10 5465@amj 2017 0744

Academy of Management Journal
Geographical Dissimilarity and Team Member Influence: Do

Emotions Experienced in the Initial Team Meeting Matter?
Journal: Academy of Management Journal
Manuscript ID AMJ-2017-0744.R3
Manuscript Type: Revision
Gender and Diversity in Organizations < Topic Areas,

Composition/diversity < Group/team characterisitics < Organizational
Keywords: Behavior < Topic Areas, Intergroup relations < Group/team processes <
Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas, Social identity theory <
Theoretical Perspectives
It is both important and challenging to gain influence within

geographically diverse teams. We argue that the emotions team
members experience in their initial team meetings moderate the effect of
geographical dissimilarity on their perceived influence on team decisions
over time. Specifically, we contrast social identity theory based
arguments that geographical dissimilarity negatively influences perceived
influence with self-categorization theory based arguments that there is a
positive relationship between geographical dissimilarity and perceived
influence. We argue that the emotions team members experience in their
Abstract: initial meeting determine which of these relationships eventuate over
time. Across two studies, our data support our arguments. We found
that for individuals experiencing pleasant high-activation emotions, their
geographic dissimilarity was more positively related with perceived
influence in the initial stage of a project; for those experiencing
unpleasant low-activation emotions, their geographic dissimilarity was
positively related with perceived influence in the later stage; for those
experiencing unpleasant high-activation emotions, their geographic
dissimilarity was initially positively and later negatively related with
perceived influence.
Page 1 of 62 Academy of Management Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Geographical Dissimilarity and Team Member Influence:
8
9 Do Emotions Experienced in the Initial Team Meeting Matter?
10
11
12 Prithviraj Chattopadhyay
13 University of Auckland
14
15
p.chattopadhyay@auckland.ac.nz
16
17 Elizabeth George
18 University of Auckland
19 e.george@auckland.ac.nz
20
21
Vishal Gupta
22
23 Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India
24 vishal@iima.ac.in
25
26 Jiping Li
27 Frankfurt School of Finance & Management.
28 j.li@fs.de
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Journal Page 2 of 62
1
2
3 GEOGRAPHICAL DISSIMILARITY AND TEAM MEMBER INFLUENCE: DO
4
5
EMOTIONS EXPERIENCED IN THE INITIAL TEAM MEETING MATTER?
6
7 ABSTRACT
8 It is both important and challenging to gain influence within geographically diverse
9 teams. We argue that the emotions team members experience in their initial team meetings
10 moderate the effect of geographical dissimilarity on their perceived influence on team
11
decisions over time. Specifically, we contrast social identity theory based arguments that
12
13
geographical dissimilarity negatively influences perceived influence with self-categorization
14 theory based arguments that there is a positive relationship between geographical dissimilarity
15 and perceived influence. We argue that the emotions team members experience in their initial
16 meeting determine which of these relationships eventuate over time. Across two studies, our
17 data support our arguments. We found that for individuals experiencing pleasant high-
18 activation emotions, their geographic dissimilarity was more positively related with perceived
19
influence in the initial stage of a project; for those experiencing unpleasant low-activation
20
21 emotions, their geographic dissimilarity was positively related with perceived influence in the
22 later stage; for those experiencing unpleasant high-activation emotions, their geographic
23 dissimilarity was initially positively and later negatively related with perceived influence.
24
25
26 Individual influence refers to the altering of others’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
27
28
29 (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Levy, Collins, & Nail, 1998). Each member’s influence on team
30
31 decisions is critical for overall team effectiveness because only through exerting influence are
32
33 individuals’ ideas integrated into team decision-making and implemented through team actions
34
35
36
(Salk & Brannen, 2000; Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Buscemi, & Blackstone, 1994). Teams
37
38 realize performance benefits related to differences among team members mainly through the
39
40 integration of divergent perspectives associated with members’ heterogeneous backgrounds
41
42
(van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Thus, to realize the benefits of diversity for
43
44
45 team performance, it is imperative, as a first step, to understand the consequences of individual
46
47 team members’ demographic dissimilarity from teammates on their influence in team decision-
48
49 making (van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). Although studies on the antecedents of influence
50
51
52 have implicated people’s structural position (Brass, 1984; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; Salk &
53
54 Brannen, 2000), individual characteristics such as task competence (Anderson & Kilduff,
55
56 2009) and behaviors such as influence tactics (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003), the extent to
57
58
59
which dissimilarity from team members affects individual influence remains unexamined.
60
1
2
3 We focus on individual influence in teams composed of members from different parts
4
5
6 of the world,i.e., comprising internationally dissimilar members (Haas, 2006), and different
7
8 parts of a nation, i.e., comprising intra-nationally dissimilar members (Tung, 1995). We
9
10
11
combine these two types of dissimilarity under the label geographical dissimilarity. Such teams
12
13 have become ubiquitous in organizations (Dow, Cuypers, & Ertug, 2016; Haas, 2006; Stahl,
14
15 Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010), and potentially benefit organizations because they bring
16
17
together knowledge and perspectives from across the globe or a country (Nielsen & Nielsen,
18
19
20 2013). A perusal of the relational demography literature (e.g., Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1992;
21
22 see van Knippenberg & Schipper, 2007 for a review), and the underlying social identity (Tajfel
23
24 & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theories (Turner, 1987), highlights potentially
25
26
27 conflicting arguments regarding how the geographical dissimilarity of each team member
28
29 shapes his or her influence on teammates, as perceived by all teammates.
30
31 Relational demographers invoke social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) to argue
32
33
34
that individual team members’ attitudes and behaviors are negatively affected by demographic
35
36 dissimilarity because they categorize similar teammates as in-group members and dissimilar
37
38 teammates as out-group members (Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1992). From this perspective,
39
40
individual team members with a greater proportion of dissimilar teammates may strive less to
41
42
43 achieve team goals, and thus be perceived as less influential by all teammates, because they do
44
45 not expect their efforts to be supported by their dissimilar teammates (Oldmeadow et al.,
46
47 2003). Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987), a derivative of social identity theory,
48
49
50 however, argues that individuals’ categorization processes focus more on building a positive
51
52 social identity by incorporating positive qualities of the in-group into the individual’s identity
53
54 rather than by focusing on differences between in-group and out-group members. From this
55
56
57
perspective, team members may regard dissimilar teammates as in-group members because
58
59 they appreciate the usefulness of the unique skillsets implied by the teammates’ dissimilar
60
1
2
3 geographical origin in achieving team goals (Gong, 2006; Martin & Eisenhardt, 2010). Thus,
4
5
6 team members with a greater proportion of dissimilar teammates, because they have greater
7
8 faith in their colleagues’ abilities to support their efforts, may work harder to achieve team
9
10 goals, and therefore be perceived as more influential by all teammates. We resolve this
11
12
13
seeming contradiction by theorizing that emotions experienced by individual team members
14
15 facilitate either the negative effects of dissimilarity as suggested by social identity theory, or
16
17 the potential positive effects of dissimilarity as suggested by self-categorization theory.
18
19
Although “the experience of work is saturated with feeling” (Ashforth & Humphrey,
20
21
22 1995: 98; see also Elfenbein, 2007; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), relational demographers
23
24 largely ignore emotions and focus exclusively on cognitive explanations for why dissimilarity
25
26 does not affect individual outcomes uniformly (e.g., Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2008; Tsui et
27
28
29 al., 1992). However, research has shown that the various emotions experienced by individuals
30
31 differentially impacts their social judgments and categorization processes (e.g., Forgas &
32
33 George, 2001; Sinclair, 1988). Moreover, although emotions are short-term reactions to stimuli
34
35
36
(Ekman, 1999), they may shape judgment and decision making over a longer term (Andrade &
37
38 Ariely, 2009; Kilduff & Galinsky, 2013; Ottati & Isbell, 1996); individuals may remain
39
40 committed to their initial decisions in order to remain consistent over time and reduce
41
42
dissonance (Andrade & Ariely, 2009). Building on this work, we propose that the emotions
43
44
45 individuals experience in their initial team meetings moderates the impact of geographical
46
47 dissimilarity on perceived influence over the life of a project.
48
49 We make the following major contributions. We contribute to relational demography
50
51
52 research (see van Knippenberg & Schipper, 2007; van Knippenberg et al., 2016 for reviews)
53
54 and the two underpinning theories - social identity theory and self-categorization theory (see
55
56 Haslam, 2004 for a review). Existing research emphasizes cognitive processes but ignores the
57
58
59
role of specific emotions in self-categorization processes. We theorize that in contexts where
60
1
2
3 dissimilarity is potentially viewed as a positive quality, emotions experienced by team
4
5
6 members will facilitate either their focus on in-group versus out-group comparisons as
7
8 described by social identity theory, leading to a negative impact of dissimilarity on influence;
9
10 or their focus on incorporating positive qualities of dissimilar in-group members into their
11
12
13
social identity in a manner consistent with self-categorization theory, leading to a positive
14
15 impact of dissimilarity on influence. Thus, our contribution extends to theorizing the role of
16
17 emotions in reconciling the potentially contradictory predictions of these theories.
18
19
We also note that it is important to study how geographical dissimilarity shapes the
20
21
22 perceived individual influence of team members because the diverse knowledge, skills and
23
24 abilities of team members from around the globe or the country (e.g., Nielsen & Nielsen, 2013;
25
26 Salk & Brannen, 2000) are more likely to positively impact team processes and performance
27
28
29 (Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, & Paul, 2014) when team members with more dissimilar
30
31 teammates achieve greater influence. We provide an initial study on the impact of demographic
32
33 dissimilarity on emergent patterns of individual team members’ perceived influence within the
34
35
36
team and provide a platform for future research on the conditions under which geographically
37
38 dissimilar team members shape team performance over time. We build on laboratory-based
39
40 work showing that emotions, although transient, may have an impact on judgment and decision
41
42
making after an interval of hours (Andrade & Ariely, 2009; Ekman, 1999) or even days
43
44
45 (Kilduff & Galinsky, 2013; Ottati & Isbell, 1996). We demonstrate that emotions experienced
46
47 at the initial point in a project impact the relationship between geographic dissimilarity and
48
49 individual influence over the life of the project.
50
51
52 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
53 Potential Upsides and Downsides of Geographical Dissimilarity
54
55 Consistent with the prevalent functionalist perspective on influence (see Cheng, Tracy,
56
57
Foulsham, Kingstone & Henrich, 2013) we argue that individual members of a social unit are
58
59
60 perceived as influential when they alter the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of their colleagues
1
2
3 in a manner that positively shapes the processes and outcomes of that unit and advances its
4
5
6 goals. Team members are more likely to be perceived as influential by their teammates when
7
8 they are motivated and able (Cheng et al., 2013; Kotter, 1985) to help their team achieve its
9
10 goals. In this view, influence is both a social process that may be observed by teammates and a
11
12
13
resource that they attribute to team members whose beliefs, feelings and actions link with
14
15 emergent positive team outcomes (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). It is particularly relevant to use
16
17 the functionalist view in studying perceived influence because researchers such as Anderson
18
19
and Kilduff (2009) and Cheng et al. (2013) have empirically demonstrated that individuals
20
21
22 associate overall influence of their peers with positive influence. Team members’ influence at
23
24 the start of project might reflect more of their input into team decisions processes, but over
25
26 time be more a function of their contribution to team effectiveness in achieving various
27
28
29 milestones. In our context, therefore, perceptions of influence arise when team members are
30
31 perceived by teammates to shape critical decisions in a positive direction and are associated
32
33 with contributing to team effectiveness. This functionalist approach is consistent with the
34
35
36
social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theories (Turner et al., 1987)
37
38 that underpin our theorizing; these theories also suggest that individuals are driven to
39
40 positively influence team processes and outcomes in order to build a positive team based social
41
42
identity.
