance on email when communicating on their GPTs (Table 2). The CQ-knowledge items have relevance for particular research subjects such as expatriates (e.g., Huff, 2013; Lee and Sukoco, 2010; Nunes et al., 2017), but less so for GPT members who are less likely to rely upon knowledge of the legal and economic systems, arts and crafts, and the language rules of another culture, especially if within their company the same language is used when communicating. For CQ-behavior (communication), the CQ scale items (Table 1) are less relevant in the current study given the unexpectedly high frequency with which email was used (Table 2). These items – such as changing verbal behavior, pauses and silences, rate of speaking, non-verbal behavior and facial expressions – should become more relevant with increased adoption of synchronous multimedia technology instead of email. In regards to hypothesis 2, we found that the three dimensions of CQ did not moderate the relationship between communication norms and interpersonal trust on satisfaction. To date, the effect of CQ on interpersonal trust has received partial support for the metacognitive factor (Chua et al., 2012; Rockstuhl and Ng, 2008) and the cognitive (knowledge) and behavioral factors (Rockstuhl and Ng, 2008), but no support for motivational CQ. Interestingly, the qualitative study of global project team members by Gregory et al. (2009), showed that CQ “gradually leads to the formation of a negotiated culture” (p. 238) that is also characterized by emerging trust-based interpersonal relationships. Based on these previous findings and the results of hypothesis 2 in the current study, a positive effect of CQ on interpersonal trust may be conditional as it emerges over time

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

963

Table 5 Moderated-mediation regression analyses: satisfaction and performance. Satisfaction: CQ-knowledge Coefficient (Std. Error) Member Location HQ Co-Located w/ PM Age Gender Tenure w/ GPT Communication Norms Role Clarity Interpersonal Trust CQ-knowledge Intercept (Norms × CQ-knowledge) Constant Adjusted R-Squared F-ratio

−0.703 (0.386) 0.101 (0.388) −0.224 (0.317) 0.247 (0.391) −0.009 (0.299) 0.154 (0.127) 0.144 (0.027) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.207 (0.049) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.130 (0.135) −0.004 (0.006) 3.740 (3.224) 0.381 12.747 ⁎⁎⁎

Performance: CQ-knowledge LLCI – ULCI

0.091–0.196 0.110–0.305

Satisfaction: CQ-motivation Coefficient (Std. Error) Member Location HQ Co-Located w/ PM Age Gender Tenure w/ GPT Communication Norms Role Clarity Interpersonal Trust CQ-motivation Intercept (Norms × CQ-motivation) Constant Adjusted R-Squared F-ratio

−0.441 (0.378) −0.043 (0.377) −0.009 (0.312) 0.189 (0.379) −0.005 (0.290) 0.267 (0.195) 0.126 (0.027) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.193 (0.048) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.309 (0.160) −0.008 (0.007) −1.230 (4.458) 0.421 15.043 ⁎⁎⁎

0.160 (0.510) −1.322 (0.512) ⁎ 0.056 (0.419) 1.146 (0.516) ⁎ 0.536 (0.395) 0.275 (0.168) 0.119 (0.035) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.102 (0.065) 0.330 (0.179) −0.011 (0.007) 6.022 (4.257) 0.229 6.140 ⁎⁎⁎

LLCI – ULCI −2.331 to −0.313 0.129–2.164

0.050–0.188

Performance: CQ-motivation LLCI – ULCI

0.073–0.179 0.099–0.287

Satisfaction: CQ-behavior

Member Location HQ Co-Located w/ PM Age Gender Tenure w/ GPT Communication Norms Role Clarity Interpersonal Trust CQ-behavior Intercept (Norms × CQ-behavior) Constant Adjusted R-Squared F-ratio

Coefficient (Std. Error)

Coefficient (Std. Error) 0.188 (0.517) −1.361 (0.516) ⁎⁎ 0.219 (0.427) 1.221 (0.518) ⁎ 0.563 (0.400) −0.142 (0.268) 0.125 (0.037) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.082 (0.065) −0.053 (0.219) 0.007 (0.009) 14.441 (6.102) ⁎ 0.224 5.988 ⁎⁎⁎

LLCI – ULCI −2.379 to −0.344 0.199–2.243

0.052–0.198

2.412–26.471

Performance: CQ-behavior

Coefficient (Std. Error)

LLCI – ULCI

Coefficient (Std. Error)

