516211

research-article2014
JBCXXX10.1177/2329488413516211Journal of Bioactive and Compatible PolymersAritz and Walker

Article
International Journal of
Business Communication
Leadership Styles in 2014, Vol. 51(1) 72­–92
© 2014 by the Association for
Multicultural Groups: Business Communication
Reprints and permissions:
Americans and East Asians sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2329488413516211
Working Together jbc.sagepub.com

Jolanta Aritz1 and Robyn C. Walker1

Abstract
The global economy has created new realities for businesses, and the need for
understanding differing communication practices and cultural values is greater than
ever, particularly with regard to the surging economies in the East. Working in
multicultural work groups is a new workplace reality that has created a greater need
to understand how to lead these groups to maximize the quality and effectiveness
of multicultural group work. Cultural differences exist regarding the importance and
value of leadership. Still, much remains to be understood as to the way in which
culture influences leadership and organizational processes. To what extent do cultural
forces influence the expectations that individuals have for leaders and their behavior,
for instance? What principles of leadership and organizational processes transcend
cultures? This article is primarily directed to an American audience and uses a
discursive leadership approach to provide a better understanding of how different
leadership styles affect group member interaction in multicultural groups involving
participants from American and East Asian cultures. Our results demonstrate that
differing discursive leadership styles can affect the participation and contribution
of members and may affect their feelings of inclusion and satisfaction within the
group. Our results also provide evidence that particular styles of and approaches to
leadership may not be as successful with all cultural groups.

Keywords
turn-taking, leadership communication, intercultural business communication,
multicultural groups

1Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California,CA

Corresponding Author:
Jolanta Aritz, Center for Management Communication, Marshall School of Business, University of
Southern California, 3660 Trousdale Parkway, ACC 215D, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0444.
Email: aritz@marshall.usc.edu
Aritz and Walker 73

Introduction and Literature Review

Today’s global economy has increased the occurrence of multicultural work groups,
and consequently, the focus on maximizing the quality of multicultural group work has
increased as well. Studies have shown that moderately heterogeneous groups experi-
ence significant communication problems and do not reach their performance poten-
tial (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Earley & Mosakoski, 2000; Franklin, 2007; Jehn,
Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Ravlin, Thomas, & Ilsev, 2000). Previous research on cul-
turally diverse groups found that different interaction patterns exist across group mem-
bers with different cultural backgrounds. Previous studies have shown that cultural
preferences for length of turns, pauses between turns, simultaneous talk, or discrete
turns specifically affect group performance and lead to communicative difficulties
(Clyne, 1994; Du-Babcock, 1999, 2005, 2006; FitzGerald, 2003; Graham, 1985;
Scollon & Scollon, 1995; West & Graham, 2004; Yamada, 1992).
While multicultural groups and different communication patterns have received
significant attention in previous studies, there has been little research to understand
cultural influences on leadership practices, particularly regarding Asian leadership
practices and expectations. Hui and Tan (1996) reported results of a small body of
research on Chinese leadership, which rather randomly mixed supervisory and leader-
ship processes. They found that Chinese employees want their leaders to be consider-
ate and benevolent, adhere to the Confucian parental role, and exercise sound moral
judgment, such as being self-restrained, honest toward fellow colleagues and subordi-
nates, trustworthy, and impartial. Sarros and Santora (2001) surveyed 181 executives
of Australia, Japan, China, and Russia to explore the linkage between their value ori-
entations and leadership behaviors. They found that Chinese executives emphasized
values such as benevolence, harmony with others, and self-restraint. They also noted
that compared with executives from the other three countries, Chinese executives did
not identify independent thinking as a key value dimension.
It is not surprising that business communication research on leadership across cul-
tures is in its infancy since the study of leadership has traditionally been undertaken by
management studies, whose upsurge has been attributed to the political, technological,
and economic superiority of the United States in the postwar years (Collard, 2007;
Foster, 1962; Hofstede, 1980). As a result, it is laden with theories, practices, and
modes of operation that reflect U.S. cultural assumptions characterized by consumer-
ism, individualism and self-sufficiency, competitiveness, toughness, and rationality,
while being exemplified in some non-Western countries as new, modern, scientific,
and results-oriented (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, & Tipton, 1985; Lam, Lau,
Chiu, Hong, & Peng, 1999; Pilkington & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, intercultural
leadership studies often take an etic approach, when a theory or a measure developed
within one social group is validated in another. Moreover, when validating their theo-
ries on other groups or in other countries, their interest has not been to understand how
the theories worked but only in seeing that they worked. Leadership researchers rarely
have done cross-cultural studies to learn the limitations of their theories (Ayman &
Korabik, 2010).
74 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