43
44
45 We define work teams as intact social systems collectively performing tasks, with
46
47 boundaries, interdependence among members, and differentiated member roles (Hackman,
48
49 Wageman, Ruddy, & Ray, 2000). Consistent with Chattopadhyay, George and Lawrence
50
51
52 (2004), we define geographical dissimilarity as the extent to which the focal team member
53
54 differs from all their teammates in terms of nationality, i.e., international dissimilarity in Study
55
56 1, or state, i.e., intra-national dissimilarity in Study 2. A team member whose teammates all
57
58
59
belong to other nationalities or states has the highest dissimilarity, whereas one whose
60
1
2
3 teammates all belong to their own nationality or state has the lowest geographical dissimilarity.
4
5
6 As we argue below, a team member’s geographical dissimilarity is associated with
7
8 categorization processes that may have either a positive or a negative impact on how the focal
9
10 team member interacts with all teammates, and thus on teammates’ perceptions of the focal
11
12
13
team member’s influence. We first describe these potential positive or negative effects before
14
15 describing how one or the other may be observed depending on the emotions experienced by
16
17 team members in their team’s initial meeting.
18
19
According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals categorize
20
21
22 themselves and others who are similar on a dimension that is salient in their context into an in-
23
24 group; those who differ on that dimension are categorized into the out-group. Individuals
25
26 satisfy their innate drive to build a positive sense of self by comparing the in-group favorably
27
28
29 with the out-group and associating the resulting positive valence of the in-group with their
30
31 social identity. Within a team context, favorable in-group versus out-group comparisons and
32
33 the associated positive sense of self are facilitated if the team comprises a higher proportion of
34
35
36
in-group teammates. A further outcome of this categorization process is to attribute positive
37
38 qualities to the in-group that are concomitant with its positive valence (Haslam, 2004). Team
39
40 members may thus perceive in-group members to be more trustworthy and reliable than out-
41
42
group members (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Kanter, 1993).
43
44
45 Categories become salient within teams if they help team members to interpret the
46
47 team’s social context and to understand their own place in that context. Salience is higher when
48
49 a social category is easy to recall and helps to account for similarities and differences between
50
51
52 focal team members and their teammates, providing explanations for any observed behavioral
53
54 differences (Haslam, 2004). Nationality and state are relatively easy to discern, well-learned
55
56 categories, and are often perceived to be associated with linguistic and cultural differences that
57
58
59
coincide with political boundaries (Dow et al., 2016; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Hambrick,
60
1
2
3 Davison, Snell, & Snow, 1998; Stahl et al., 2010). These categories are therefore easily
4
5
6 accessible such that team members may attribute behavioral and attitudinal differences
7
8 between themselves and their teammates to cultural differences based on their nationality or
9
10 state. Since it is the presence of the out-group that triggers the use of a category for purposes
11
12
13
of differentiation (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), nationality tends to be salient in international
14
15 settings while states may be salient in nationally homogenous but intra-nationally diverse
16
17 settings (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; Tung 2008).
18
19
“In-group vs out-group” categorization, as described in social identity theory, implies
20
21
22 that team members are more motivated to exert influence in the group and thereby be
23
24 perceived as influential by their teammates when the team includes a higher proportion of
25
26 teammates who the focal team member considers as part of the in-group. According to this
27
28
29 perspective, team members are more likely to believe in the ability of geographically similar
30
31 teammates, i.e., in-group teammates, to deliver results on team tasks because of their greater
32
33 reliability and trustworthiness (Tropp, Strout, Boatswain, Wright, & Pettigrew, 2006). Team
34
35
36
members who believe in the motivation and abilities of teammates to deliver results may be
37
38 more motivated to work hard for the team because they feel their efforts will not be wasted and
39
40 because they are likely to build better relationships with teammates who possess these qualities
41
42
(Organ, 1988). As a result, team members may be more motivated to work toward team goals
43
44
45 when the team includes a higher proportion of in-group teammates (Chattopadhyay, 1999).
46
47 Building on this research, we argue that because team members with a greater proportion of
48
49 geographically similar teammates may be motivated to work harder at team tasks, they may be
50
51
52 perceived as having greater influence with teammates; team members with a greater proportion
53
54 of dissimilar teammates are less motivated to work hard for the team and thus perceived as less
55
56 influential.
57
58
59
Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987), however, does not suggest that individuals
60
1
2
3 always assign dissimilar others to the out-group. Turner (1987) formulated self-categorization
4
5
6 theory as an offshoot of social identity theory that focusses more on qualities of a social unit as
7
8 a basis for social identification rather than on the inter-group approach of social identity
9
10 theory. He argued that individual members of a social unit focus on the essential qualities of
11
12
13
their unit in order to interpret their social context and understand their own place in that
14
15 context. Building on Turner’s (1987) arguments, Haslam (2004) pointed out that the
16
17 categorization of individuals into in-groups and out-groups “also depends on the prior
18
19
expectations, goals, and theories of perceivers” regarding the target group (Haslam, 2004: 36).
20
21
22 He went on to explain that a person may join a team expecting to achieve certain goals.
23
24 Teammates are likely to be accorded in-group status if they are deemed to possess attributes
25
26 that will help the focal team member to attain these goals because membership in a team that
27
28
29 achieves its own as well as member goals can help to build a positive social identity (Haslam,
30
31 2004; Turner, 1987).
32
33 Which goals are likely to be most salient in this identity building process? Teams
34
35
36
comprised of members from around the world or around the country are often convened with
37
38 the specific goal of finding solutions to complex problems facing global organizations (Martin
39
40 & Eisenhardt, 2010; Stahl et al., 2010). For example, global firms entering new markets may
41
42
assemble teams comprising members with local knowledge along with firm-specific
43
44
45 knowledge from other nations where the firm has manufacturing bases (Hambrick et al., 1998)
46
47 in order to boost firm performance (see Gong, 2006). In situations where this perspective is
48
49 salient, team members may perceive a higher likelihood that the team will achieve its task
50
51
52 goals when their teammates are geographically more dissimilar. This is not only because
53
54 geographically dissimilar teammates tend to bring different perspectives to team discussions,
55
56
57
but also because, according to research on expectancy violations, the mere presence of
58
59 geographic dissimilarity “reduces expectations of similarity” (Phillips & Loyd, 2006: 158; see
60
1
2
3 also Phillips, Liljenquist, & Neale, 2009; Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006). Team members
4
5
6 are therefore more likely to categorize geographically dissimilar teammates as in-group
7
8 teammates because they are perceived as bringing a wealth of different knowledge and
9
10 perspectives to the team that may help teams to reach their goal (see e.g. Chattopadhyay et al.,
11
12
13
2004; Ely, 1994; Kanter, 1993). In combination with our earlier argument that team members
14
15 are more motivated to work hard and build influence with teams with a greater proportion of
16
17 in-group teammates, we therefore consider the possibility that team members with higher
18
19
proportions of geographically dissimilar teammates are perceived by all their teammates as
20
21
22 having higher levels of influence.
23
24 In summary, combining social identity and self-categorization theories, team members’
25
26 proportion of geographically dissimilar teammates can potentially have both positive and
27
28
29 negative effects on their influence in the team as perceived by all their teammates. We argue,
30
31 in the following section, that the extent to which a team member experiences a particular
32
33 category of emotions in the affective circumplex in the initial team meeting shapes whether the
34
35
36
positive or negative impact of geographical dissimilarity on this team member’s perceived
37
38 influence prevails over time. Since influence over teammates depends on both motivation and
39
40 ability to influence, we borrow from the burgeoning literature on emotions (e.g., Fredrickson &
41
42
Joiner, 2002; George & Zhou, 2002; Isen, 2008) to argue that experiencing various emotions,
43
44
45 jointly with the level of geographical dissimilarity experienced, shapes team members’
46
47 motivation and ability to work effectively with teammates and thereby be perceived as
48
49 influential by them.
50
51
52 Long Term Effects of Transient Emotions
53 Emotions are intense, short-lived affective reactions to precipitating events (Frijda,
54
55
56 1993) that guide our information processing about ourselves and our daily lives (Forgas, 1995;
57
58 Han, Lerner, & Keltner, 2007). Emotional episodes in a particular situation may stem from the
59
60 situation at hand, but they may also be triggered by a memory that is unrelated to the situation,
1
2
3 or stem from a mood that relates to an earlier situation (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
4
5
6 Individuals tend to react similarly to events based on their emotional state irrespective of the
7
8 origin of their emotions, and may on occasion be unaware of where their emotional state
9
10 originated (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Drawing on these arguments, we propose that any
11
12
13
emotion, whether incidental to or stemming from interactions within the team, may frame how
14
15 focal team members react to the proportion of geographically dissimilar versus similar
16
17 teammates in their team.
18
19
Although emotions are short-term reactions to stimuli that tend to fade in seconds or at
20
21
22 most minutes (Ekman, 1999), they may have a long-term influence on future decision-making
23
24 processes (Andrade & Ariely, 2009). It is well established that individuals tend to behave in a
25
26 manner consistent with their prior actions or inferred beliefs (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom,
27
28
29 1995; Festinger, 1957). Thus, once individuals make a judgment based on their experienced
30
31 emotions, they tend to engage in behaviors consistent with this prior affect-based judgment.
32
33 Several studies have shown the impact of emotions on judgment and decision making over
34
35
36
time periods that extend well beyond the emotional experience. For example, Andrade and
37
38 Ariely (2009) found in a series of experiments that emotions that were elicited in Study 1
39
40 affected decisions in Study 4, despite subjects doing filler tasks in the interim. In other studies,
41
42
Ottati and Isbell (1996) found that when individuals were exposed to information about a
43
44
45 political candidate, their mood at that time affected the evaluation of that candidate a week
46
47 later. Kilduff and Galinsky (2013) found that emotions elicited before individuals worked on a
48
49 group task affected their evaluation of group members two days later, as also the lottery points
50
51
52 they allocated each other. Collectively, these studies suggest that transient emotions set in
53
54 motion a range of outcomes that can persist over time.
55
56 Project teams provide a context in which emotions experienced during the first meeting
57
58
59
are likely to moderate how the proportion of dissimilar teammates relates to the perceived
60
1
2
3 influence of a team member among all teammates over the life of the project. This is because
4
5
6 teams go through long periods of inertia, such that attitudes and behaviors that occur during the
7
8 early life of a team, irrespective of whether they are imported from other teams or created in
9
10 situ, influence how team member interactions evolve over the life of the team (Brown &
11
12
13
Eisenhardt, 1997; Gersick, 1988; Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009). We
14
15 borrow from the team literature the idea that initial interactions between team members and
16
17 their teammates sets the tone for how interactions evolve over time, guided by the emotions
18
19
generated in that initial meeting. Our theorizing builds on research demonstrating how
20
21
22 emotions trigger a variety of responses to social situations. We focus on those reactions that are
23
24 particularly relevant to team member interactions with similar versus dissimilar teammates. We
25
26 theorize about two time-periods, an early time that captures influence patterns as a project gets
27
28
29 under way and a later time that captures any shifts in influence patterns that may be attributed
30
31 to persistent, ongoing interactions between team members and their teammates.
32
33 We focus on three of the four categories of emotions that are derived from the two axes
34
35
36
described in the affect circumplex (Russell & Barrett, 1999): degree of pleasantness, i.e.,
37
38 pleasant versus unpleasant emotions; and level of activation, i.e., high versus low activation.