−0.764 (0.384) ⁎ 0.088 (0.390) −0.228 (0.322) 0.259 (0.392) 0.003 (0.301) 0.109 (0.179) 0.145 (0.027) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.204 (0.050) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.070 (0.165) −0.002 (0.007) 4.769 (4.081) 0.378 12.594 ⁎⁎⁎

−1.520 to −0.078

−0.070 (0.512) −1.275 (0.520) ⁎ 0.096 (0.430) 1.223 (0.524) ⁎ 0.671 (0.401) −0.084 (0.239) 0.125 (0.036) ⁎⁎⁎ 0.010 (0.066) −0.127 (0.220) 0.006 (0.009) 15.413 (5.445) ⁎⁎ 0.209 5.461 ⁎⁎⁎

0.092–0.197 0.106–0.302

LLCI – ULCI −2.300 to −0.251 0.191–2.256

0.055–0.195

4.678–26.149

Number of Bootstrap samples for 95% confidence intervals: 10,000. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

with the formation of a global project team's negotiated culture. Future research is needed to test this supposition. In our post hoc analysis, we did discover that CQ-motivation significantly mediates the impact of communication norms on GPT members' satisfaction. Previous research revealed that motivational CQ is a stronger mediator than CQ-knowledge and CQ-behavior for cross-cultural adjustment (Moon et al.,

2012). Moreover, cross-cultural adjustment is intricately tied to job satisfaction (Froese and Peltokorpi, 2013; Sozbilir and Yesil, 2016). It appears that motivational CQ, which “stimulates and channels an individual's cultural knowledge and strategies into guided action in novel cultural experiences” (Templer et al., 2006), explains how GPT members' alignment of their communication norms positively impacts their

964

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

Table 6 Moderated mediation analyses: index of moderated mediation and conditional indirect effects. Satisfaction

Index of Moderated Mediation: Role Clarity CQ-knowledge CQ-motivation CQ-behavior Trust CQ-knowledge CQ-motivation CQ-behavior Conditional Indirect Effect(s) of X on Y at Values of CQ-motivation Moderator: Norms – Role Clarity One S.D. Below Mean (22.62) Mean (26.98) One S.D. Above Mean (31.34)

Performance

Effect (Std. Error)

LLCI – ULCI

Effect (Std. Error)

LLCI – ULCI

−0.010 (0.004)

−0.017 to −0.003

−0.010 (0.005)

−0.020 to −0.002

0.122 (0.040) 0.080 (0.030) 0.038 (0.026)

0.053–0.210 0.031–0.145 0.001–0.098

0.120 (0.053) 0.079 (0.037) 0.037 (0.027)

0.030–0.237 0.019–0.162 0.000–0.104

Number of Bootstrap samples for 95% confidence intervals: 10,000.

satisfaction with their global project team. Nonetheless, the result of CQ-motivation as a moderating variable for both satisfaction and performance is important (hypothesis 1). To have included CQ-motivation as just a mediator (post hoc analysis) would have missed how it affects – and under what conditions – the relationship between communication norms and role clarity. 7. Implications

Role Clarity

Several implications emerge from this study for practicing members of global project teams and their organizations as well as for academic researchers. Practically, the development of CQ-motivation among GPT members can add significantly to the iterative process of forming and organizing global project teams. GPT members must not only be able to communicate effectively and efficiently – in the process of aligning their norms and clarifying their roles – but also be motivated to do so with diverse project team members. Given the importance of

38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25

Low

role clarity to ultimate GPT member performance and satisfaction, project managers may want to pay particular attention from the start of their projects to members' motivation to work with culturally diverse co-workers with respect to their “role taking, role making, and role negotiating” (Henderson, et al., 2016). Role-taking refers to GPT managers and team members surfacing their expectations for one another's roles, “what they can do and are likely to do at the outset of their project” (Henderson, et al., 2016, p. 1727). Role-making occurs as “GPT members learn how others will behave in various situations” (Henderson, et al., 2016, p. 1727). Role-negotiating “is necessary for effective functioning on GPTs as mutual expectations and functional interdependencies become apparent and are accomplished through the process of close collaboration on project tasks over time” (Henderson, et al., 2016, p. 1727). Early professional training in cultural intelligence with an emphasis on CQ-motivation in particular, holds promise for enabling GPT members to become aware of their cultural empathy and self-efficacytoward their co-workers in different

High

Communication Norm Alignment Low CQ Motivation

High CQ Motivation

Fig. 5. Relationship between communication norm alignment and role clarity at low and high levels of CQ-motivation.