The emerging communication scholarship on intercultural dialogue has adopted a

working definition of the term as promoting “an open and respectful exchange or
interaction between individuals, groups, and organizations” (Ganesh & Holmes, 2011,
p. 81). The goal of such exchange is to develop a deeper understanding of diverse
practices and to increase participation in making choices and decisions. Bargiela-
Chiappini (2004) identifies contrasting cultural discourses and the “cultural other” as
the future research agenda in the field of organizational discourse. The goal of such
inquiry is to recognize the existing differences and find ways to effectively manage
them, and at the same time, facilitate the process of intercultural dialogue. Oftentimes,
the “Other” is defined in negative terms and is viewed as inferior, especially in cases
where the Western paradigm is pervasive, such as in the socialization process of man-
agers modeled after U.S.-centered MBA programs (Westwood, 2001). In order for
Western leaders to interact successfully and effectively on a global scale, it is impera-
tive to learn more about cultural “Others” and to include this knowledge in their inter-
cultural interactions in order to move toward to more equal and collaborative
partnerships.
An increasing body of research is studying leadership by looking at language and
approaching the phenomenon as an act of social constructionism (Alvesson &
Kärreman, 2000; Fairhurst, 2007, 2009). From this perspective, leadership is viewed
in the context of what leaders do and is thus discursive in nature. According to
Robinson (2001), “Leadership is exercised when ideas expressed in talk or actions are
recognized by others as capable of progressing tasks or problems which are important
to them” (p. 93). According to Fairhurst (2008), this definition enables us to under-
stand leadership as a process of influence and meaning management that advances a
talk or goal, an attribution made by followers or observers, and a process, in which
influence may shift and distribute itself among several organizational members.
More and more researchers are treating language as a methodological question and
a window into cultural meanings. A linguistic focus is also enabling scholars to rethink
traditional approaches to international business issues and, in doing so, to reveal more
nuanced details about how issues such as leadership are “brought off” in intercultural
settings (Fairhurst, 1993, 2007). Our study uses linguistic approaches to identify three
styles of leadership communication and to assess their effectiveness in managing
intercultural decision-making in groups, specifically among participants from the
United States and East Asia.
This study uses some foundational assumptions of interaction analysis (IA),
thought broadly, to look at how leadership emerges in groups. From an interactional
perspective, relational patterns are always codefined. This is because individuals in
leadership relations do not relate and then communicate; instead, they relate through
communication (McDermott & Roth, 1978). IA is the study of interaction process.
McDermott and Roth (1978) defined IA as when “a person’s behavior is best described
in terms of the behavior of those immediately about the person, those with whom the
person is doing interactional work in the construction of recognizable social scenes
or events” (p. 321).
Aritz and Walker 75

This study is an attempt to more fully understand leadership if it is understood as

primarily discursive in nature and co-constructed by those involved in interactions in
which influence emerges. More specifically, it provides three cases that illustrate
three common processes by which leadership emerges in groups. In addition, this
article argues that understanding of the construct of leadership in multicultural groups
is central in accomplishing the goal of fostering mutual respect, advancing dialogue,
and including different perspectives. More specifically, we analyze how particular
leadership communication styles may either exacerbate or resolve some of the prob-
lems associated with working in intercultural groups in diverse organizational set-
tings (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Earley & Mosakoski, 2000; Jehn et al., 1999; Ravlin
et al., 2000).

Participants and Data Collection

Two types of data were collected in this study. The first set consisted of survey data.
We asked participants to also complete a survey instrument in which they were asked
to identify the leader of their group after the simulation was completed and to identify
the characteristics they observed to make that determination. We used this information
to identify the leader in each of the transcripts used in this study. In addition to identi-
fying the leader of their group, the participants were asked to respond to a 12-question
survey (see Appendix A) intended to measure their attitudes about the group experi-
ence in two areas: their satisfaction with the group decision-making process (an out-
ward measure—orientation toward other group members) and their perceived sense of
inclusion and value in the process (an inward measure—orientation toward “self”).
Participants were used to rate their experiences in these areas, using a 7-point Likert-
type scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree.” The attitude survey
was administered to a total of 146 participants that included five additional multicul-
tural groups that participated in the same activity but were not included in the tran-
scription analysis to ensure a higher number of respondents for purposes of statistical
analysis. Of 146 participants, 59 participants were from East Asian cultures, predomi-
nantly from China, Japan, and Korea, and 87 participants were from the United States,
all native English speakers. All participants were business professionals enrolled in an
MBA program at a private university in Southern California with at least 2 years of
work experience in their home country.
In addition, we developed a communication style-oriented measure of leadership
attribute preference using six global leader behaviors identified by the GLOBE
Research Program: Charismatic/Value-based leadership, Team-Oriented leadership,
Participative leadership, Autonomous leadership, Humane-Oriented leadership, and
Self-Protective leadership (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).
Based on the definition of these six global leader behaviors (Dorfman, Hanges, &
Brodbeck, 2004), we derived five communication styles that we used to measure
leadership. We collapsed two separate GLOBE categories, Team Oriented and
Participative leadership, into one category, “Involved other in decision-making pro-
cess,” based on the communicative moves that the leadership style would exhibit.
76 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

The five communication styles then included (a) decisive and task oriented; (b)
involved others in decision-making process; (c) modest, compassionate, and sup-
portive; (d) independent and self-reliant; and (e) status-conscious and procedural.
Twenty-six participants from five different countries, the United States, Korean,
China, Japan, and Taiwan, completed this measure after participating in a simulated
decision-making activity.
The results of these surveys led us to analyze our third set of data, which consisted
of a total of 25 groups of business professionals (N = 120) involved in decision-
making meetings. All 25 meetings were transcribed and analyzed. Of 25 groups, 20
multicultural groups consisted of members from East Asian and American cultures
while 5 were homogenous groups consisting of American participants only. We chose
to include an additional set of five homogenous groups because it generated a third
leadership style that was not replicated in any of the multicultural teams we observed.
We felt that it is important to address all three styles observed to provide a more accu-
rate picture of the available linguistic repertoire that was used to construct leadership
communication by participants from the West. Based on this set of data, three repre-
sentative transcripts were chosen as the focus of this study based on their exemplary
nature in representing styles of leadership that were observed.
We followed Schiffrin (1994) and used her transcription conventions (Schiffrin,
1987) based on an earlier version of transcript notations by Jefferson (1979) to tran-
scribe our data. Since we did not focus on gaze or vocal qualities in our analysis, we
felt that Schiffrin’s conventions better served our needs.
The simulation used in the study, Subarctic Survival, asked each group to take the
role of airplane crash survivors. Groups were then asked to discuss and ultimately
agree on the ranking of items salvaged from the aircraft in terms of their critical func-
tion for survival. The meetings were 20 minutes in length and were held and video-
taped in an experiential learning laboratory equipped with professional facilities and
technicians. The meetings were held in English, and the videotapes were then
transcribed.