39
40 Three of these four categories are associated with behaviors that have a bearing on how team
41
42
members interact with similar versus dissimilar teammates. For example, both pleasant
43
44
45 (Bagozzi, Baumgartner & Pieters, 1998; George & Zhou, 2002) and unpleasant high-activation
46
47 emotions (De Dreu et al., 2008; Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2011) trigger high social
48
49 engagement and creativity, attributes that may help team members to quickly integrate the
50
51
52 disparate ideas of their dissimilar teammates and thus be perceived as influential by all their
53
54 teammates at an earlier time. Unpleasant low-activation emotions trigger persistent creative
55
56 problem-solving behaviors (De Dreu et al., 2008; George & Zhou, 2002) that may be useful in
57
58
59
integrating the disparate ideas of dissimilar teammates over time, such that all their teammates
60
1
2
3 perceive such team members to be influential at a later time. In contrast to these three
4
5
6 categories, pleasant low-activation emotions are not associated with social engagement,
7
8 persistence, or creativity (De Dreu, Baas & Nijstad, 2008), qualities that are key to our
9
10 arguments about team members who are perceived as influential by teammates at an earlier
11
12
13
versus a later time.1 Thus, earlier research suggests that we focus only on unpleasant low- and
14
15 high-activation emotions, as well as pleasant high-activation emotions.
16
17 We focus on these categories rather than discrete emotions because the discrete
18
19
emotions within each category occur simultaneously (Mikels, Fredrickson, Larkin, Lindberg,
20
21
22 Megliom, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2005) and collectively shape how individuals respond to their
23
24 context (e.g., Bodenhausen et al., 1994b). For example, the impact of discrete emotions on
25
26 psychophysical responses related to skin conductance and heart rate are similar within, but
27
28
29 differ across, categories (Balconi, Falbo, & Conte, 2012).2
30
31 Impact of Geographical Dissimilarity and Emotions on Influence
32
33 Recall we have established that geographical dissimilarity may either positively or
34
35 negatively impact influence. We now examine how the three relevant categories of emotions
36
37 shape which of these effects eventuate for a focal team member.
38
39
40 Moderating role of pleasant high-activation emotions. Pleasant high-activation
41
42 emotions are associated with perceptions that current goals are achievable (Bagozzi et al.,
43
44 1998; Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987; Stein, Liwag & Wade, 1996) and with offering creative
45
46
solutions to problems that block goal achievement (Isen, 2008). Pleasant emotions inform
47
48
49
50 1 De Dreu et al. (2008) are the only researchers to have explicitly examined pleasant low-activation
51 emotions. Their theorizing and four studies support our position that low-activation positive emotions may not
52 facilitate building influence because individuals experiencing them are likely to exhibit low levels of persistence
53 and creativity (due to the feeling that the status quo is acceptable) and social engagement (due to low levels of
54 activation). Other researchers have either theorized only on pleasant high-activation emotions such as happiness
55 (e.g., Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser, 1994a; Forgas & Fiedler, 1996, experiment 1; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002)
56 or do not differentiate between pleasant high- and low-activation emotions (e.g., Forgas & Fiedler, 1996,
57 experiments 2 and 3).
2 Although we base some of our theorizing on studies examining discrete emotions, we note that these
58
studies did not examine whether other emotions in these categories co-occurred. Since the emotions within each
59
category are logically related and tend to co-occur, we deem it legitimate to extrapolate from studies of discrete
60
emotions such as anger to arguments about related categories such as unpleasant high-activation emotions.
1
2
3 individuals that they are progressing satisfactorily in a relatively safe environment (Schwarz,
4
5
6 1990; Schwarz & Clore, 1993). As a result, individuals are likely to focus on their current
7
8 course of action and relax in how they engage with their environment, leading to greater
9
10 cognitive flexibility and exploration of novel forms of engagement.
11
12
13
It is more difficult to interact effectively with dissimilar teammates when they are
14
15 categorized as out-group members owing to perceived divergence in values and beliefs (van
16
17 Knippenberg et al., 2004). Geographically dissimilar teammates may genuinely hold dissimilar
18
19
opinions (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2013), or the mere presence of geographically dissimilar
20
21
22 teammates may trigger expectations of different opinions and expressions of dissent (Phillips
23
24 & Loyd, 2006; Phillips, 2003). We describe below how pleasant high-activation emotions
25
26 shape whether team members pay attention to the positive or negative aspects of being
27
28
29 different and then the implications of these arguments on the impact of the proportion of
30
31 dissimilar teammates on team member influence.
32
33 Team members may find it easier to interact with and appreciate the positive qualities
34
35
36
of dissimilar teammates when they do not relegate those dissimilar teammates to the out-group
37
38 on account of their geographical dissimilarity. Researchers (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2008; Isen &
39
40 Daubman, 1984) have argued that pleasant emotions are related to the use of more inclusive
41
42
categories, such as the inclusion of weaker exemplars of a category within rather than outside
43
44
45 the category. This is because “a positive affective state leads individuals to experience their
46
47 situation as safe and problem free” (De Dreu et al., 2008: 741). As a result they are more
48
49 holistic and unconstrained in their thought processes, and look for commonalities between
50
51
52 items to be categorized rather than differences (see also George & Zhou, 2002). A typical
53
54 example used by these researchers of broader categorization is the inclusion of a camel as a
55
56 means of transport where narrower categorization includes only a bus or airplane. We
57
58
59
extrapolate from this research to suggest that team members experiencing higher levels of such
60
1
2
3 emotions may be more inclined to categorize all teammates as part of the in-group because
4
5
6 even if they are geographically dissimilar, they are nonetheless teammates; team members
7
8 experiencing lower levels of these emotions may be less inclusive and categorize dissimilar
9
10 teammates as out-group members. In effect, team members experiencing higher levels of
11
12
13
pleasant high-activation emotions are less likely to pay attention to the negative aspects of
14
15 being different.
16
17 In a team where members have been recruited from either around the globe or around
18
19
the country to bring a wide range of skills, abilities, and perspective to help the team solve
20
21
22 complex problems, team members who have more dissimilar teammates and who are more
23
24 inclusive in their categorization of teammates may perceive that their team has a greater ability
25
26 to achieve team goals. Team members who have a higher proportion of geographically
27
28
29 dissimilar teammates and experience higher levels of pleasant high-activation emotions may
30
31 thus be more motivated to contribute toward achieving team goals because they believe goal
32
33 achievement to be more likely (cf. Chattopadhyay, 1999). They may therefore be perceived as
34
35
36
more influential by their teammates. In contrast, team members with similar teammates may
37
38 not see their teammates as representing the diversity of skill and knowledge required to solve
39
40 complex problems. Rather, they may see themselves as possessing skills and knowledge that is
41
42
very similar to that possessed by their teammates with regard to fulfilling team goals. They
43
44
45 may thus be more prone to social loafing (Harkins & Petty, 1982), and less motivated to gain
46
47 influence even when their inclusiveness is accentuated by their emotions.
48
49 Team members may also be better equipped to interact with dissimilar teammates when
50
51
52 they experience pleasant high-activation emotions. The confidence associated with perceived
53
54 progress towards a desired state, resulting from experiencing such emotions, facilitates
55
56 enhanced cognitive flexibility and greater creativity in problem solving and coping with novel
57
58
59
situations (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Isen, 2008; Murray, Sujan, Hirt, & Sujan, 1990;
60
1
2
3 Schwarz, 1990).3 These researchers argue that pleasant high-activation emotions are associated
4
5
6 with an urge to play and explore, which in turn provides for a greater range of thought-action
7
8 repertoires related to the problem at hand. Moreover, positively valenced material tends to be
9
10 retrieved from memory when experiencing such affect, due to what is termed as the mood
11
12
13
congruence principle. Positively valenced material tends to be more abundant, better organized
14
15 with more extensive interconnections, thus lending itself to greater cognitive flexibility and
16
17 creativity (Isen, 2008). Team members may be perceived as more influential in teams with
18
19
greater proportions of geographically dissimilar teammates when they experience higher rather
20
21
22 than lower levels of pleasant high-activation emotions because the higher flexibility and
23
24 creativity associated with these emotions may facilitate the integration of disparate inputs from
25
26 teammates. Such flexibility may be less required, and team members with these abilities are
27
28
29 less likely to be perceived as influential, when teammates are more similar.
30
31 Team members with more dissimilar teammates are likely to benefit from higher levels
32
33 of pleasant high-activation emotions especially in the initial stage of a team project. In addition
34
35
36
to the benefits related to cognitive flexibility and goal orientation described above, team
37
38 members who experience higher levels of these emotions tend to also exhibit higher levels of
39
40 social engagement (De Dreu et al., 2008). A team member with a greater proportion of
41
42
dissimilar teammates is more likely to experience gaps in communication (van Knippenberg et
43
44
45 al., 2004). A combination of higher social engagement, creativity and goal orientation may
46
47 help a team member to quickly bridge these gaps at the start of a project and thus be perceived
48
49 as influential among all teammates.
50
51
52 A downside to experiencing pleasant high-activation emotions, however, is that team
53
54
55
56
3 We recognize that some researchers we cite (e.g., Isen 2008) compared individuals who experienced happiness
57 (i.e., pleasant high-activation affect) versus sadness (i.e., unpleasant, low-activation affect) or a neutral condition
rather than examining, as we do, the intensity of each type of emotion. However, Bless, Bohner, Schwarz and
58
Strack (1990) suggested that their logic regarding the impact of a particular emotion could be extended to effects
59
related to the intensity of that emotion. We join researchers such as Kessler and Hollbach (2005) and Fredrickson
60
and Joiner (2002) in following this path.
1
2
3 members tend to be more distractible and less persistent in achieving goals than those who
4
5
6 experience lower levels of such emotions owing to their perception that they are making
7
8 satisfactory progress in meeting task goals (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004). Higher levels of
9
10 geographical dissimilarity may provide higher levels of novel stimuli that distract such team
11
12
13
members. Moreover, due to the lack of persistence, their levels of creativity may actually
14
15 decline over time (George & Zhou, 2002). Team members with a greater proportion of
16
17 geographically dissimilar teammates who experience higher levels of pleasant high-activation
18
19
emotions may thus find it particularly difficult to influence projects at a later time. At the same
20
21
22 time, they may continue to express the positive energy related to their experienced emotions
23
24 and remain socially engaged with their teammates. On balance, after controlling for the initial
25
26 positive impact, we contend that there is no further increase in the positive impact of
27
28
29 geographical dissimilarity on perceived influence for team members experiencing more
30
31 pleasant high-activation emotions. In summary, we expect team members with a greater
32
33 proportion of geographically dissimilar teammates, who experience higher levels of pleasant
34
35
36
high-activation emotions in the first team meeting, in comparison with team members who
37
38 experience lower levels of dissimilarity and these emotions, to initially gain perceived
39
40 influence, but with no further gain later in the project.
41
42
Hypothesis 1: Geographical dissimilarity is more positively related to team members’
43
44 perceived influence at an early time in the team project for team members who experience
45 higher rather than lower levels of pleasant high-activation emotions in their initial team
46 meeting.
47
48 Moderating role of unpleasant high-activation emotions. Unpleasant high-activation
49
50
51
emotions also bring higher levels of social engagement and higher levels of creativity (Baas,
52
53 De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2011); but unlike pleasant high-activation emotions, they are associated
54
55 with persistence in social actions (De Dreu et al., 2008), driven by a need to react to perceived
56
57
threats (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b) and an urge to master any challenges in the environment
58
59
60 (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Lerner & Tiedens, 2006). Individuals experiencing these
1
2
3 emotions tend to perceive the involvement of human agency in situations, leading to abrasive
4
5
6 behavior linked to apportioning blame (De Dreu et al., 2008; Keltner et al., 1993). The initial
7
8 creativity associated with unpleasant high-activation emotions stems from higher levels of
9
10 impulsiveness driven by the need to react swiftly to threats. Creativity wanes over time as
11
12
13
individuals deplete their cognitive resources in maintaining their alertness to identifying and
14
15 neutralizing threats (Baas et al., 2011).