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

countries and cultures (Earley and Peterson, 2004). This type of professional training shifts the historical focus away from “culture-specific knowledge … or culture-general features dominated by a … limited set of cultural values” (Earley and Peterson, 2004, p.113) to aspects of individuals' capabilities (Cramton and Hinds, 2014). From a theoretical perspective, including CQ as a moderator of the relationship between communication norms and role clarity demonstrates the importance of CQ-motivation to this relationship and its impact on both performance and satisfaction. To have included CQ as a mediator only – as we did in our post hoc analysis – would have missed the significant, indirect effect of CQ-motivation. Thus, for the CQ literature, the results add valuable knowledge about the conditional dynamics of CQ-motivation within global project teams. Moreover, the lack of significant findings for CQ-knowledge and CQ-behavior raise awareness regarding the contextual relevancy of the CQS (Cultural Intelligence Scale) for measuring GPT members who work virtually across cultures. For example, as GPTs utilize more synchronous communication channels in lieu of email, behavioral items in the CQS (Cultural Intelligence Scale) – such as changing verbal behavior, pauses and silences, rate of speaking, non-verbal behavior and facial expressions – will become more relevant. Also, while CQ-motivation is important to the ultimate functioning, and likely success, of global project teams, this finding begs the question how does one best operationalize and measure CQ-knowledge and CQ-behavior in future studies of GPT members? This question can serve as a guidepost for future researchers who wish to examine CQ in the context of working global and virtual project teams. Lastly there are limitations to this study. Since our data are cross-sectional in nature, future researchers may consider examining the dynamic, emerging relationships among the key variables in this study while they change over time. As Langley et al. (2013) recently stated, “process research … focuses empirically on evolving phenomena, and it draws on theorizing that explicitly incorporates temporal progressions of activities as elements of explanation and understanding” (p.1). Process theorizing and study produce “know-how knowledge” (Langley et al., 2013, p. 4) that can help us understand the “… terrain of events, episodes, activity, temporal ordering, fluidity, and change(s)” (p. 10) inherent within global projects. A second limitation concerns our reliance on a self-report questionnaire with respect to performance and satisfaction, which is not the ideal due to common method variance. However, self-reports can be sensitive to job changes especially in studies where job conditions themselves have changed (Spector, 1994). Since our data were collected during the time period in which the target MNC was transitioning to global project teams, our “use [of] self-reports as outcome variables” (Spector, 1994, p.387) may provide a valid picture of how people feel about and view their new jobs and roles. Consequently, future researchers may consider replicating this study with objective measures of performance as well as subjects from a broader set of target MNCs in various stages of development in their global project teams.

965

8. Conclusion In this study, we set out to answer the research question: How does cultural intelligence moderate a model of indirect effects on global project team members' performance and satisfaction? The results of the moderated-mediation analysis reveal the significance of GPT members' motivational CQ as it strengthens the interplay between clarifying roles and aligning communication norms. These indirect effects in turn positively impact GPT members' performance and satisfaction. Neither CQ-knowledge nor CQ-behavior significantly moderated GPT members' communication norms and role clarity. Our findings address the call for CQ research that considers the boundary conditions for this construct by examining CQ within a complex model of indirect effects (Elenkov and Manev, 2009; Groves and Feyerherm, 2011; Schlägel and Sarstedt, 2016). The importance of this call focuses attention on “taking potential moderating variables into account” when considering the effects of cultural differences (Gibson et al., 2014, p. 230). Our results also contribute research findings to the growing literature on the cultural component of global project teams (Connaughton and Shuffler, 2007; Cramton and Hinds, 2014; Hinds et al., 2011). This literature is timely and important given the prevalence of global and virtual project teams as a mechanism for carrying out the strategic goals of today's MNCs and organizations (Gilson et al., 2015). In this regard, our study contributes to the knowledge base of cultural challenges faced by global project management team members. References Adair, W., Hideg, I., Spence, J., 2013. The culturally intelligent team. J. CrossCult. Psychol. 44, 941–962. Alexandra, V., 2018. Predicting CQ development in the context of experiential cross-cultural training: the role of social dominance orientation and the propensity to change stereotypes. Acad. Manag. J. 17, 62–78. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., 2008. Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In: Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y, pp. 3–15. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C., Chandrasekar, N.A., 2007. Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 3, 335–371. Barakat, L.L., Lorenz, M.P., Ramsey, J.R., Cretoiu, S.L., 2015. Global managers: an analysis of the impact of cultural intelligence on job satisfaction and performance. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 10, 781–800. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. Bhagat, R.S., 2006. Book review: Earley, P.C., Ang, S., 2003. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31, 489–491. Blomquist, T., Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A., Söderholm, A., 2010. Project-aspractice: in search of project management research that matters. Proj. Manag. J. 41, 5–16. Bosch-Sijtsema, P., 2007. The impact of individual expectations and expectation conflicts on virtual teams. Group Org. Manag. 32, 358–388. Bücker, J., Furrer, O., Poutsma, E., Buyens, D., 2014. The impact of cultural intelligence on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and anxiety for Chinese host country managers working for foreign multinationals. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25, 2068–2087.

