Globally distributed multinational virtual teams (MNVTs) are increasingly prevalent. To better understand communication in MNVTs, we explored the effects of using verbal and written synchronous communication media under different levels of English Language Proficiency (ELP) diversity. The results of data collected from 45 MNVTs, composed of MBA students who worked on a joint project, revealed that while verbal communication leads to higher perceived proximity within low ELP diversity teams, written communication contributes to perceived proximity when ELP diversity is high. Perceived proximity in turn, positively influences MNVT performance. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for MNVTs.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE.
2.
AndersonC. A.LindsayJ. J.BushmanB. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory truth or triviality?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00002
3.
AubertB.KelseyB. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403256011
4.
Barner-RasmussenW.EhrnroothM.KoveshnikovA.MäkeläK. (2014). Cultural and language skills as resources for boundary spanning within the MNC. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7), 886–905. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.7
BehfarK.KernM.BrettJ. (2006). Managing challenges in multicultural teams. In ChenY.-R. (Ed.), National culture and groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 9, pp. 233–262). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(06)09010-4
7.
BellS. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
8.
BlieseP. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation. In KleinK.KozlowskiS. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.
9.
BrannenM. Y.PiekkariR.TietzeS. (2014). The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 495–507. http://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.24
10.
ChiuY.-T.StaplesD. S. (2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams: Self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44(5), 498–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413489735
11.
ComanA. D.CurșeuP. L.FodorO. C.OțoiuC.RațiuL.FleșteaA. M.BriaM. (2019). Communication and group cognitive complexity. Small Group Research, 50(4), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419853624
12.
ConnaughtonS. L.ShufflerM. (2007). Multinational and multiculutral distributed teams: A review and future agenda. Small Group Research, 38(3), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301970
13.
CramtonC. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371. www.jstor.org/stable/3086013
14.
DaftR. L.LengelR. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural determinants. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
15.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
16.
DekkerD.RutteC.BergP. (2015). Isolated team members, perceived proximity and global virtual team effectiveness. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 12394https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.12394abstract
17.
DennisA. R.FullerR. M.ValacichJ. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2017388.2017395
18.
DriskellT.DriskellJ. E.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2017). Team roles: A review and integration. Small Group Research, 48(4), 482–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417711529
19.
EisenbergJ.DiTomasoN. (2019). Structural decisions about configuration, assignments, and geographical distribution in teams: Influences on team communications and trust. Human Resource Management Review, 50(3), 1053–4822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100739
20.
EisenbergJ.MattarelliE. (2017). Building bridges in global virtual teams: The role of multicultural brokers in overcoming the negative effects of identity threats on knowledge sharing across subgroups. Journal of International Management, 23(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2016.11.007
21.
EisenbergJ.PostC.DiTomasoN. (2019). Team dispersion and performance: The role of team communication and transformational leadership. Small Group Research, 50(3), 348–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419827376
22.
ErezM.LisakA.HarushR.GliksonE.NouriR.ShokefE. (2013). Going global: Developing management students’cultural intelligence and global identity in culturally diverse virtual teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 330–355. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0200
GibbsJ.RozaidiN.EisenbergJ. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12034
25.
GibsonC.HuangL.KirkmanB. L.ShapiroD. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091240
26.
GliksonE.ErezM. (2020). The emergence of a communication climate in global virtual teams. Journal of World Business, 55(6), 1090–9516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101001
27.
GuillaumeY. R. F.BrodbeckF. C.RikettaM. (2012). Surface- and deep-level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 80–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02005.x
28.
HanS. J.BeyerleinM. (2016). Framing the effects of multinational cultural diversity on virtual team processes. Small Group Research, 47(4), 351–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416653480
29.
HardinA. M.FullerM. A.DavisonR. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 130–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406297041
30.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
31.
HarushR.LisakA.GliksonE. (2018). The bright side of social categorization. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(1), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0202
32.
HarzingA. W.KösterK.MagnerU. (2011). Babel in business: The language barrier and its solutions in the HQ-subsidiary relationship. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/J.JWB.2010.07.005
33.
HarzingA. W.PudelkoM. (2013). Language competencies, policies and practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic MNCs. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2012.06.011
34.
HassellM. D.CottonJ. L. (2017). Some things are better left unseen: Toward more effective communication and team performance in video-mediated interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2017.03.039
HentschelT.ShemlaM.WeggeJ.KearneyE. (2013). Perceived diversity and team functioning: The role of diversity beliefs and affect. Small Group Research, 44(1), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412470725
37.
HertelG.GeisterS.KonradtU. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002
38.
HindsP. J.CramtonC. D. (2013). Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers. Organization Science, 25(3), 794–814. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0869
39.
HindsP. J.MortensenM. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
40.
HindsP. J.NeeleyT. B.CramtonC. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 536–561. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.62
41.
IshiiK.LyonsM. M.CarrS. A. (2019). Revisiting media richness theory for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.138
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.8585
44.