16
17 Team members who categorize dissimilar teammates as out-group members and have a
18
19
negative perception of the differences between them may find it harder to engage with and
20
21
22 influence them (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Phillips et al., 2009; van Knippenberg et al.,
23
24 2004) while the opposite may be true for those who focus on the benefits of dissimilarity
25
26 (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; Kanter, 1994). Since working with the disparate inputs provided
27
28
29 by dissimilar teammates is a greater challenge than interacting with similar teammates (van
30
31 Knippenberg et al., 2004), and team members experiencing unpleasant high-activation
32
33 emotions tend to see challenges as occasions to display their mastery (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter
34
35
36
Schure, 1989; Lerner & Tiedens, 2006), they may initially be more motivated to dominate their
37
38 team when it includes a greater proportion of geographically dissimilar teammates. What form
39
40 might this domination take? Because creativity involves combining unique information from
41
42
disparate sources, the initial higher levels of creativity associated with higher levels of
43
44
45 unpleasant high-activation emotions (Baas et al., 2011; De Dreu et al., 2008) may shift team
46
47 member focus from the potential conflicts related to dissimilarity to the benefits of being
48
49 different. The higher levels of social engagement noted by Baas et al. (2011) and De Dreu et al.
50
51
52 (2008) to be associated with these emotions may facilitate early interactions with dissimilar
53
54 teammates leading to influence earlier in the project. In contrast, such team members, when
55
56 working with a higher proportion of similar teammates, may not find their creativity to be as
57
58
59
much of an advantage, and may be less motivated to impose themselves on the situation
60
1
2
3 because they do not view the situation as a challenge.
4
5
6 Team members experiencing lower levels of unpleasant high-activation emotions may
7
8 exhibit lower levels of creativity (Baas et al., 2011) and thus show less aptitude for the
9
10 cognitive flexibility required to interact effectively with dissimilar teammates. They are also
11
12
13
less able to quickly impose themselves on their dissimilar teammates as they have lower levels
14
15 of social engagement (De Dreu et al., 2008). In sum, we expect a more positive relationship
16
17 between geographical dissimilarity and perceived influence early on in the project when team
18
19
members experience higher levels of unpleasant high-activation emotions.
20
21
22 We do not expect this positive moderating effect to last. The creativity associated with
23
24 unpleasant high-activation emotions that facilitates the integration of disparate inputs from
25
26 dissimilar teammates wanes over time because these emotions also disrupt thought processes
27
28
29 and deplete cognitive resources over time (Baas et al., 2011; Bodenhausen et al., 1994b).
30
31 Although team members experiencing unpleasant high-activation emotions in the initial team
32
33 meeting may react swiftly to conflict (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b), they also make such
34
35
36
decisions without fully considering the problem, leading to their solutions unravelling over
37
38 time (Keltner et al., 1993). Researchers have also noted that experiencing these emotions may
39
40 result in a more categorical form of information processing (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b) that
41
42
accentuates negative stereotypes such that the out-group is seen negatively (DeSteno et al.,
43
44
45 2004; Forgas & Fiedler, 1996), resulting in poorer relationships with dissimilar teammates. We
46
47 expect categorical information processing, because requires less effort, to be more prevalent
48
49 over time following the depletion of cognitive resources. Relationships may also worsen over
50
51
52 time due to persistence with abrasive behaviors linked with experiencing unpleasant high-
53
54 activation emotions (De Dreu et al., 2008; Keltner et al., 1993). Thus, we expect the perceived
55
56 influence of team members who experience higher geographical dissimilarity and higher levels
57
58
59
of these emotions to erode over time.
60
1
2
3 In summary, team members who have a greater proportion of geographically dissimilar
4
5
6 teammates and also experience higher levels of unpleasant high-activation emotions may
7
8 initially become more influential with teammates because they view working with dissimilar
9
10 teammates as a challenge, their creativity shifts their focus to integrating the disparate
11
12
13
information provided by dissimilar teammates and their higher levels of engagement facilitates
14
15 this process. However, over time these emotions can disrupt thought processes and deplete
16
17 cognitive resources, facilitating in-group versus out-group categorization and, coupled with
18
19
persistent abrasive behaviors, result in worse relationships with teammates. Due to the
20
21
22 abrasiveness associated with these emotions (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b), we expect these
23
24 negative moderated effects to overwhelm and reverse initial positive moderated effects fairly
25
26 quickly. Due to the persistence of these abrasive behaviors (De Dreu et al., 29008), we expect
27
28
29 the negative moderated effects to continue until the end of the project. Therefore, we propose:
30
31 Hypotheses 2: Geographical dissimilarity is (a) more positively related to team
32 members’ perceived influence at an early time, but (b) more negatively related to influence at a
33 later time, for team members who experience higher rather than lower levels of unpleasant
34
high-activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
35
36
37 Moderating role of unpleasant low-activation emotions. Individuals experiencing
38
39 unpleasant low-activation emotions such as sadness tend to use their affect as information that
40
41 something is wrong with their situation (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b; Elsbach & Barr, 1999) and
42
43
44 narrow their focus to the problem at hand (Keltner et al., 1993), enhancing their capacity to
45
46 engage in more systematic processing of social information (Schaller & Cialdini, 1990).
47
48 Consequently, they exhibit fewer categorization biases (Sinclair, 1988), and are better able to
49
50
51
systematically integrate multiple perspectives while working in teams (van Knippenberg,
52
53 Kooij-de Bode, & van Ginkel, 2010). In contrast to unpleasant high-activation emotions,
54
55 individuals experiencing unpleasant low-activation emotions perceive problems to arise from
56
57
the situation rather than from their own or others’ actions (Keltner et al., 1993) since lower
58
59
60 levels of arousal prompt individuals to attribute higher levels of agency to situations rather than
1
2
3 to individuals (Chang, Algoe & Chen, 2017). Accordingly, these individuals, rather than
4
5
6 apportioning blame, work systematically and persistently toward fixing the problem (Keltner et
7
8 al., 1993). Moreover, these individuals tend to persist with offering creative solutions over
9
10 longer periods of time because they perceive that they have not yet reached an optimal solution
11
12
13
(George & Zhou, 2002).
14
15 Building on the above research, we suggest that team members experiencing higher
16
17 levels of unpleasant low-activation emotions are less likely to focus on categorical differences
18
19
between teammates and are more likely to pay attention to those aspects of their dissimilar
20
21
22 teammates that facilitate problem solving and reaching team goals (van Knippenberg et al.,
23
24 2010). Thus, in a team where members have been recruited from either around the globe or
25
26 around the country to bring a wide range of skills, abilities, and perspective to help the team
27
28
29 solve complex problems, team members with higher proportions of geographically dissimilar
30
31 teammates and experiencing higher levels of these emotions may perceive a greater likelihood
32
33 of the team reaching its goals and therefore be more motivated to contribute to team goals and
34
35
36
gain influence in the eyes of their teammates. In contrast, geographical dissimilarity may be
37
38 seen as hindering the achievement of task goals for focal team members possessing lower
39
40 levels of these emotions, because they are more likely to evidence categorization biases owing
41
42
to their less systematic processing of social information (Schaller & Cialdini, 1990). As noted
43
44
45 earlier, team members who perceive that teammates are part of the out-group who may not be
46
47 trusted to advance their team goals, are less likely to be motivated to contribute to team goal
48
49 achievement, and therefore less likely to be perceived as influential by all teammates
50
51
52 (Chattopadhyay, 1999).
53
54 Besides the above motivational benefits, team members’ cognitive abilities to interact
55
56 successfully with geographically dissimilar teammates are also enhanced when they experience
57
58
59
unpleasant low-activation emotions. As noted earlier, team members expect to be confronted
60
1
2
3 with disparate information when they work with dissimilar teammates and process information
4
5
6 focusing on differences even when there is no objective reason to do so (Phillips et al., 2009;
7
8 Phillips, 2003). Thus, interacting with dissimilar rather than similar teammates may facilitate a
9
10 mindset geared toward integrating divergent information, and experiencing higher levels of
11
12
13
unpleasant low-activation emotions in the initial team meeting may trigger the thoughtful cost–
14
15 benefit analysis (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b), structured decision-making (Elsbach & Barr,
16
17 1999) and creative problem solving (George & Zhou, 2002) that enables a team member to do
18
19
so.
20
21
22 Team members who combine the motivation and ability to creatively integrate
23
24 disparate information from dissimilar teammates may be perceived as particularly valuable.
25
26 Therefore, team members with a greater proportion of geographically dissimilar teammates
27
28
29 may gain greater influence with their teammates when higher levels of unpleasant low-
30
31 activation emotions boost their abilities to creatively integrate disparate information.
32
33 Dissimilarity may be more negatively related to influence when team members experience
34
35
36
lower levels of unpleasant low-activation emotions and are consequently more prone to social
37
38 categorization and less prone to thoughtful analysis and persisting with creative solutions.
39
40 Because engagement with more dissimilar colleagues may be particularly difficult (van
41
42
Knippenberg et al., 2004), and unpleasant low-activation emotions result in reduced levels of
43
44
45 social engagement (De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008), the positive effects of engagement with
46
47 geographically dissimilar team members may take time to develop. The thoughtful cost–benefit
48
49 analysis that team members experiencing unpleasant low-activation emotions undertake
50
51
52 (Bodenhausen et al., 1994b) may take time to implement and bear fruit. The creative efforts
53
54 and problem-solving capabilities of such team members also bear fruit over time rather than
55
56 immediately as they result from persistence rather than a greater tendency for divergent
57
58
59
thinking (George & Zhou, 2002; Keltner et al., 1993). We therefore expect to observe this
60
1
2
3 interaction effect at a later rather than an early time in the team project, and to continue
4
5
6 developing until the end of the project:
7
8 Hypothesis 3: Geographical dissimilarity is more positively related to team members’
9 perceived influence at a later time for team members who experience higher rather than lower
10 levels of unpleasant low-activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
11
12
13
METHODS
14 Participants and Research Setting
15
16 We report on two studies in this paper that model the joint impact of geographical
17
18 dissimilarity and emotions on perceived influence at different times in a team project. In Study
19
20
21 1, structured interactions between team members were built into the student program shortly
22
23 after the students first met. Therefore, we measured early influence at the beginning of the
24
25 team project (Time 1) to capture early effects related to high social engagement associated with
26
27
28
pleasant as well as unpleasant high-activation emotions. In this study we also measured
29
30 influence shortly after the project mid-point (Time 2, controlling for Time 1) to capture
31
32 delayed effects related to levels of persistence, coupled with systematic thinking (for
33
34
unpleasant low-activation emotions) and abrasive behavior and cognitive depletion (related to
35
36
37 unpleasant high-activation emotions). This is a good time to capture persistence related effects
38
39 as by project mid-point team member interaction patterns have stabilized sufficiently to
40
41 observe whether they will persist throughout a project (Mathieu & Rapp, 2007). In Study 2, as
42
43
44 we explain later, lack of structured interactions at project commencement led us to collect data
45
46 only at Time 2 (shortly after project mid-point) and Time 3 (immediately after project
47
48 completion).
49
50
51
Data were collected through multiple surveys of MBA students at a university in Hong
52
53 Kong for Study 1 and MBA students at an Indian business school for Study 2. We deemed
54
55 these to be appropriate samples to test our ideas because MBA programs are marketed as
56
57
arenas where students can learn from and network with students from different parts of the
58
59
60 country or several different countries (Friga, Bettis, & Sullivan, 2003).