966

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967

Bücker, J., Furrer, O., Lin, Y., 2015. Measuring cultural intelligence (CQ): a new test of the CQ scale. Int. J. Cross-cult. Manag. 15, 259–284. Chua, R.Y.J., Morris, M.W., Mor, S., 2012. Collaborating across cultures: cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 118, 116–131. Connaughton, S.L., Shuffler, M., 2007. Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: a review and future agenda. Small Group Res. 38, 387–412. Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E., 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psychol. 25, 325–334. Cramton, C.D., Hinds, P.J., 2014. An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organ. Sci. 25, 1056–1081. Cramton, C.D., Orvis, K.L., 2003. Overcoming barriers to information sharing in virtual teams. In: Gibson, C.B., Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 214–229. Diao, A., Park, D.S., 2012. Culturally intelligent for satisfied workers in a multinational organization: role of intercultural communication motivation. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 24, 7296–7309. Earley, P.C., Ang, S., 2003. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Earley, P.C., Peterson, R.S., 2004. The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 3, 100–115. Early, P.C., Wojnaroski, P., Prest, W., 1987. Task planning and energy expended: exploration of how goals influence performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 72, 107–114. Elenkov, D., Manev, I., 2009. Senior expatriate leadership's effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. J. World Bus. 44, 357–369. Fellows, R., Liu, A., 2016. Sensemaking in the cross-cultural contexts of projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 246–257. Froese, F., Peltokorpi, V., 2013. Organizational expatriates and self-initiated expatriates: differences in cross-cultural adjustment and job satisfaction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24, 1953–1967. Gibson, C.B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B.L., Shapiro, D.L., 2014. Where global and virtual meet: the value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 1, 217–244. Gilson, L., Maynard, M., Jones, C., Young, N., Vartiainen, M., Hakonen, M., 2015. Virtual teams research. J. Manag. 41, 1313–1337. Gregory, R., Prifling, M., Beck, R., 2009. The role of cultural intelligence for the emergence of negotiated culture in IT offshore outsourcing projects. Inf. Technol. People 22, 223–241. Groves, K.S., Feyerherm, A.E., 2011. Leader cultural intelligence in context: testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group Org. Manag. 36, 535–566. Hayes, A.F., 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76, 408–420. Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. Guilford Press, New York: New York. Hayes, A.F., Montoya, A.K., Rockwood, N.J., 2017. The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australian Marketing J. 25, 76–81. Henderson, L.S., Stackman, R.W., Lindekilde, R., 2016. The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams. Int. J. Proj. Mgt. 34, 1717–1730. Hinds, P., Liu, L., Lyon, J., 2011. Putting the global in global work: an intercultural lens on the practice of cross-national collaboration. Acad. Manag. Ann. 5, 135–188. Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, US. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw Hill Publications, New York. Huff, K.C., 2013. Language, cultural intelligence and expatriate success. Manag. Res. Rev. 36, 596–612. Huff, K.C., Song, P., Gresch, E.B., 2014. Cultural intelligence, personality, and cross-cultural adjustment: a study of expatriates in Japan. Int. J. Intercult. Rel. 38, 151–157.