Methodology for Transcript Analysis

Two methods of analysis were used to interpret the transcript data, turn-taking patterns
and interaction analysis. Both methods focus on a turn as the main unit of analysis to
observe how contribution changes when multicultural groups involved in decision
making are subject to different leadership styles. Turn-taking is defined as the ordering
of moves that involves the interchange of talking by speakers (Johnstone, 2002).
Numerous studies demonstrate that turn-taking styles are culture-specific and the
potential source of many communication problems. Cultural preferences for length of
turns, pauses between turns, simultaneous talk, or discrete turns specifically lead to
these difficulties (Du-Babcock, 2006; FitzGerald, 2003). The analysis of Southeast
Asians’ conversational style revealed that they are not successful in turn maintenance
when competing with Europeans (Clyne, 1994). Du-Babcock (1999) found that meet-
ings of multinational groups conducted in English were characterized by linear
Aritz and Walker 77

patterns of communication (distinct phases and predetermined sequence of turns)

while meetings conducted in Cantonese were characterized by circular patterns (non-
distinct phases and random turns). Additionally, a comparison between Japanese and
Mandarin Chinese conversational styles revealed some cultural differences among
East Asian groups. Japanese speakers used a high-context communication style con-
sistently, while Hong Kong Chinese switched between a high-context and low-context
communication style, depending on whether they used Cantonese or English
(Du-Babcock & Tanaka, 2013).
First, we used turn-taking to analyze conversational interaction and to examine dif-
ferent leadership styles and group dynamics. Our specific method of analysis of turn-
taking is based on a model developed by Coates (1993) to analyze the management of
naturally occurring interactions in which she describes cooperative and competitive
conversation styles in gendered talk. Coates’s (1993) method was selected to provide
a finer grained analysis of our data and to describe competitive and cooperative styles
that emerge in multicultural groups and the effects it has on group dynamics.
Coates’s (1993) model of analysis focuses on the following areas: (a) The meaning
of questions—are they direct in purpose or used indirectly to facilitate conversation?
(b) Links between speaker turns—does the speaker acknowledge the contribution of
the previous speaker or talk on the topic without acknowledging that contribution? (c)
Topic shifts—are they abrupt or do speakers build on each other’s contributions? (d)
Listening—is the speaker using backchannels or latching? (e) Simultaneous speech—
do the speakers overlap by elaborating on the previous contribution or does the contri-
bution of the second speaker contradict or disrupt that of the first speaker?
These interactional elements are used to analyze how their combination affects the
emergence of leadership within groups of business professionals. We did not include
nonverbal clues, such as gaze and gestures, in our analysis because our focus was on
language and the unit of analysis was limited to a turn as a vehicle to construct leader-
ship in talk. Nonverbal elements may provide interesting insights into our understand-
ing of leadership, but they fell beyond the scope of this study.
Second, we used an IA approach, which involves the categorization of discourse
units according to a predefined set of codes (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986). It is a quan-
titative approach to discourse analysis that draws from message functions and language
structures to assess the frequency and types of verbal interaction. Particular emphasis is
given to the sequences and stages of interaction, their redundancy and predictability,
and the links between interactional structures and the organizational context (Putnam &
Fairhurst, 2001). IA itself is not a unitary field but also uses different theoretical foun-
dations, units of analysis, observational modes, and study designs. But generally speak-
ing, IA has been used to examine organizational constructs such as leadership, strategies
and tactics of negotiation, and faithful or unfaithful appropriations of technology as
they evolve from communication systems (Fairhurst & Cooren, 2004).
We tracked member contribution by looking at three variables, the number of turns
taken, number of words spoken, and the average turn length. We calculated the number
of turns taken by looking at how many times a participant spoke in any given meeting.
We chose to use number of words spoken rather than the amount of time spoken used
78 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

by other studies, because we believe that it is a better indicator of contribution, since

many of our participants were not using their native language. Therefore, they might
take longer to formulate sentences, skewing the data gathered. In addition, speaking
time may vary across those who are comparably fast talkers and those who speak more
slowly, even when using their native language.
Turn length was used as another variable to measure member contribution. Previous
studies have noted cultural differences in turn length. Clyne (1994) found a strong cor-
relation between turn length and cultural groups. We measured an average turn length
by dividing the total number of words spoken by each speaker by the number of turns
they took. We selected a quantitative approach as a secondary method so as to better
illuminate the findings from our qualitative analysis.

Analysis and Findings

The findings from our group satisfaction and inclusion survey indicated that U.S.-born
native English speakers and East Asians did not produce statistically significant
responses to questions designed to measure their overall satisfaction with the group
decision-making process (an outward-measure—orientation toward other group
members).
However, in response to questions designed to measure their perceived sense of
inclusion and value in the process (an inward measure—orientation toward “self”),
East Asian language speakers reported that they did not feel as included, valued, or
supported as their American counterparts. Their responses to the following three ques-
tions were significantly lower on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “Strongly
agree” to “Strongly disagree,” than those of U.S.-born native English speakers: “I was
included in the group discussion and decision making” (p = .0001); “I was valued for
my contributions to the group discussion and decision making” (p = .0001); and “My
group members supported me and my ideas” (p = .0001).
The question as to why the participants from East Asian countries felt less included in
the group-decision-making process led us to look at the style of leadership that was
emerging in our data set. The analysis of the communication-based measure to identify
leadership styles using the survey mechanism revealed the following results (see Table 1).
Of the five styles, being “decisive and task oriented” and “involving others in
decision-making process” were displayed across all cultural groups; however, the dif-
ferences emerged across cultures in the predominant features of “doing leadership.”
Whereas the U.S. team members identified “decisive and task oriented” as the most
important characteristic of a leader, the other cultures listed it as second or third in
importance. Japanese and Chinese valued status-conscious and procedural style over
being decisive and task oriented followed by involving others in decision-making pro-
cess (listed as second by both groups) and modesty, compassion, and support (in the
case of Japanese). Koreans identified “involving others in decision-making process”
feature as the most important attribute of a leader.
Based on this analysis, although the sample was small, we felt that differences in
leadership style preference might affect group satisfaction and feelings of inclusion.
Aritz and Walker 79

Table 1.  Cross-Cultural Comparison of Communication-Based Leadership Styles.