1
2
3 Study 1
4
5
6 The data were collected at three different times over the course of about two months.
7
8 The first wave of data was collected at the MBA program registration, at which time students
9
10 received a letter explaining the purpose and procedure of the study and ensuring the
11
12
13
confidentiality of all information collected. Students interested in participating in the study
14
15 signed a consent form and responded to measures of individual characteristics and task
16
17 meaningfulness (a control variable). With their permission, we obtained data on their
18
19
demographic characteristics including nationality, academic background, and work experience
20
21
22 from records in the MBA program office.
23
24 Students were then assigned by the MBA program office to teams based on educational
25
26 background, gender, work experience and nationality. A total of 48 teams were formed,
27
28
29 ranging in size from 4 to 5 students (median = 5). Before the semester started, all students
30
31 attended a 5-day residential program designed to facilitate teamwork. At the end of the initial
32
33 team meeting during this residential, we collected data on emotions experienced in those
34
35
36
meetings. We collected data on the initial measure for our dependent variable, perceived
37
38 influence (T1), at the end of the residential program, when we expected to see initial moderated
39
40 effects related to social engagement and creativity.
41
42
Following this residential, student teams were assigned a project that accounted for 50
43
44
45 percent of their final grade in a first semester course. The project consisted of two major
46
47 components. The first was a simulation that involved solving business problems and improving
48
49 the financial performance of the firm they were running. The second component of the team
50
51
52 project was a case analysis of an actual company; students’ work was evaluated by the course
53
54 instructor. These are complex tasks that involve making decisions under conditions of
55
56 uncertainty. Moreover, the firms that were analyzed were global and thus provided a suitable
57
58
59
context for including expertise from the various nations represented in a team. We collected
60
1
2
3 data on our dependent variable, perceived influence (T2), at a time just past the midpoint of the
4
5
6 first semester when we expected to see the moderating effects of persistence associated with
7
8 some emotions (George & Zhou, 2002). Time 2 also represents a window where we could
9
10 capture perceived influence in real time rather than retrospectively.
11
12
13
In total, 192 (out of 227) students provided complete data. Sixty-seven percent were
14
15 males and 33 percent were females; 23 percent had obtained another postgraduate degree
16
17 before they joined the MBA program. Students belonged to 27 countries including China (30
18
19
percent), USA (13 percent), Canada (8 percent), India (6 percent), UK (5 percent), France (4
20
21
22 percent), Germany (4 percent) and the remainder scattered across the Americas, Europe and
23
24 Asia. The number of years of full-time employment ranged from 2 to 14 (mean = 5.43, SD =
25
26 2.37). There were no differences between respondents and nonrespondents in terms of sex (χ2
27
28
29 = 1.11, ns), nationality (χ2 = 1.51, ns), whether they had a postgraduate degree (χ2 = .06, ns),
30
31 and the number of years of full-time employment (t = -.14, ns).
32
33 Measures. International dissimilarity. Recall that international dissimilarity was
34
35
36
defined as the extent to which team members differed from teammates in terms of nationality.
37
38 We calculated a dissimilarity score for each team member by assigning 0 for teammates who
39
40 were of the same nationality as the team member and 1 for all other teammates with a different
41
42
nationality, summing across all teammates and dividing by their total number. Thus, higher
43
44
45 scores indicate greater dissimilarity. International dissimilarity scores ranged from 0.4 to 0.8,
46
47 with 80% of the participants scoring over 0.75.
48
49 Emotions. We used Seo and Barrett’s (2007) measure of core affect structure to
50
51
52 measure the extent to which each team member experienced each of the following discrete
53
54 emotions in their first team meeting, using a 7-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all, 7 =
55
56 extremely so). Pleasant high-activation emotions (PHE) are happy, excited, joyful, enthusiastic,
57
58
59
proud, interested, and satisfied. Unpleasant high-activation emotions (UHE) are angry, afraid,
60
1
2
3 irritated, nervous, and frustrated. Unpleasant low-activation emotions (ULE) are sad, depressed
4
5
6 and disappointed.4
7
8 Perceived influence. This measure represents how all teammates together rate each
9
10 team member’s influence. Consistent with our functionalist perspective, respondents evaluated
11
12
13
all other team members (i.e., they did not rate themselves) not only in terms of impact on team
14
15 decisions but also their contribution to team effectiveness. They responded to the following
16
17 two questions regarding every other team member: “How much influence does each team
18
19
member exert over team decisions?” (1 = very little influence, 7 = a lot of influence); “How
20
21
22 much does each team member contribute to the team’s overall effectiveness?” (1 = very little
23
24 contribution, 7 = exceptional contributions). In order to calculate a perceived influence score
25
26 for each team member, we first averaged all teammates’ (i.e., the perceivers rating the focal
27
28
29 team member) evaluation of the focal team member (i.e., the ratee) on each item and averaged
30
31 the mean scores that the focal team member (i.e., the ratee) received on each question.5 Before
32
33 aggregating teammates’ ratings of the focal team member’s perceived influence, we calculated
34
35
36
the interrater agreement of each team member’s received ratings (i.e., the within-group
37
38 interrater agreement, rwg,) across all teammates. For item 1, the median rwg scores are .77 at T1
39
40 and .83 at T2; and for item 2, .77 at T1 and .85 at T2. These median rwg scores are above the
41
42
proposed .70 threshold and may be regarded as sufficient evidence of within-group interrater
43
44
45 agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984).
46
47
48
49
50 4 These items were used to create a team level measure of positive and negative emotion diversity in a
51 study with the same sample (Li, Li, Chattopadhyay, George & Gupta, 2018).
5 In keeping with our theorizing that team members are most likely to be perceived as influential when
52
53 they help the team achieve its goals, our measure of influence refers to perceptions of member influence over
54 team decisions (i.e., team processes that facilitate the achievement of team goals) and perceptions of member
55 contributions directly affecting valued team goals (i.e., contributions to team effectiveness). This approach is
56 particularly valuable in measuring perceived influence over time as teammates’ perceptions may reflect team
57 member influence in making decisions earlier in a project, but later relate more to the individual’s contributions
toward project milestones achieved at that time. We prefer this measure to a single-item measure as composite
58
measures tend to be more reliable (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). We measured its inter-item reliability by treating
59
each peer evaluation on influence and contribution as a separate item. The resulting alpha scores are .82 at T1,
60
and .81 at T2 in Study 1; .92 at T2, and .91 at T3 in Study 2.
1
2
3 Each focal team member received multiple ratings from teammates, which created a
4
5
6 multi-level data structure. We calculated ICC(1) scores for the influence ratings, which are .33
7
8 (F = 3.32, p < .00) and .22 (F = 2.35, p < .00) at T1, and .23 (F = 2.43, p < .00) and .16 (F =
9
10 1.89, p < .00) at T2, above the .12 threshold (e.g., Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009).
11
12
13
These ICC(1) scores show that the variance of focal team members’ influence scores is mainly
14
15 from differences among them (i.e., among the ratees) rather than among raters. These statistics
16
17 together imply that attributes of the teammates do not interfere with how the teammates rate
18
19
each focal team member’s influence and justify our aggregation across all teammates’ ratings
20
21
22 to calculate a perceived influence score for each team member.
23
24 Control variables. Commenting on the rationale to include control variables, methods
25
26 researchers such as Spector and Brannick (2011) note that when controls link to both
27
28
29 dependent and independent variables, their inclusion in a model helps to rule out spurious
30
31 relationships between these variables. Following this reasoning, our first set of control
32
33 variables include individual attributes that may provide the basis for framing geographical
34
35
36
dissimilarity in a particular manner and also tend to be associated with individual motivation to
37
38 garner influence in the context of our study. We controlled for task meaningfulness, individual
39
40 values, and learning goal orientation. A team member who finds the task meaningful, values
41
42
learning and is high on learning goal orientation may focus more on the skills and capabilities
43
44
45 of their geographically dissimilar teammates. At the same time, team members who score high
46
47 on these variables may be more motivated to work hard in the team, particularly in an
48
49 educational setting, and thereby be perceived as influential in the team. Since our arguments
50
51
52 point to unconscious categorization related effects, it is important to control for parallel effects
53
54 that may be related to the consciously held beliefs and values of team members. Task
55
56 meaningfulness was measured using a scale from Harrison, Price, Gavin, and Florey (2002) to
57
58
59
indicate whether it was worthwhile undertaking the project. Learning goal orientation was
60
1
2
3 measured using Brett and VandeWalle’s (1999) scale. Values were measured using Rokeach’s
4
5
6 (1973) scale. All scales used a 7-point format (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
7
8 We controlled for dissimilarity between the team member and teammates on these and
9
10 other dimensions that may be salient to team members, being related to the team task (Harrison
11
12
13
et al., 2002). Team members may automatically categorize one another on demographic
14
15 attributes, while differences in dispositional or attitudinal attributes become apparent over
16
17 time. Greater dissimilarity on other potentially salient dimensions may shift focus away from
18
19
geographical dissimilarity and at the same time lead to greater impact of these other
20
21
22 dimensions of dissimilarity on team member influence. In addition to dissimilarity on learning
23
24 goal orientation, values and task meaningfulness, we focused on demographic attributes shown
25
26 by previous research to be salient bases of categorization (see for reviews Chattopadhyay,
27
28
29 George, & Ng, 2011; Guillaume, Brodbeck, & Riketta, 2012; Roberson, Ryan, & Ragins,
30
31 2017), including dissimilarity on education level, number of years employed, functional
32
33 background, industry background, and age. We expected these dimensions to be salient in a
34
35
36
cohort of business school students where previous education and work experience often shape
37
38 the manner in which team members address team tasks. We also controlled for perceived
39
40 dissimilarity on various dimensions because these perceptions are not fully aligned with how
41
42
teammates actually differ from the participant (see Shemla, Meyer, Greer, & Jehn, 2016 for a
43
44
45 review). We chose to include perceptions of dissimilarity related to education, gender and
46
47 attitude towards teamwork, because informal interviews with a group of students who were not
48
49 included in our sample suggested that students consciously pay attention to these differences
50
51
52 between themselves and their teammates.
53
54 Finally, we used Hogg & Hain’s (1998) scale to control for identification with the
55
56 team. Reviews have unearthed little evidence that identification mediates the impact of
57
58
59
dissimilarity on distal outcomes (e.g., van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), possibly because
60
1
2
3 identification scales measure a conscious outcome of what is an unconscious process. As such,
4
5
6 theorists such as Van der Vegt and Bunderson’s (2005) have argued that diversity and identity
7
8 are only loosely coupled in teams. However, identification evokes positive emotional reactions,
9
10 is linked to how individuals categorize dissimilar colleagues, and is also related to the extent a
11
12
13
team member is motivated to garner influence (Hogg, 2001). It may, therefore, provide an
14
15 alternate explanation for our hypothesized effects.
16
17 Analytic Strategy. Because of the multilevel nature of the data (respondents were
18
19
nested within 48 teams) and our interest in individual influence as perceived by teammates, we
20
21
22 tested our hypotheses with multilevel models using the PROC MIXED command in SAS
23
24 rather than ordinary least squares regressions. PROC MIXED calculates the maximum
25
26 likelihood estimates of models that simultaneously estimate relationships at the individual
27
28
29 while controlling for team level effects. The between-team component of total variance,
30
31 parallel to ICC(1), was 0% and 19% for perceived influence (T1 and T2, respectively), justifying
32
33 multilevel analysis (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).
34
35
36
We used Bauer, Preacher and Gil’s (2006) approach to simultaneously estimate the
37
38 impact of the interaction between international dissimilarity and emotions (X * Zi, where i = 1
39
40 through 3 for each moderator, pleasant high-activation emotions [Z1], unpleasant high-
41
42
activation [Z2], and low-activation [Z3] emotions) on the dependent variable (perceived
43
44
45 influence at Time 1 [Y1] and at Time 2 controlling for Time 1 [Y2]). The resulting intercept-as-
46
47 outcome moderation model simultaneously estimated all three moderated effects on the
48
49 dependent variable at Times 1 and 2 (X * Zi → Y1, and X * Zi, Y1 → Y2). All variables were
50
51
52 mean-centered. All variance inflation factors were less than 10, indicating that our results were
53
54 not affected by multicollinearity.