JarvenpaaS.LeidnerD. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
45.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
46.
JehnK. A.NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
47.
JohriA. (2012). From a distance: Impression formation and impression accuracy among geographically distributed coworkers. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 1997–2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.038
48.
KanawattanachaiP.YooY. (2008). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808.
49.
KaneG. C.LabiancaG. (2011). IS avoidance in health-care groups: A multilevel investigation. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0314
50.
KankanhalliA.TanB. C. Y.WeiK.-K. (2006). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237–274. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230309
51.
KayworthT. R.LeidnerD. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045697
52.
KearneyE.GebertD. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013077
KieslerS.CummingsJ. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler, Distributed work (1st ed., pp. 57–80). MIT Press.
55.
KirkmanB. L.CorderyJ. L.MathieuJ.RosenB.KukenbergerM. (2013). Global organizational communities of practice: The effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media richness on community performance. Human Relations, 66(3), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712464076
56.
KirkmanB. L.ShapiroD. L. (2005). The impact of cultural value diversity on multicultural team performance. In ShapiroD. L.Von GlinowM. A.ChengJ. L. C. (Eds.), Managing multinational teams: Global perspectives (pp. 33–67). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-7929(05)18002-0
57.
KlitmøllerA.LauringJ. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.023
58.
KlitmøllerA.SchneiderS. C.JonsenK. (2015). Speaking of global virtual teams: Language differences, social categorization and media choice. Personnel Review, 44(2), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2013-0205
59.
LauringJ.KlitmøllerA. (2015). Inclusive language use in multicultural business organizations: The effect on creativity and performance. Journal of Business Communication, 54(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415572779
60.
LeonardiP. M. (2015). Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn “who knows what” and “who knows whom.”MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 747–762. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2993870
61.
LisakA.ErezM.SuiY.LeeC. (2016). The positive role of global leaders in enhancing multicultural team innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0002-7
62.
MagnussonP.SchusterA.TarasV. (2014). A process-based explanation of the psychic distance paradox: Evidence from global virtual teams. Management International Review, 54(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0208-5
63.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.PaolettiJ.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001
64.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.SalasE. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005
65.
MarupingL. M.AgarwalR. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975
66.
MathieuJ. E.GallagherP. T.DomingoM. A.KlockE. A. (2019). Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizatoinal Psycholgy and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
67.
McClellandG. H.IrwinJ. R.DisatnikD.SivanL. (2017). Multicollinearity is a red herring in the search for moderator variables: A guide to interpreting moderated multiple regression models and a critique of Iacobucci, Schneider, Popovich, and Bakamitsos (2016). Behavior Research Methods, 49(1), 394–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0785-2
NeeleyT. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24(2), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0739
70.
NeeleyT. B.DumasT. L. (2016). Unearned status gain: Evidence from a global language mandate. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 14–43. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0535
71.
NeeleyT. B.HindsP. J.CramtonC. D. (2012). The (un)hidden turmoil of language in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.008
72.
O’LearyM. B.WilsonJ. M.MetiuA. (2014). Beyond being there: The symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1243. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.1.39.12750
73.
PresbiteroA. (2019). Task performance in global virtual team: Examining the roles of perceived cultural dissimilarity and cultural intelligence of member and leader. Personnel Review. 49(5), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0415
74.
RuillerC.HeijdenB. V.ChedotelF.DumasM. (2019). “You have got a friend.”Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 25(1), 2–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-11-2017-0069
ShemlaM.MeyerB.GreerL.JehnK. A. (2016). A review of perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and outcomes?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S89–S106. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1957
77.
SimonsT. L.PetersonR. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
78.
StaplesD. S.ZhaoL. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9042-x
79.
TenzerH.PudelkoM. (2016). Media choice in multilingual virtual teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4), 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.13
80.
TenzerH.PudelkoM. (2017). The influence of language differences on power dynamics in multinational teams. Journal of World Business, 52(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2016.11.002
81.
TenzerH.TerjesenS.HarzingA.-W. (2017). Language in international business: A review and agenda for future research. Management International Review, 57(6), 815–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-017-0319-x
82.
Van DijkH.MeyerB.Van EngenM.LoydD. L. (2017). Microdynamics in diverse teams: A review and integration of the diversity and stereotyping literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 517–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0046
83.
WilsonJ. M.O’LearyM. B.MetiuA.JettQ. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083105
84.
YamaoS.SekiguchiT. (2015). Employee commitment to corporate globalization: The role of English language proficiency and human resource practices. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 168–179. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2014.03.001
85.
YilmazG.YoungreenR. (2016). The application of minority influence theory in computer-mediated communication groups. Small Group Research, 47(6), 692–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416661033
86.
YoonT. E.GeorgeJ. F. (2013). Why aren’t organizations adopting virtual worlds?Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 772–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2012.12.003
87.
ZacherH.RobinsonA. J.RosingK. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.66
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