First choice Second choice Third choice

United Decisive and task oriented Involved others in Modest,
States decision-making process compassionate,
and supportive
China Status-conscious and Involved others in Decisive and task
procedural decision-making process oriented
Korea Involved others in decision- Decisive and task oriented Status-conscious and
making process procedural
Japan Status-conscious and Involved others in Decisive and task
procedural decision-making oriented
process and Modest,
compassionate, and
supportive (tie)

Table 2.  A Summary of the Differences That Were Exhibited in Discourse Styles by the
Three Groups in Terms of Leadership Practices.

Discourse elements Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3

Leadership Style Directive Cooperative Collaborative
Meaning of Questions To direct To solicit To frame the interaction and
members participation check for agreement
Links between Turns Few To acknowledge Some acknowledgment of
contribution contribution
Topic Shifts Abrupt Smooth Smooth
Listening Minimal Active Minimal
Simultaneous Speech Interruptions Few overlaps Frequent cooperative
overlaps

As mentioned, this led to our discourse analysis of transcripts to identify the styles that
were exhibited in our data set. Three common styles emerged as shown in the follow-
ing case analysis.
Table 2 provides a summary of the differences that were exhibited in discourse
styles by the three groups in terms of leadership practices. The discussion of each
leadership style as illustrated by three different case studies follows the table.

Directive Style: Case Study 1

Analysis of Questions.  Lines 1 to 35 show Speaker 1 (S1) emerging as a group leader in
Case Study 1. In line 1, S1 is the first to announce his choice of the most vital item for
survival—matches, “I figure you can use fire, otherwise you’re screwed.” In what fol-
lows, S1 uses questions in a competitive way to defend his decision. When his choice
of the most important item for survival gets questioned in line 3, he interrupts S4 in
80 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

line 6 and uses a tag question to challenge an alternative choice, “[well] at least you
can start a fire, though, don’t you think?”

1.  S1: I figure you can use fire, otherwise you’re screwed.
2.  S4: Okay, so let’s
3.  S3:    z but if you, but if you just have matches what are you going to do
  with [them?]
5.  S4:    [Yea] at least with the [xxxx]
6.  S1:       [well] at least you can start a fire though, don’t you think?
7.  . . . I mean it could be one or two, it doesn’t matter.

In line 22, S1 uses an indirect question to reassert his point, “You know what I am say-
ing?” In line 31, S1 asserts himself again and has his first choice of matches recorded
as the group decision. Speaker 1 does not use questioning as a way to facilitate conver-
sation or solicit information from other group members but instead uses questions to
direct them to select his preferred option.
Interestingly, the only group members questioning S1’s choice are other native
speakers of English. For example, in line 3, S3 makes an attempt to question the choice
of matches as the number one item: “but if you, but if you just have matches what are
you going to do with them?” When S4 offers an alternative ranking in line 16, “Okay,
so, are we doing sleeping bag first and the matches second?” They are not successful
at introducing an alternative ranking as S1 takes the group back to his number one
choice in line 17 by saying, “um . . . I think that just not having fire is like . . .”

Analysis of Links Between Speaker Turns.  Speaker 1 does not make a link with the previ-
ous speaker’s contribution but rather concentrates on making his own point as demon-
strated by his turns in line 9.

8.  S4: Okay, so, are we doing sleeping bag first and the matches second? Or the
  other way around?
9.  S1: um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like XXXX.

The only acknowledgments of others that S1 makes is when the previous speaker
supports S1’s point, as illustrated in line 6 above and line 21 below:

19.  S3:      That’s true because it’s light and

20.       [it’s heat]
21.  S1:   [it’s suicide] z Yea, it’s light and its heat and ‘cuz either way if you start
  a fire and all of a sudden no matter better than any sleeping bag. You know
  what I’m saying?

Analysis of Topic Shifts.  Speaker 1 does not show an attempt to create smooth transitions
between topics. In line 16, S4 asks a question that invites a discussion; however, in line
17, S1 shifts the topic back to his agenda and forgoes the possibility to open the
Aritz and Walker 81

discussion to consider additional items, “um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire
is like . . .”

16. S4: Okay, so, are we doing sleeping bag first and the matches second? Or the
other way around?
17.  S1: um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like . . .

There is little elaboration and continuity of the topics introduced into the conversation;
instead, Speaker 1 shifts abruptly to his agenda, to record matches as the most impor-
tant item for the groups’ survival.

Analysis of Listening.  Speaker 1 does not use minimal responses in the form of yeah and
mhm to signal listening. In this case, the gender of the speaker might be an issue,
because it has been found that for men, minimal responses signal agreement rather
than listening and support as they do for women (Coates, 1993, 1996; Tannen, 1990).
Their main conversational strategy—to seize the turn—places little value on listening
and thus minimal responses rarely occur in their speech. The only minimal response
by S1 is offered in line 33, yeah where in fact it does mean agreement with S4, who
endorses S1’s idea of putting matches as the most important item on the survival list.

Analysis of Simultaneous Speech.  Speaker 1 uses overlaps that interrupt the previous
speaker numerous times rather than cooperative overlaps that support the previous
speaker’s contribution, as seen in line 6 (above), and lines 21, 23, and 26 (below).
This, again, may be an issue of gender, since it has been shown that male speakers
value speakership and therefore grab the floor by interrupting and violating the current
speaker’s right to complete the turn. In addition, men then tend to respond to interrup-
tions by continuing to speak and keeping the floor, as S1 does in line 21.