Jarvenpaa, S., Leidner, D., 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ. Sci. 10, 791–815. Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., 2011. Maximizing your data or data slicing? Recommendations for managing multiple submissions from the same dataset. Manag. Organ. Rev. 7, 433–446. Kiznyte, J., Ciutiene, R., Dechange, A., 2015. Applying cultural intelligence in international project management. Proj. Manag. World J. 6, 202–213. Konanahalli, A., Oyedele, L.O., Spillane, J., Coates, R., von Meding, J., Ebohon, J., 2014. Cross-cultural intelligence (CQ): It's impact on British expatriate adjustment on international construction projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7, 423–448. Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., Hertel, G., 2013. Challenges in norm formation and adherence. The knowledge, skills, and ability requirements of virtual and traditional cross-cultural teams. J. Person. Psychol. 12, 33–44. Kubicek, A., Bhanugopan, R., O'Neill, G., 2017. How does cultural intelligence affect organisational culture: the mediating role of cross-cultural-role conflict, ambiguity and overload. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 28, 1–25. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., Van de Ven, A.H., 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 1–13. Lee, L., Sukoco, B.M., 2010. The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance: the moderating effects of international experience. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21, 963–981. Lee-Kelley, L., Sankey, T., 2008. Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: a case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 51–62. Luu, T.T., Rowley, C., 2016. The relationship between cultural intelligence and i-deals: trust as a mediator and HR localization as a moderator. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 24, 908–931. Magnusson, P., Schuster, A., Taras, V., 2014. A process-based explanation of the psychic. Distance paradox: evidence from global virtual teams. Manag. Int. Rev. 54, 283–306. Messner, W., 2015. Measuring existent intercultural effectiveness in global teams. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 8, 107–132. Moon, H.K., Choi, B.K., Jung, J.S., 2012. Previous international experience, cross-cultural training, and expatriates' cross-cultural adjustment: effects of cultural intelligence and goal orientation. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 23, 285–330. Neeley, T., 2015. Global teams that work. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93, 74–81. Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., 2009. From experience to experiential learning: cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 8, 511–526. Nunes, I.M., Felix, B., Prates, L.A., 2017. Cultural intelligence, cross-cultural adaptation and expatriate performance: a study with expatriates living in Brazil. Revista de Administracao 52, 219–232. Oolders, T., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., 2008. Cultural intelligence as a mediator of relationships between openness to experience and adaptive performance. In: Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. M.E. Sharpe, New York, pp. 145–158. Peng, A.C., Van Dyne, L., Oh, K., 2014. The influence of motivational cultural intelligence on cultural effectiveness based on study abroad: the moderating role of participant's cultural identity. J. Manag. Educ. 39, 572–596. 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. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. Preacher, K.L., Hayes, A.F., 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. 36, 717–731. Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A., Plamondon, K.E., 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 612–624. Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., Gupta, V., 2001. Factors contributing to telecommuting adjustment. J. Manag. 27, 383–405. Rizzo, J., House, R., Lirtzman, S., 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 15, 150–163. Rockstuhl, T., Ng, K.-Y., 2008. The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams. In: Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. ME Sharpe, New York, pp. 206–220.

L.S. Henderson et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 954–967 Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Ng, K.-Y., Lievens, F., Van Dyne, L., 2015. Putting judging situations into situational judgment tests: evidence from intercultural multimedia SJTs. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 464–480. Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, M., Kirkeby, S., 2011. The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 28, 273–309. Schaffer, M., Miller, G., 2008. Cultural intelligence: a key success factor for expatriates. In: Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. ME Sharpe, New York, pp. 107–125. Schlägel, C., Sarstedt, M., 2016. Assessing the measurement invariance of the four-dimensional cultural intelligence scale across countries: a composite model approach. Eur. Manag. J. 34, 633–649. Sozbilir, F., Yesil, S., 2016. The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on crosscultural job satisfaction (CCJS) and international related performance (IRP). Int. J. Hum. Sci. 13, 2277–2294. Spector, P.E., 1994. Using self-report questionnaires in organizational behavior research: a comment on the use of a controversial method. J. Organ. Behav. 15, 385–392. Sternberg, R.J., 1990. Metaphors of Mind: Conceptions of the Nature of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, New York. Templer, K.J., Tay, C., Chandrasekar, N.A., 2006. Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job previews, and realistic living conditions

967

preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group Org. Manag. 31, 154–173. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Koh, C., 2008. Development and validation of the CQS. In: Ang, Soon, Van Dyne, Linn (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. 2008. Sharpe, New York, pp. 16–38. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Tan, M.-L., 2017. Cultural Intelligence. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Verburg, R.M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., Vartiainen, M., 2013. Getting it done: critical success factors for project managers in virtual work settings. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 68–79. Weiss, M., Razinskas, S., Backmann, J., Hoegl, M., 2017. Authentic leadership and leaders' mental well-being: an experience sampling study. Leadersh. Q. 21, 1–18. West, M.A., Nicholson, M., Rees, A., 1987. Transitions into newly created jobs. J. Occup. Psychol. 60, 97–113. Wu, P.C., Ang, S.H., 2011. The impact of expatriate supporting practices and cultural intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment and performance of expatriates in Singapore. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 22, 2683–2702. Yitmen, I., 2013. Organizational cultural intelligence: a competitive capability for strategic alliances in the international construction industry. Proj. Manag. J. 44, 5–25. Zhao, X., Lynch Jr., J.G., Chen, Q., 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37, 197–206.