55
56 We used deviance statistics to assess model fit by comparing the log-likelihood
57
58
59
statistics of the model to that of the corresponding saturated model. We also report the
60
1
2
3 incremental deviance associated with the geographical dissimilarity by emotions interactions
4
5
6 which is distributed as asymptotic chi-square with degrees of freedom equal to the number of
7
8 constraints imposed; that is, we performed a chi-square test (df = 3) to examine whether the
9
10 model including the theorized interactions fitted the data significantly better than the one
11
12
13
without the interactions. We also report the incremental pseudo R2 associated with main and
14
15 interaction effects.
16
17 Study 1 Results
18
19 Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates
20
21 for the multi-item variables. Table 2 presents a multilevel analysis of the impact of
22
23
international dissimilarity by emotions interactions on perceived influence at Time 1 (Column
24
25
26 1) and Time 2 (Column 2).Although these are presented in different columns in Table 2 for
27
28 ease of understanding, all effects were estimated simultaneously. We report fixed effect
29
30
31 estimates, standard errors and t values for all variables except nationality, where F values are
32
33 reported for testing differences across all nationalities.
34
35 --------------------------------
36
Insert Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1a to 1c about here
37
38 --------------------------------
39
40 Hypothesis Testing. Hypothesis 1 suggested that geographical dissimilarity has a more
41
42 positive impact on perceived influence at an early time (Time 1) for team members who
43
44
experienced higher levels of pleasant high-activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
45
46
47 We test this argument – and all further hypotheses – by examining whether the interaction
48
49 between dissimilarity and emotions is significant and follows the theorized pattern, rather than
50
51 examining whether the simple effects of dissimilarity at high and low levels of emotions differ
52
53
54 from zero, as the latter do not provide information relevant to our hypotheses. The interaction
55
56 term between international dissimilarity and pleasant high-activation emotions impacts
57
58 perceived influence in the predicted direction at Time 1 (b = 2.06, se = 0.68 p < .01, Column
59
60
1
2
3 1). Figure 1a supports Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that international dissimilarity has a more
4
5
6 positive relationship with perceived influence for team members who experienced higher
7
8 levels of pleasant high-activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
9
10 Hypothesis 2 states that geographical dissimilarity has a more positive impact on
11
12
13
perceived influence (a) at an early time (Time 1) and (b) a more negative impact at a later time
14
15 (Time 2) for team members who experienced higher levels of unpleasant high-activation
16
17 emotions in their initial team meeting. We expected to observe the negative effect even after
18
19
controlling for perceived influence at Time 1. The interaction term between international
20
21
22 dissimilarity and unpleasant high-activation emotions impacts perceived influence (T1) in the
23
24 predicted direction (b = 2.25, se = 0.93, p < .05, Column 1) but is not significant at Time 2
25
26 after controlling for perceived influence (T1) (b = 0.27, se = 0.94, ns, Column 2). Figure 1b
27
28
29 supports Hypothesis 2a, demonstrating that international dissimilarity has a more positive
30
31 relationship with perceived influence at Time 1 for team members who experienced higher
32
33 levels of unpleasant high-activation emotions in their initial team meeting. Thus, H2a received
34
35
36
support but H2b did not.
37
38 Hypothesis 3 states that geographical dissimilarity has a more positive impact on
39
40 perceived influence that develops at a later time (Time 2) for team members who experienced
41
42
higher levels of unpleasant low-activation emotions in their initial team meeting. We expected
43
44
45 to observe this effect after controlling for perceived influence at an early time (Time 1). The
46
47 interaction term between international dissimilarity and unpleasant low-activation emotions
48
49 impacts perceived influence (T2) in the predicted direction after controlling for perceived
50
51
52 influence (T1) (b = 2.10, se = 1.03, p < .05, Column 2). Figure 1c supports Hypothesis 3,
53
54 demonstrating that international dissimilarity has a more positive relationship with perceived
55
56 influence at Time 2 for team members who experienced higher levels of unpleasant low-
57
58
59
activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
60
1
2
3 Study 1 Discussion
4
5 In Study 1 we investigated the interactive impact of international dissimilarity and three
6
7 categories of emotions on the extent to which focal team members are perceived as influential
8
9
10 in team decision making by their teammates at two times in a team project. We found that
11
12 geographical dissimilarity is more positively related to perceived influence early on in the
13
14 project for team members who experienced higher rather than lower levels of both pleasant and
15
16
17 unpleasant high-activation emotions during their initial team meeting. In contrast, the positive
18
19 moderated impact of dissimilarity and unpleasant low-activation emotions on influence occurs
20
21 at Time 2. These results support our arguments that emotions felt during the initial team
22
23
meeting moderate the impact of dissimilarity on influence with teammates in a manner that
24
25
26 reflects the properties of each emotion category.
27
28 However, although we measured emotions experienced in the initial team meeting
29
30 immediately after the meeting, we are unable to state whether the observed effects stem from
31
32
33 these initial emotions or from the same emotions being repeatedly experienced in later
34
35 meetings. Since this could occur if the emotions are trait-based, we controlled for trait
36
37 emotions in Study 2. It may also be that emotions experienced at later times provide better
38
39
40 explanations for the observed influence patterns. We, therefore, measured state emotions at the
41
42 same time as we measured influence. Finally, although we argued that the interactive impact of
43
44 geographical dissimilarity and emotions that trigger persistence on perceived influence
45
46
continues until the end of the project, we did not empirically ascertain this point. In Study 2
47
48
49 we, therefore, examined the impact of this interaction on influence just after the project mid-
50
51 point (Time 2) and at project completion (Time 3).
52
53 Study 2
54
55 The sample consisted of students enrolled in an MBA program, from 23 of the 36 states
56
57
and union territories of India, including 16% from Andhra Pradesh, 12% from Delhi, 9% each
58
59
60 from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, 8% from Tamil Nadu, 6% from West Bengal, 5% each
1
2
3 from Karnataka and Jharkhand with smaller numbers across other states. The program
4
5
6 emphasized the high quality of talent that they attracted from the different states around the
7
8 country. Students attending the MBA orientation program received a letter inviting them to
9
10 participate in the study, explaining the purpose of the study and assuring them of the
11
12
13
confidentiality of all information collected. Students interested in participating in the study
14
15 signed a consent form and responded to a survey about their state membership, academic
16
17 background, and work experience as well as individual characteristics that were used as control
18
19
variables in the study. They were then assigned by the MBA office to teams that were as
20
21
22 diverse as possible with regard to educational background, gender, social class, and whether
23
24 differently abled. The school advocated the philosophy that teams that are more diverse
25
26 enhance student learning.
27
28
29 At this time, students commenced work on a project lasting the entire three months of
30
31 the first term. The assignment required each study group to pick an organization and study its
32
33 inter-organizational network. The teams were asked to explore different databases, news
34
35
36
reports or other sources of documented information. They were expected to obtain detailed
37
38 current and historical information about the firm of their choice (e.g., company annual reports,
39
40 books and articles about the firm) and decide which pieces of information led to the current
41
42
network of the organization, providing adequate justification. The teams submitted a detailed
43
44
45 analysis of this topic for grading and also presented their work in class.
46
47 In Study 2, since teams did not engage in structured activities early in the project after
48
49 their initial meeting, there was little chance for team members to develop influence at Time 1.
50
51
52 However, by Time 2 all teams had met and commenced discussions on their projects, allowing
53
54 for the hypothesized influence patterns to emerge. Since we expected the early effects related
55
56 to social engagement triggered by pleasant high-activation emotions to remain unchanged
57
58
59
through the rest of the project, we expected the positive interaction observed at Time 1 in
60
1
2
3 Study 1 to be observed at Time 2 in Study 2 (not controlling for Time 1 effects). At the same
4
5
6 time, we expected that persistence related effects associated with unpleasant low-activation
7
8 emotions would develop by Time 2 and continue to grow until project completion (Time 3).
9
10 Thus, we expected to observe this positive interaction term at Time 2 and at Time 3 after
11
12
13
controlling for Time 2. With regard to unpleasant high-activation emotions, we expected that
14
15 the early positive effects related to social engagement observed in Time 1, Study 1 would be
16
17 overwhelmed by the negative effects related to persistent abrasive behavior and cognitive
18
19
depletion by Time 2, so we would observe a negative moderated effect at that time. Moreover,
20
21
22 we expected these negative effects to grow until Time 3 so we could observe them after
23
24 controlling for influence at Time 2.
25
26 In sum, data on perceived influence were collected at Time 2, just past the middle of
27
28
29 the term and at Time 3, just after the term ended. Data on emotions were collected at around
30
31 the end of the second week of the term just after all the teams had met once. A total of 338
32
33 students in 75 teams of 5-7 members provided complete data. Sixty-eight percent were males
34
35
36
and 32 percent were females; 7 percent had obtained another postgraduate degree before they
37
38 joined the MBA program and their average age was 23.03 years with a standard deviation of
39
40 1.74. The mean number of years of full-time employment was 1.21 with a standard deviation
41
42
of 1.34.
43
44
45 Measures. Intra-national dissimilarity. Intra-national dissimilarity was defined as the
46
47 extent to which focal team members differed from their teammates in terms of their state. We
48
49 calculated it for each member by assigning 0 for teammates who belong to the same state as
50
51
52 the focal team member and 1 for all other teammates (i.e., teammates from different states),
53
54 summing across all teammates and dividing by their total number. Intra-national dissimilarity
55
56 scores ranged from 0.4 to 1, with 69% of the participants scoring over 0.75.
57
58
59
Emotions. Respondents were presented with Seo and Barrett’s (2007) measure of core
60
1
2
3 affect structure to rate the extent to which they experienced fifteen discrete emotions in their
4
5
6 first team meeting, using a 7-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all, 7 = extremely so).
7
8 Perceived influence. As in Study 1, we asked team members to rate every other team
9
10 member on the influence they exerted on team decisions and their contributions to team
11
12
13
effectiveness, using a 7-point scale (1 = not much, 7 = very much). We also used the same
14
15 approach as Study 1 to compute a perceived influence score for each member after justifying
16
17 the required aggregation of teammates’ (i.e., those rating the perceived influence of focal team
18
19
members) ratings of the focal member (i.e., the ratee). The median rwg score is .75 at T2 and .77
20
21
22 at T3 for item 1, .70 at T2 and .75 for T3 for item 2, above the .70 threshold (James et al.,
23
24 1984). Accordingly, we aggregated teammates’ ratings of each focal team member on these
25
26 two items and then averaged the aggregated means to calculate the focal team member’s
27
28
29 influence score. The ICC(1) scores, calculated as in Study 1, are .37 (F = 4.55, p < .00) at T2,
30
31 and .40 (F = 4.91, p < .00) at T3 for item 1; .31 (F = 3.72, p < .00) at T2 and .31 (F = 3.70, p <
32
33 .00) at T3 for item 2, above the .12 threshold (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2009). These statistics show
34
35
36
that the variance related to focal team members’ influence scores is mainly from the
37
38 differences among them (i.e., among ratees) rather than among teammates (i.e. among raters),
39
40 supporting aggregation.
41
42
Control variables. While we attempted to stay consistent over the two samples, we also
43
44
45 had to consider unique characteristics of the samples that could influence the relationships we
46
47 examined in this study. As in Study 1, we controlled for how meaningful students found the
48
49 project and learning goal orientation as well as dissimilarity on these dimensions. However, we
50
51
52 used Grant and Dweck’s (2003) updated scales that break learning goal into two dimensions,
53
54 learning and mastery. We controlled for work experience and age as well as dissimilarity on
55
56 these dimensions; for identification with the team and for perceived dissimilarity on education,
57
58
59
gender, and attitudes toward team.