17.  S1: um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like . . . [XXX]
18. S2:                        [XXX]
19.  S3: [That’s ] true
  because it’s light
20.  and [it’s heat]
21. S1: [it’s suicide] Yea, it’s light and its heat and ‘cuz either way if you start a
fire and all of a sudden no matter-better than any sleeping bag. You know
what I’m saying?
22.  S3: Th[at’s true, that’s true.]
23.  S1: [you can also xxxxxx]
24.  S2: [xxx]
25.  S4:    [es]pecially if you find shelter and it’s going to rain
26. S1        and if     z
   and you and you’re wet, you know. 
82 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

Table 3.  Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Cultural Group, Case Study 1.

Average number Average number Average words

Cultural group of turns of words per turn
Asian speakers  39 127.5 3.2
American speakers 151 1,170 7.7

Table 4.  Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Speaker, Case Study 1.

Total turns Total words Average words

Speaker taken spoken per turn
S1: Male, English 200 1,962 9.81
S2: Male, Asian 70 217 3.10
S3: Female, English 113 678 6.00
S4: Female, English 140 870 6.21
S5: Male, Asian 8 38 4.75

Speaker 2, an Asian male, latches once in line 8 validating S1’s “Okay” and tries to
take the floor in line 18 and again in line 24 but is not successful. He and a second
Asian male, Speaker 5, are relatively silent compared with native speakers of English.
In fact, as Tables 3 and 4 indicate, the directive leadership style exhibited by
Speaker 1 resulted in a greater imbalance in member contribution by cultural group.
As shown in Table 3, on average, Americans took five times as many turns as East
Asian participants (151 compared with 39) and produced 1,170 words compared with
127 in Case Study 1. The difference in average turn length was also significantly lon-
ger: 7.7 words for Americans compared with 3.2 words for Asians. The highest num-
ber of turns taken by a native speaker of English was 200 compared with the highest
number of turns taken by an East Asian participant, which was 40. Similarly, the low-
est number of turns taken by an American participant was 70 compared with 8 for an
East Asian participant. Table 4 displays the breakdown of the results by each speaker
with reference to their cultural group and gender.

Cooperative Style: Case Study 2

Analysis of Questions.  Lines 1 to 73 show the process of leadership emergence in the
second intercultural group. At the beginning of the meeting, it looks as if Speaker 6,
an older Asian male, may take the leadership role. In line 2, he opens the discussion by
asking, “Okay, which of you chose, the uh, most important one?” S6 is quite active
taking three significant turns in the beginning of discussion.
It is through the use of her questions that Speaker 1 emerges as a group leader a
couple of minutes into the discussion. Instead of using questions to assert her own posi-
tion or challenge others, S1 asks yes/no and open-ended questions to solicit information
Aritz and Walker 83

about other group members’ choices, “Did everyone choose the compass?” In line 36,
she directs the question to two Asian females who have not yet spoken, giving them a
chance to join the group, “What did you guys put as the number one?” In lines 72 and
73, she recaps the group discussion by summarizing and listing the items in order, “I
think that, I think that the compass is good and then should we do the canvas as sec-
ond?” which elicits an affirmative confirmation by other speakers. By then this more
inclusive style establishes Speaker 1 as a leader. She takes on a more vocal leadership
role in the remaining part of the transcript.

Analysis of Links Between Speaker Turns.  In contrast to the group leader in Case Study 1
who did not link his comments to those of the previous speaker, Speaker 1 acknowl-
edges the contribution of the previous speaker on several occasions. In line 46, for
example, she acknowledges S6’s contribution and elaborates on the topic that he intro-
duced, “oh really? To stay warm.” Similarly, in lines 62 and 65, she continues on a
topic that had been previously introduced by latching and overlapping with S5:

61. S5: Have you ever stayed in the middle of snow? You have no idea where you are.
62.  S1:   you don’t
63.  even know w[hat’s] up or down.
64.  S5:    [with]  z pu[re snow, complete snow] you have no
65. S1:               [everything looks the same]

Analysis of Topic Shifts.  Speaker 1 uses elaboration and continuity as opposed to the
sudden topic shift demonstrated by S1 in Case Study 1. Even when she changes the
topic in line 73, her talk is linked to the previous speaker’s contribution, creating a
smooth transition that guides the group in its discussion:

72.  S5: I’m I’m I’m just saying that we agree on [the com]pass
73. S1:                  [yeahhhh]  z I think that, I think
that the compass is good and then should we do the canvass as second?

Analysis of Listening.  Although Speaker 1 uses just a few minimal responses (line 72) in
this excerpt, her participation is marked by active listening techniques. She actively
participates in the conversation by using repetition (line 41) and validating and elabo-
rating on the previous speaker’s turn (line 46):

36.  S1:       z what did you guys put as the number one?
38.  S4:    z what’d you get?
39.  S3:           z I put, I put canvas [not xxxxx]
40. S5:                 [oh canvas] is uh tent, the tent
41.  S1:   z oh canvas
43. S4:        z oh canvas
44.  S6:   uh canvas, I put sleeping bag
45. S5:             z ye[ah]
46. S1:               [oh ]really? To stay warm.
84 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

Table 5.  Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Cultural Group, Case Study 2.

Average number Average number Average words

Cultural group of turns of words per turn
Asian speakers 105.7 843.7 4.6
American speakers 152.5 870.5 5.7

Table 6.  Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Cultural Group, Case Study 2.

Total turns Total words Average words

Speaker taken spoken per turn
S1: Female, English 171 1,010 5.91
S2: Female, Asian 61 202 3.31
S3: Female, Asian 100 554 5.54
S4: Male, English 134 731 5.46
S5: Male, Asian 219 954 4.36
S6: Male, Asian 43 225 5.23

She also uses frequent latching and speaks without waiting for a pause in a way that
validates and supports the previous speaker’s contribution (lines 41 and 46).

