Affective and cognitive trust in multicultural work groups and the role of Cultural Intelligence as a moderator of the effects of cultural diversity

Thomas Rockstuhl & Kok-Yee Ng

Special thanks to David A. Kenny

2April 10, 2023

Agenda

1. Theory Development2. Empirical Testing (Experimental

Methods)3. Empirical Testing (Field Methods)4. Additional Methods5. Discussion

3April 10, 2023

Motivation

Growing number of employees work in MCTs (Grensing-Pophal, 2002)

Challenge to create MCTs that work effectively remains (Montaya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001)

Cultural diversity broadens range of perspectives, skills, and insights (Maddux & Galinsky, 2006), yet cultural barriers can cause misunderstandings (Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2006)

Trust particularly relevant in global collaborations where uncertain and incomplete knowledge of group members is common (Child, 2001)

4April 10, 2023

Diversity and performance

The simple model of diversity…

Has received no empirical support… in reviews (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Williams &

O’Reilly, 1998) in meta-analysis (Stewart, 2006; Webber & Donahue,

2001)

CulturalDiversity

Performance+

5April 10, 2023

Diversity and performance (2)

CulturalDiversity

Performance

Trust / Cohesion

Creativity /Resources

-

+

+

+

…because the two effects likely cancel each otherout (e.g., Reagans et al., 2004)

6April 10, 2023

But what about levels of analysis?

Explanations of negative effects rely on Social Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987) and Similarity-Attraction-Paradigm (Byrne, 1971)

Essentially located at the Relational or dyadic level of analysis

Problem best addressed by SRM (e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2006)

Examine trust as outcome because conceptualized as individual, dyadic, and group-level construct (Rousseau et al., 1998)

7April 10, 2023

Cognitive and affective foundations of trust (McAllister, 1995)

Cognitive foundations of trust exist if the partner reliably and dependably meets the actors expectations

More likely to depend on partner’s role performance than social categorization processes

H1: Cognitive trust is not reciprocal

H2: Cognitive trust does not depend on dyadic cultural diversity

Affective foundations of trust exist in the emotional bonds between individuals

Likely to depend on social categorization processes

H1: Affective trust is reciprocal

H2: Affective trust is negatively related to dyadic cultural diversity

8April 10, 2023

Cultural Intelligence…

The capability of an individual, group, ororganization to function effectively insituations characterized by cultural diversity

- Earley & Ang, Cultural Intelligence, Stanford University Press, 2003

Cultural intelligence helps individuals and organizations

(i) overcome cultural barriers, and (ii) synergize differences to achieve win-win outcomes.

9April 10, 2023

… may dampen negative effects of cultural diversity…

based on Sternberg’s (1986) integrative framework of intelligences: mental CQ: Cognitive – processes and strategies of knowing

(metacognitive); knowledge (cognition) motivational CQ: drive & interest in learning and adapting

to other cultures behavioral CQ: flexibility in enacting appropriate verbal and

nonverbal actions across cultures

CQ may change the flexibility of process of identification and categorization (Moynihan et al., 2006)

Diversity trainings essentially aim at competencies that are related to high CQ (Roberson, 2006)

10April 10, 2023

…by affecting the social categorization process!

Individuals high in mental CQ possess more flexible self-concepts (Moynihan et al., 2006) that integrate new cultural aspects more easily and thus reduce feelings of dissimilarity

Individuals high in behavioral CQ are more likely to enhance the sense of familiarity by putting the other party at ease (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004)

H3: The actors mental CQ positively moderates the negative effect of dyadic cultural diversity

H4: The partners behavioral CQ positively moderates the negative effect of dyadic cultural diversity

11April 10, 2023

Sample & Measures

259 students from 40 project teams at NBS age 22 years (SD=1.9) 75 % female 197 local Singaporean, the rest exchange students from 9

countries group diversity range: 0 - 0.81 623 dyads of which 199 (32%) are cross-cultural

Affective Trust (McAllister, 1995) 3 items (α=0.89) Cognitive Trust (McAllister, 1995) 3 items (α=0.86) CQ (Ang et al., 2006)

mental CQ (4 items meta-cognitive; α=0.77 / 6 items cognitive; α=0.87)

behavioral CQ (5 items; ; α=0.81)

CQ assessed at project start, trust at project end (4 months)

12April 10, 2023

Not all types of trust are relational…

Affective Trust Cognitive Trust

Actor Variance 0,279 0,170

Partner Variance 0,034 0,084

Actor-Partner Covariance

0,011 0,005

Group Variance 0,033 0,030

Dyadic Covariance 0,103 0,008

Error 0,272 0,099*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* p < .01

Reciprocity: Affective Trust 0.379 Cognitive Trust 0.082

13April 10, 2023

…or affected by dyadic cultural diversity

Beta Std. Error Beta Std. Error

Intercept 4.35 (0.07)** 4.58 (0.06)**

Group-level cultural diversity -0.41 (0.17)* -0.55 (0.15)**

Cross-cultural dyad -0.21 (0.05)** 0.01 (0.04)

Affective Trust Cognitive Trust

Ethnic background of partner only affects affective trust but not cognitive trust

Effect is quite large (Cohen’s d = -0.91) Supportive of Social Categorization Process

* p< .05; ** p< .01

14April 10, 2023

But Cultural Intelligence does matter…

Beta Std. Error

Intercept 3.98 (0.29)**

Group-level cultural diversity -0.36 (0.17)*

Cross-cultural dyad -0.31 (0.05)**

Mental CQ Actor 0.14 (0.06)*

Mental CQ Partner -0.04 (0.03)

Behavioral CQ Actor -0.03 (0.05)

Behavioral CQ Partner 0.02 (0.02)

Cross-cultural dyad * Mental CQ Actor 0.14 (0.06)*

Cross-cultural dyad * Mental CQ Partner -0.00 (0.06)

Cross-cultural dyad * Behavioral CQ Actor -0.00 (0.06)

Cross-cultural dyad * Behavioral CQ Partner 0.09 (0.05)†

Affective Trust

† p<.1; * p< .05; ** p< .01

15April 10, 2023

…in reducing negative effects of cultural diversity!

3,8

3,9

4

4,1

4,2

4,3

4,4

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,8

low high

M e n t a l C Q s e l f

affe

ctive

Tru

st

3,7

3,8

3,9

4

4,1

4,2

4,3

4,4

low high

B e h a v i o r a l C Q p a r t n e r

affe

ctive

Tru

st

mono-cultural dyad

cross-cultural dyad

16April 10, 2023

Future directions

Group-level trust? issues of subgroup formation trust-climate vs. group trust

Linking Trust back to performance Moderator or Mediator

Development of Trust over time… Training interventions for CQ?