60
1
2
3 There are four sets of differences with the controls used in Study 1. First, we did not
4
5
6 control for participants’ industry or functional background, because most of them did not have
7
8 meaningful work experience, with 40% having no work experience and 18% having one year
9
10 or less. Instead, we focused more on their educational background, and associated
11
12
13
dissimilarity, controlling for, along with education level, whether the previous degree was in
14
15 engineering or another discipline, because engineering has been shown to be higher status in
16
17 India (Banerjee & Muley, 2007) and may be associated with greater influence. Second,
18
19
although various states in India tend to have separate languages individuals often speak
20
21
22 multiple languages that overlap. We controlled for the overlap in the languages spoken by
23
24 teammates as it may weaken the impact of state dissimilarity. We did so by including the
25
26 number of languages each person can speak fluently, and the proportion of teammates who can
27
28
29 converse with a team member in a second or third language. Finally, due to a shortage of space
30
31 on the survey, we could not measure individual values. Instead, we utilized one item measuring
32
33 perceived differences among team members related to valued outcomes from the MBA
34
35
36
program. Most importantly, we controlled for trait emotions and the interaction between
37
38 emotions and intra-national dissimilarity. Trait emotions were measured by asking respondents
39
40 how they feel in general in terms of the same emotions listed when measuring state emotions.
41
42
We adopted the same data analysis approach as Study 1. The between-team component
43
44
45 of total variance, parallel to ICC(1), was 0 % and 3% for perceived influence (T2 and T3,
46
47 respectively), justifying multilevel analysis (Cohen et al., 2003).
48
49 Study 2 Results
50
51 Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates
52
53 for the multi-item variables. Table 4 presents a multilevel analysis of the impact of intra-
54
55
56 national dissimilarity by emotions interactions on perceived influence at Time 2 (Column 1)
57
58 and Time 3 (Column 2). Although these are presented in different columns in Table 4 for ease
59
60 of understanding, all effects were estimated simultaneously. We report fixed effect estimates
1
2
3 and t values for all variables except state, where an F value is reported for testing differences
4
5
6 across states. We report incremental deviance statistics and for model significance and pseudo
7
8 R2 for effect size.
9
10 --------------------------------
11
Insert Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 2a to 2e about here
12
13
--------------------------------
14
15 Hypothesis 1 suggested that geographical dissimilarity has a more positive impact on
16
17 perceived influence at an early time for team members who experienced higher levels of
18
19
pleasant high-activation emotions in their initial team meeting. As explained above, we
20
21
22 expected early effects related to these emotions to develop in the first half of the project so that
23
24 we could observe it at project mid-point (i.e. at Time 2). The interaction term between intra-
25
26 national dissimilarity and pleasant high-activation emotions impacts perceived influence in the
27
28
29 predicted direction at Time 2 (b = 1.21, se = 0.61, p < .05, Column 1). Figure 2a supports
30
31 Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that intra-national dissimilarity has a more positive relationship
32
33 with perceived influence for team members who experienced higher levels of pleasant high-
34
35
36
activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
37
38 Hypothesis 2 states that geographical dissimilarity is (a) more positively related to team
39
40 members’ perceived influence at an early time, but (b) more negatively related to influence at a
41
42
later time, after controlling for their perceived influence at an early time in the team project, for
43
44
45 team members who experience higher rather than lower levels of unpleasant high-activation
46
47 emotions in their initial team meeting. We could test only Hypothesis 2b as our data is from
48
49 the mid-point of the project, by which time we expect the strong negatively moderated effects
50
51
52 associated with these emotions to overwhelm the proposed early positive effects. As theorized,
53
54 we expected the persistent abrasive behaviors and cognitive depletion associated with these
55
56 emotions to overwhelm any positive effects by project mid-point such that the interaction term
57
58
59
negatively impacts team member influence at Time 2 and then at Time 3 after controlling for
60
1
2
3 perceived influence at Time 2. The interaction term between intra-national dissimilarity and
4
5
6 unpleasant high-activation emotions impacts perceived influence (T2) in the predicted direction
7
8 (b = -1.78, se = 0.67, p < .01, Column 1) and at Time 3 after controlling for perceived
9
10 influence (T2) (t = -1.80, se = 0.72, p < .05, Column 2). Figures 2b and 2c support Hypothesis
11
12
13
2b, demonstrating that intra-national dissimilarity has a more negative relationship with
14
15 perceived influence at both times for team members who experienced higher levels of
16
17 unpleasant high-activation emotions in their initial meeting.
18
19
Hypothesis 3 states that geographical dissimilarity more positively impacts perceived
20
21
22 influence at a later time, the effect continuing to grow until project end, for team members who
23
24 experienced higher levels of unpleasant low-activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
25
26 As theorized, we expect this relationship at Time 2 to capture the persistence related effects
27
28
29 associated with these emotions in the first half of the project and at Time 3, controlling for
30
31 Time 2, to capture these effects in the remainder of the project. The interaction term between
32
33 intra-national dissimilarity and unpleasant low-activation emotions impacts perceived
34
35
36
influence (T2) (b = 1.67, se = 0.69, p < .05, column 1) and marginally impacts perceived
37
38 influence (T3) after controlling for perceived influence (T2) in the predicted direction (b = 1.22,
39
40 se = 0.74 p < .10, Column 2). Figures 2d and 2e support Hypothesis 3, demonstrating that
41
42
intra-national dissimilarity has a more positive relationship with perceived influence at Time 2,
43
44
45 and marginally at Time 3 controlling for Time 2, for team members who experienced higher
46
47 levels of unpleasant low-activation emotions in their initial team meeting.
48
49 Post Hoc Analyses
50
51 Our results largely support our hypotheses in this study. As a robustness check, we
52
53 tested the idea that state emotions experienced during team meetings at Times 2 and 3 are less
54
55
56 important than initial emotions by running two separate models where we substituted initial
57
58 emotions with emotions at either Time 2 or Time 3, along with their interactions with intra-
59
60 national dissimilarity. Only one of the hypothesized interactions, between dissimilarity and
1
2
3 unpleasant high-activation emotions at Time 2, significantly impacts perceived influence at
4
5
6 Time 2 (t = 2.40, p < .05). Moreover, the interactions with initial emotions did not change
7
8 substantially when these interactions were tested together in another model.
9
10 We also examined, to the extent possible, our assumptions regarding the manner in
11
12
13
which emotions shape how team members viewed their teammates. Specifically, we assumed
14
15 that pleasant high-impact emotions create impressions that team processes are going well. We
16
17 used six items from Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2002) and Rogelberg, O’Connor and Sederberg
18
19
(2002) to measure the extent to which team members share information freely with their
20
21
22 teammates, keep one another up to date and avoid communication breakdowns ( = .74 in
23
24 Study 1, .80 in Study 2). If a project is progressing smoothly, this should be reflected in the
25
26
27
perceived quality of team communications reported by team members. Communication quality
28
29 correlated positively with pleasant high-activation emotions (r = .17, p < .05 in Study 1; r
30
31 = .57, p < .001 in Study 2). We also assume that unpleasant low- and high-activation emotions
32
33
create impressions of something wrong with team processes. Accordingly, we found that
34
35
36 perceptions of team communication quality correlate negatively with the experience of
37
38 unpleasant low-activation emotions in Study 1 (r = -.19, p < .01) and Study 2 (r = -.51, p
39
40 < .001) as well as with the experience of unpleasant high-activation emotions in Study 1 (r =
41
42
43 -.24, p < .001) and Study 2 (r = -.46, p < .001). Overall, our post hoc analyses provide support
44
45 for our assumptions.
46
47 GENERAL DISCUSSION
48
49 We build on arguments that geographical dissimilarity may both positively and
50
51 negatively impact team member influence, and that transient emotions have a long-term impact
52
53
54
on decisions (Andrade & Arielly, 2009; Ottati & Isbell, 1996) to show that geographical
55
56 dissimilarity and emotions experienced in the initial project meeting jointly shape team
57
58 members’ influence over the life of a project. We found that geographical dissimilarity is more
59
60
1
2
3 positively related to perceived influence early on in the project for team members who
4
5
6 experienced higher rather than lower levels of pleasant high-activation emotions during their
7
8 initial team meeting. These results support our argument that the cognitive flexibility and
9
10 social engagement associated with these emotions help, by facilitating the integration of
11
12
13
diverse inputs from geographically dissimilar teammates, to moderate the impact of
14
15 geographical dissimilarity on influence as perceived by all teammates. However, there are no
16
17 further differences of this interaction term on team member influence later in the project,
18
19
possibly because of the higher levels of distractibility associated with these emotions. Our post
20
21
22 hoc analyses support the idea that pleasant high-activation emotions facilitate these effects
23
24 because they signal to team members that team communication processes are in good shape.
25
26 Geographical dissimilarity is more positively related to perceived influence at an earlier
27
28
29 time in Study 1, for team members experiencing higher levels of unpleasant high-activation
30
31 emotions but negatively related to influence later in the project in Study 2. However, we did
32
33 not observe the hypothesized negative moderated effect in the first study and, because we
34
35
36
could not get meaningful data at the beginning of the project, could not test for the
37
38 hypothesized early positive moderated effect in the second study. Our conclusions for
39
40 unpleasant high-activation emotions, therefore, are more tentative than for the other emotion
41
42
categories. These results support our argument that team members gain early influence when
43
44
45 they have higher proportions of geographically dissimilar teammates and experience higher
46
47 levels of unpleasant high-activation emotions because these emotions trigger social
48
49 engagement, abrasive arousal and creativity. However, continuing abrasive behavior and
50
51
52 higher levels of cognitive depletion leads to diminished influence at the later stage in the
53
54 project, particularly among dissimilar teammates where in-group versus out-group dynamics
55
56 may be further exacerbated. Our post hoc analyses support our argument that team members
57
58
59
who experience higher levels of unpleasant high-activation emotions perceive that team
60
1
2
3 communication processes are in poor shape.
4
5
6 Working with more dissimilar teammates is associated more positively with perceived
7
8 influence later in the project for team members experiencing higher rather than lower levels of
9
10 unpleasant low-activation emotions in their initial meeting. This pattern of results supports our
11
12
13
argument that team members treat these emotions as a signal that all is not well with their team
14
15 project, and that dissimilar team members may be useful in solving team problems, leading to
16
17 higher motivation to contribute to the team when teammates are more dissimilar. Post hoc
18
19
analyses, in support of our arguments, suggest that team members who experience higher
20
21
22 levels of these emotions perceive that team communication processes are in poor shape. The
23
24 interactive effects of dissimilarity and unpleasant low-activation emotions occur later in the
25
26 project, suggesting that they take time to develop due to the low social engagement associated
27
28
29 with these emotions. The persistence associated with these emotions facilitates the increase in
30
31 these effects until the end of the project.
32
33 In summary, our arguments related to pleasant high-activation emotions and unpleasant
34
35
36
low-activation emotions were consistently supported across the two studies. In addition, across
37
38 Study 1 and Study 2 we found some support for arguments related to unpleasant-high
39
40 activation emotions. Overall, these results support our contention that emotions experienced at
41
42
the beginning of a project can affect the interactions between team members related to gaining
43
44
45 influence throughout the project. Our post hoc analyses helped to rule out that these effects
46
47 stemmed from emotions experienced throughout the project, either due to team member traits
48
49 or due to circumstances that trigger similar emotions at other times. In combination, these
50
51
52 results suggest that emotions experienced in the first team-meeting frame how team members
53
54 view similar versus dissimilar teammates. This initial framing is then reflected in behaviors
55
56 that shape influence over time.