Analysis of Simultaneous Speech.  Speaker 1 overlaps rarely, and when she does, her
overlaps are cooperative, as shown in lines 46 and 65. She does not use simultaneous
speech to interrupt a previous speaker as was the case with S1 in Case Study 1. On one
occasion, she uses backchanneling—yeahhh—to show solidarity with S5.
In this particular interaction, the participation rates are comparable between Asian
speakers and American speakers working in a mixed group (see Tables 5 and 6).
The results in Table 5 show a much more balanced interaction between the two
cultural groups in Case Study 2. The leadership style demonstrated by a female
American participant that included overt invitations of contribution resulted in a more
inclusive leadership style that ensured a more collaborative decision-making process.
The invitation to speak was expressed by frequent use of yes/no and open-ended ques-
tions to help ensure that all members of the group had a chance to express their opinion
before reaching a group decision. Consensus was thus this group’s preferred decision-
making schema. In this setting, the average contribution by American participants was
more similar to the average contribution of Asian participants when compared with the
results in Case Study 1. American speakers took 152 turns compared with 105 turns by
Asian speakers. The average number of words spoken by American and Asian speak-
ers was similar, 870 and 843, respectively. American speakers’ turn length was longer
than Asian speakers—5.7 compared with 4.6—but not nearly as different as in Case
Study 1. This finding is consistent with Clyne (1994), who observed cultural differ-
ences in turn length, with East Asians producing shorter turns. Overall, member con-
tribution was more balanced and more comparable across cultural groups. Table 6
Aritz and Walker 85

displays the breakdown of the results by each speaker with reference to their cultural
group and gender.

Collaborative Style: Case Study 3

Analysis of Questions.  In this group, the questions in the very beginning are used to
establish the collaborative nature of interaction in the group. The first couple of ques-
tions used by several members in the group are used to frame the type of discussion that
will follow. It frames the type of discussion as collaborative as all the group members
are more actively engaged in co-constructing the rules and the process for discussion.
10.  S2: Do we wanna go around and just give like [our top 5?]
11. S1:                  [ What’s the] best, what’s
   the   [least]=
12.  S5:   [Sure.]

Links Between Turns.  Because of the collaborative nature of this group, the recognition
of previous contributions is minimal but is present and positive. This can be seen in the
“Okay” in line 90 and the “Yeah” of agreement by Speaker 4 in lines 87 and 93 in this
example:

87. S4: Yeah, and I figure if you can’t drink the streams, you can use the mirror
to help.
88.  you melt the water and then [you] just drink the snow.
89.  S2: [ Or ]
90.  S1: Okay.
91.  S2: Or I was gonna say, you can, you can melt the snow in the metal can
92.  [from the matches =
93.  S4: [Yeah, that’s

Topic Shifts.  Speakers in this group tend to acknowledge and build on the previous
speaker’s contribution and topic shifts are not abrupt but rather constructive. For
example, in the same excerpt, in line 91 S2 elaborates on S1’s idea and proposes a dif-
ferent variation that is introduced as an option by using a connector “or” that does not
sound like an abrupt topic shift but more like a productive exploration of different
alternatives.

87. S4: Yeah, and I figure if you can’t drink the streams, you can use the mirror
to help.
88.  you melt the water and then [you] just drink the snow.
89.  S2: [ Or ]
90.  S1: Okay.
91.  S2: Or I was gonna say, you can, you can melt the snow in the metal can
92.  [from the matches =
93.  S4: [Yeah, that’s
86 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

Listening.  The collaborative nature of the meeting can be seen in multiple backchan-
nels that signal listening and agreement. S3 and S2 use minimal positive acknowledg-
ments of others’ contribution in the form of “Yeah” in lines 110 and 113. S2 and S5
signal their agreement by using minimal responses, “true” in line 118 and then “right”
in line 120. Lines 122 and 123 show multiple minimal responses, “right right” and
then “okay,” that support the previous speaker and validate that the group is moving in
the preferred direction in its decision-making process.

108.  S5:   Well I put [as] my, my highest, uh the umm, the matches cause like
109.  you’re, you’re wet =  
110. S3:        [Ya].
111.  S5:        = [to the] waist, you’re heavily perspiring. You’re going to
112.  freeze to death because it’s =
113. S2:        [Yeah. ]
114.  S5:    = it’s almost certainly below freezing at that point and so you need
115.  to first, before anything else get warm and dry.
116.  S1:   I had [that,] I had that originally as matches. Actually I had, uh,
117.  matches and Bacardi =
118. S2:      [True].
119.  S1:    = because you can use Bacardi as fuel.
120. S5:   Right.
121.  S1:    As lighter fluid.
122. S5:   Right. Right.
123. S2:   Okay.

Simultaneous Speech.  In this group, there are frequent overlaps, but they are cooperative
in the sense that they build on, expand, or productively question the previous speaker’s
contribution. For example, S4 and S5 overlap in lines 281 and 282 when they both elabo-
rate on the same point that there must be wood if they choose to keep matches among their
top priority items. S1 and S2 overlap immediately following S4 and S5 in lines 283 and
284, reinforcing the need to validate the assumption that there will be branches for them
to use, “There’s gotta be . . .” S4 uses an overlap in line 285 to question this assumption
but not as an abrupt interruption. Rather, he productively builds on the previous speakers’
contributions and introduces an element of doubt that is put out there for the group to
discuss as they move forward with their decision-making, “But will there be?”

277.  S1:   You need . . .

278.  S4:       z You need fuel. But, [what ] are we gonna do? Are we
279.  gonna burn a tree =
280. S1:               [XXX].
281.  S4:   down? [Are we gonna hope that there’s branches, right, right . . .]
282.  S5:      [There’s XXX dead wood on the ground ] [XXX XXX]
283. S1:          [We’re gonna XXX but there’s gotta be] 
284. S2:                    [There’s gotta be . . .]
285. S4:                    [But will there ] be?
Aritz and Walker 87

No IA was completed for this third case study since this particular interaction style
was observed only in homogeneous American groups, that is, no mixed group com-
posed of participants from both the U.S. or East Asian cultures demonstrated this par-
ticular leadership style. We have included it here, however, to exemplify a particular
leadership style that may not work well in mixed groups composed of members from
East Asian cultures and the West.

Discussion
These findings of our surveys and IA may be explained if we consider the effects that
leadership style has on group members. Case Study 1 with a more directive leadership
style that resulted in greater imbalance among group members represented the most
commonly exhibited leadership style in mixed groups. As a rule, all leaders demon-
strating this particular style were U.S.-born males. Case Study 2, on the other hand,
with a more cooperative and inclusive leadership style that resulted in more balanced
member contribution was observed only in a couple of instances. The article illustrates
two styles of leadership—directive and cooperative—and their effects on other mem-
bers in the group, particularly in terms of whether they come from individualist or
collectivist cultures. As shown, a more cooperative leadership style leads to more bal-
anced contribution and participation of all members in intercultural groups consisting
of East Asian and U.S. participants. The most commonly observed directive leadership
style representative of mixed groups showed a less balanced contribution and partici-
pation rate among all participants and may be to some degree responsible for the lower
degree of satisfaction among Asian participants of being included, valued, or sup-
ported within their groups.
The article also discusses a third leadership style, collaborative, which did not
emerge in any mixed groups. Business professionals from the United States may ben-
efit from knowing that they may not encounter the same level of participation and
self-selection to speak and contribute in multicultural groups as one may find in all-
American groups. Such active communicative behavior may be hindered by multiple
factors, including language proficiency, communication apprehension, level of com-
fort, and familiarity. The third cooperative leadership style that showed distributed
leadership among group members also requires a more aggressive and direct commu-
nication style that may not be appropriate in cultures that value benevolence, harmony
with others, and self-restraint. Additionally, it may require time to build relationships
and trust before engaging in this particular communicative style.
Our study indicates that differing styles of leadership can affect the participation
and contribution of members and may affect their feelings of inclusion within the
group. It also provides some evidence that particular styles of and approaches to lead-
ership may not be as successful with all cultural groups. For example, the notion of the
strong, charismatic leader that emerges from some traditional approaches to leader-
ship, that is, trait, transformational, and neocharismatic theories, may not be as suc-
cessful in terms of participation and feelings of inclusion by group members of
particular cultural backgrounds. Similarly, a postmodern view that moves away from
88 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

heroic notions of the leader to a more distributed leadership model, such as that exem-
plified by the collaborative style, also may not hold much cachet for some cultural
groups.
These findings may explain why the cooperative style of leadership generated more
balanced participation and contribution among East Asian participants, since it might
better reflect the values of being considerate and respectful of others. In contrast, the
directive style might be seen as too aggressive, and given the fact that language profi-
ciency may be another obstacle to equal participation in decision making, this style
prevents Asian participants from being equal partners in decision making. The collab-
orative leadership approach similarly requires a more assertive style of communica-
tion to self-nominate to take the floor. Power distance may partially explain why Asian
participants who come from high-power-distant cultures may not engage in the distrib-
uted leadership approach because of an expectation of a designated leader or, possibly,
a longer period of type needed to establish relationships. Furthermore, Du-Babcock
and Tanaka (2013) list language proficiency as a potential reason for such differences.
They found that all Japanese speakers initiated interaction and responded to each other
while speaking in Japanese but not when they were speaking English. Interestingly
enough, Japanese participated at a higher rate when they were put in a reactive role
responding to interactions initiated by Hong Kong Cantonese speakers speaking
English. This finding would confirm our results when a more cooperative style in Case
Study 2 generated higher participation rates among our East Asian speakers.
Identifying particular discourse practices can provide a more concrete way of look-
ing at the enactment of leadership and enabling potential leaders to more consciously
approach the task with their audience in mind. For example, the specific discursive
strategies as exhibited by Speaker 1 in Case Study 2 may create a more inclusive dis-
cussion space that can potentially produce more collaborative solutions and decisions
while at the same time better engage participants from collectivist cultures in decision-
making processes. Similarly, a more directive leadership style may not be the best
approach when working with people from collectivist cultures if the goal is to encour-
age participation in and satisfaction with the group process among East Asian
speakers.
The key focus for instructors and trainers is to teach potential (or future) global
leaders the value of a cooperative leadership style in supporting greater contribution
and participation from members of collectivist cultures. The awareness of leadership
as a dialogic skill can empower any group not only to deepen trust and understanding
of the cultural “Other” (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2004; Witteborn, 2011) but also to enable
better joint decision making.

Limitations and Implications

While the purpose of this study was to isolate the effects of language in the emer-
gence of leadership within a group, it ignored other important variables that would be
at play in most organizational settings. These include structural elements, such as
designated roles as leader, manager, or supervisor; cultural elements of the
Aritz and Walker 89

organization; established relations between actors; historical knowledge regarding

other actors’ level of expertise, competence, and skill; and the role of nonverbal com-
munication. In addition, this was a simulation, and as such may not replicate the
stakes that might be involved in actual decision-making meetings and thus the inter-
actions involved in them.
Furthermore, our study treated Chinese, Japanese, and Korean participants as rep-
resentative of East Asian cultures. Ideally, one would look at these cultural groups
separately and analyze their interactions with Americans by cultural group. However,
because of small numbers of participants from each individual country, we had to
combine them into a larger category that shares similar cultural values, such as high-
context collectivist cultures, that are quite distinct from the American, low-context
individualistic culture.
Still, it provides those interested in leadership and how it emerges in interaction a
potentially new approach to think about, observe, and practice leadership in intercultural
settings. This would include practitioners as well as teachers and scholars of leadership.

Appendix A
Satisfaction Survey Form
Ona scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please circle the appropriate
answer to the questions below:

  1. I was included in the group discussion and decision making.

 2. I was valued for my contributions to the group discussion and decision
making.
  3. My group members supported me and my ideas.
  4. I am satisfied with the group discussion.
  5. I am satisfied with the group decision.
  6. Most of members in my work group get along well with each other.
  7. Most of the members in my work group respect each other.
  8. Most of the members in my work group trust each other.
  9. Most of the members in my work group do their fair share of the work.
10. Most of the members in my work group cooperate to get the job done.
11. Most of the members in my work group are willing to share ideas and information.
12. In my work group, there is strong groupwork.
13. In my work group, there is strong groupwork.

Appendix B
Transcription Symbols Used From Schiffrin (1987)
. Falling intonation followed by noticeable pause (as at end of declarative
sentence)
? Rising intonation followed by noticeable pause (as at end of interrogative
sentence)
90 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

, Continuing intonation: may be a slight rise or fall in contour (less than “.”
or “?”; may be followed by a pause (shorter than “.” or “?”)
! Animated tone
... Noticeable pause or break in rhythm without falling intonation
- Self-interruption with glottal stop
: Lengthened syllable
Italics Emphatic stress
CAPS Very emphatic stress
= Continuous speech
[  ] Overlap; starting point of overlap is marked by a left-hand bracket, and the
ending point of overlap is marked by a right-hand bracket
Z Symbol used when speech from B follows speech from A without percep-
tible pause

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
This article is in part supported by the USC Marshall School of Business Summer Research
Fund.

References
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse. On the study of organizations
through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149.
Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American
Psychologist, 65, 157-170.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential
analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on a new research paradigm.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2004(166), 1-18.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the
heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, men and language (2nd ed.). London, England: Longman.
Coates, J. (1996, January 22). The chattering sexes. London Times. Retrieved from http://www.
timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/the-chattering-sexes/92097.article
Collard, J. (2007). Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts. Journal of
Educational Administration, 45, 740-755.
Dorfman, P., Hanges, P., & Brodbeck, F. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation. In R. J. House,
P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and orga-
nizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (Chapter 21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Du-Babcock, B. (1999). Topic management and turn taking in professional communication.
Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 544-574.
Aritz and Walker 91

Du-Babcock, B. (2005). Communication behaviors in intra- and inter-cultural decision-making

meetings. Journal of Asian-Pacific Communication, 29, 147-170.
Du-Babcock, B. (2006). An analysis of topic management and turn-taking behavior in the Hong
Kong bilingual environment: The impact of culture and language use. Journal of Business
Communication, 43, 21-42.
Du-Babcock, B., & Tanaka, H. (2013). A comparison of the communication behaviors of Hong
Kong Chinese and Japanese business professionals in intracultural and intercultural deci-
sion-making meetings. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27, 263-287.
Earley, C. P., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Earley, C. P., & Mosakoski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of trans-
national team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49.
Fairhurst, G. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A
discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.
Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fairhurst, G. (2008). Discursive leadership. A communication alternative to leadership psychol-
ogy. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 510-521.
Fairhurst, G. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human Relations,
62, 1-27.
Fairhurst, G., & Cooren, F. (2004). Organizational language in use: Interaction analysis, conver-
sation analysis and speech act schematics. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 131-153). London, England:
Sage.
FitzGerald, H. (2003). How different are we? Spoken discourse in intercultural communication.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Foster, G. M. (1962). Traditional cultures and the impact of technological change. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Franklin, P. (2007). Differences and difficulties in intercultural management interaction.
In H. Kotthoff & H. Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication
(pp. 263-285). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ganesh, S., & Holmes, P. (2011). Positioning intercultural dialogue: Theories, pragmatics, and
agenda. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 81-86.
Graham, J. L. (1985). The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations: An
exploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies, 16, 81-96.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leader-
ship, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hui, C. H., & Tan, C. K. (1996). Employee motivation and attitudes in the Chinese workforce.
In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 364-378). Hong Kong,
SAR: Oxford University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination.
In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79-96). New York,
NY: Irvington.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
92 International Journal of Business Communication 51(1)

Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lam, S., Lau, I., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Peng, S. (1999). Differential emphases on modernity and
traditional values in social categorization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
23, 237-256.
McDermott, R. P., & Roth, D. R. (1978). The social organization of behavior: Interactional
approaches. Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 321-345.
Pilkington, H., & Johnson, R. (2003). Relations of identity and power in global/local context.
Cultural Studies, 6, 259-283.
Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In F. M. Jablin
& L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 78-136).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ravlin, E. C., Thomas, D. C., & Ilsev, A. (2000). Beliefs about values, status, and legitimacy in
multicultural groups: Influences on intra-group conflict. In P. C. Earley & H. Singh (Eds.),
Innovations in international and cross-cultural management (pp. 58-83). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Embedding leadership in task performance. In K. Wong &
C. W. Evers (Eds.), Leadership for quality schooling (pp. 90-102). London, England:
Routledge/Falmer.
Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2001). Leaders and values: A cross-cultural study. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 22, 243-248.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, England: Blackwell.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York,
NY: Ballantine Books.
West, J., & Graham, J. L. (2004). A linguistic-based measure of cultural distance and its rela-
tionship to managerial values. Management International Review, 44, 239-261.
Westwood, R. (2001). Appropriating the other in the discourses of comparative management. In
R. Westwood & S. Linstead (Eds.), The language of organization (pp. 241-282). London,
England: Sage.
Witteborn, S. (2011). Discursive grouping in a virtual forum: Dialogue, difference, and the
“Intercultural.” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 109-126.
Yamada, H. (1992). American and Japanese business discourse: A comparison of interactional
styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Author Biographies
Jolanta Aritz is an Associate Professor of Clinical Management Communication at the Marshall
School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She teaches business com-
munication courses in the Marshall undergraduate and graduate programs and conducts research
on small group communication, cross-cultural issues, leadership and business discourse.
Robyn Walker is an Associate Professor of Clinical Management Communication at the
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is editor and
author of several textbooks, co-editor (with Aritz) Discourse Perspectives on Organizational
Communication (2012), and co-author (with Aritz) of Leadership Talk: A Discourse Approach
to Leader Emergence (2014).
Copyright of Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association for Business
Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright of International Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association
for Business Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.