57
58
59
Implications
60 Our results show that the geographical dissimilarity of teammates could either facilitate
1
2
3 or hinder the emergence of team member influence at different points in a project, depending
4
5
6 on those team members’ initial emotional experiences. These results imply that the category
7
8 and intensity of emotions experienced by team members may lead to differences in self-
9
10 categorization processes; some individuals may engage in categorizing similar versus
11
12
13
dissimilar teammates into in-groups versus out-groups as highlighted in social identity theory
14
15 (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) while others, consistent with self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987),
16
17 focus on categorizing in-groups on the basis of valued qualities, in this instance the inclusion
18
19
of diverse skills and perspectives in a demographically diverse team. Our research thus
20
21
22 suggests a path forward in understanding how these two theories complement each other in this
23
24 domain. Future research may test our arguments with different dimensions of dissimilarity,
25
26 such as gender or race, which are salient in a particular context.
27
28
29 Although studies on the antecedents of influence have examined individual’s structural
30
31 position (Brass, 1984; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; Salk & Brannen, 2000), their attributes such as
32
33 task competence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009) and behaviors such as influence tactics (Higgins,
34
35
36
Judge, & Ferris, 2003), the extent of their dissimilarity from team members remains
37
38 unexamined in this context. The influence of dissimilar team members is critical to the success
39
40 of diverse teams (e.g., Salk & Brannen, 2000). When diverse teams are put together to take
41
42
advantage of the skills and perspective of dissimilar members, it is imperative that they
43
44
45 contribute to team processes and outcomes in order to realize these benefits. Our paper
46
47 provides a platform for future research examining how the inputs of different team members
48
49 over the life of a project may shape the team’s success.
50
51
52 We add to the growing list of studies examining why demographic dissimilarity does
53
54 not influence team members uniformly; our focus on emotions complements the more
55
56 cognitive explanations that focus on moderators such as task typicality (Chatman, Boisnier,
57
58
59
Spataro, Anderson, & Berdahl, 2008) and team members’ own demographic characteristics
60
1
2
3 (e.g., Avery et al., 2008; Tsui et al.,1992). Our research also suggests that social identity and
4
5
6 self-categorization theorists (see Haslam, 2004 for a review) need to address the role of
7
8 specific categories of emotions in self-categorization processes. We speculate that earlier
9
10 research may have avoided examining the long-term implications of emotional experiences
11
12
13
within teams due to the transient nature of emotions. Our notion that transient emotions
14
15 experienced at a critical time when team members are most open to influence can have longer
16
17 term consequences thus opens up a new arena for research.
18
19
This research also has practical implications for the management of internationally
20
21
22 diverse teams in global firms and intra-nationally diverse teams in large domestic firms. To
23
24 fully realize the benefits of geographical dissimilarity in contexts where team members are
25
26 explicitly brought together from different places in order to take advantage of their diverse
27
28
29 skillsets, it is important for managers to know how team members’ initial emotions play a role
30
31 in shaping emerging influence among geographically dissimilar team members. Constructive
32
33 interventions can then be made to enhance interactions with teammates for those team
34
35
36
members who face the greatest dissimilarity. Activities could be designed to elicit pleasant
37
38 high-activation emotions among geographically dissimilar members at the initial group
39
40 meetings, with the understanding that they may need to be reminded of the need to process
41
42
information carefully and analytically. For those geographically dissimilar team members who
43
44
45 experience unpleasant low-activation emotions at this time, managers can facilitate their access
46
47 to team decision-making so that their analytical style benefits the team at an earlier stage. For
48
49 those who experience unpleasant high-activation emotions, mangers may need to think about
50
51
52 how to take advantage of their energy and creativity early on and help to temper their
53
54 abrasiveness at later stages. Alternately, organizations may benefit from recruiting emotionally
55
56 intelligent team members and managers, or from imparting training in emotional awareness
57
58
59
and management to potential members of diverse teams so that they become aware of how they
60
1
2
3 may be impacted by their emotions in that context and are able to leverage this knowledge to
4
5
6 their own and the team’s benefit.
7
8 Limitations and Directions for Future Research
9
10 Our results and conclusions are based on data collected from MBA student groups.
11
12 MBA project teams are arguably good data sources for studying the impact of inter-/intra-
13
14 national dissimilarity on individual influence as any demographic dissimilarity effect should be
15
16
17 studied in a context where that dimension is salient. Moreover, it is a good setting to study the
18
19 emergence of influential team members as we can observe influence from the beginning to the
20
21 end of the team project. However, the duration of the team project is relatively short. Although
22
23
some organizational projects may also last a few months, it would be interesting for future
24
25
26 research to see whether this pattern of results is replicated in longer organizational projects.
27
28 Moreover, future research could also examine whether transient emotions have long-term
29
30 consequences in other arenas, such as the creativity processes within project teams.
31
32
33 We restricted our paper to examining interactions between geographically dissimilar
34
35 team members in a context where they are brought together to take advantage of their
36
37 dissimilarity. Future research may examine the extent to which our conclusions generalize to
38
39
40 other forms of dissimilarity in contexts where both the positive and negative aspects of
41
42 dissimilarity are made salient. Finally, we took a functionalist perspective where we, consistent
43
44 with most research in this domain (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009), consider influence to be
45
46
associated with positive changes in the team. However, we acknowledge that individual
47
48
49 influence may also be detrimental. We encourage future research to take a broader view and
50
51 consider both positive and negative aspects of influence.
52
53 Conclusions
54
55 We present two studies examining interactions over time among geographically
56
57
dissimilar teammates, a topic that is increasingly important in today’s world of national and
58
59
60 global organizations. Our results suggest that managing team members’ emotions in the very
1
2
3 first meeting of a project team helps to minimize negative self-categorization effects and
4
5
6 maximize the benefits of processing diverse information, thus boosting dissimilar members’
7
8 perceived influence.
9
10 REFERENCES
11
12 Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. 2014. The riddle of hierarchy: Power
13 transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 327352.
14 Anderson, C. & Kilduff, G.J. 2009. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-
15
16
face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality
17 and Social Psychology, 96: 491-503.
18 Andrade, E. B., & Ariely, D. 2009. The enduring impact of transient emotions on decision
19 making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109: 1–8.
20 Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human
21 Relations, 48: 97–125.
22
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. 2008. What are the odds? How demographic
23
24
similarity affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination. Journal of
25 Applied Psychology, 93: 235–249.
26 Baas, M., De Dreu, C. W., & Nijstad, B. A., 2011. Creative production by angry people peaks
27 early on, decreases over time, and is relatively unstructured. Journal of Experimental
28 Social Psychology, 47: 1107–1115.
29 Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. 1998. Goal-directed emotions. Cognition and
30
Emotion, 12: 1–26.
31
32 Balconi, M., Falbo, L., & Conte, V. A. 2012. BIS and BAS correlates with
33 psychophysiological and cortical response systems during aversive and appetitive
34 emotional stimuli processing. Motivation and Emotion. 36: 218–231.
35 Banerjee, R., & Muley, V. P. 2007. Engineering education in India.
36 http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/~rb/Research/EnEdu.pdf.
37 Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect
38
39
effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and
40 recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11: 142–163.
41 Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. 1990. Mood and persuasion: A cognitive
42 response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16: 331–345.
43 Brass, D. J. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an
44 organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 518-539.
45
Brett, J. F., and VandeWalle, D. 1999. Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of
46
47
performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 863–873.
48 Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P., Susser, K. 1994a. Happiness and stereotypic thinking in
49 social judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 621–632.
50 Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L., & Kramer, G. P. 1994b. Negative affect and social
51 perception: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social
52 Psychology, 24: 45–62.
53
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity
54
55 theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative
56 Science Quarterly, 42: 1–34.
57 Bunderson, J.S. & Sutcliffe, K.M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of
58 functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of
59 Management Journal, 45: 875-893.
60 Chatman, J. A., Boisnier, A. D., Spataro, S. E., Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. 2008. Being
1
2
3 distinctive versus being conspicuous: The effects of numeric status and sex-stereotyped
4
5
tasks on individual performance in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human
6 Decision Processes, 107: 141–160.
7 Chattopadhyay, P. 1999. Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic
8 dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,
9 42: 273–287.
10 Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., & Lawrence. S. 2004. Why does dissimilarity matter?
11
Exploring self-categorization, self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction. Journal of
12
13
Applied Psychology, 89: 892–900.
14 Chattopadhyay, P., Finn, C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2010. Affective responses to professional
15 dissimilarity: A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 808–826.
16 Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., & Ng. C. K. 2011. An uncertainty reduction model of
17 relational demography. In A. Joshi, H. Liao, & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.) Research in
18 Personnel and Human Resource Management, 30: 219-251. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
19
Cheng, J.T., Tracy, J.L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A. & Henrich, J. 2013. Two ways to the top:
20
21 Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and
22 influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104: 103-125.
23 Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. 1995. Preference for consistency: The
24 development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications.
25 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 318–328.
26 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation
27
28
analysis for the applied behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29 Crano, W. D. 2001. Social influence, social identity, and ingroup leniency. Group consensus
30 and minority influence: Implications for innovation, 122-143.
31 De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the
32 mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality
33 and Social Psychology, 94: 739–756.
34
DeSteno, D., Dasgupta, N., Bartlett, M. Y., & Cajdric, A. 2004. Prejudice from thin air the
35
36
effect of emotion on automatic intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 15: 319–324.
37 Dow, D., Cuypers, I. R. P., & Ertug, G. 2016. The effects of within-country linguistic and
38 religious diversity on foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business, 47: 319–
39 346.
40 Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. 2004. How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced
41 preservation at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
42
30: 343–353.
43
44 Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
45 international team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 26–49.
46 Ekman, P. 1999. Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish & T. Power (Eds.), The handbook of
47 cognition and emotion: 45–60. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
48 Elfenbein, H. A. 2007. Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. The
49 Academy of Management Annals, 1: 315–386.
50
51
Elsbach, K. D., and Barr, P. S. 1999. The effects of mood on individual's use of structured
52 decision protocols. Organization Science, 10: 181–198.
53 Ely, R. J. 1994. Organizational demographics and the dynamics of relationships among
54 professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203–238.
55 Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
56 Press.
57
Forgas, J. P. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
58
59
Bulletin, 117: 39–66.
60 Forgas, J. P., & Fiedler, K. 1996. Us and them: Mood effects on intergroup discrimination.
1
2
3 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 28–40.
4
5
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. 2001. Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
6 organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and
7 Human Decision Processes, 86: 3-34.
8 Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
9 emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13: 172–175.
10 Friga, P. N., Bettis, R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. 2003. Changes in graduate management education
11
and new business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management
12
13
Learning and Education, 2: 233–249.
14 Frijda, N. H. 1993. Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland
15 (Eds.), Handbook of emotions: 391–403. New York: Guilford.
16 Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. 1989. Relations among emotion, appraisal, and
17 emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57: 212-228.
18 George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. 2008. Group composition and decision making. In G. P.
19
Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision
20
21 Making: 361-371. New York: Oxford University Press.
22 George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good
23 ones don't: the role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:
24 687-697.
25 Gersick, C. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a model of group development.
26 Academy of Management Journal, 31: 9–42.
27
28
Gersick, C., & Hackman, J. R. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups.
29 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47: 65–97.
30 Gong Y. 2006. The impact of subsidiary top management team nationality diversity on
31 subsidiary performance: Knowledge and legitimacy perspectives. Management
32 International Review, 46: 771–789.
33 Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. 2003. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of
34
Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 541-553.
35
36
Guillaume, Y. R., Brodbeck, F. C., & Riketta, M. 2012. Surface‐and deep‐level dissimilarity
37 effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups:
38 A meta‐analytic integration. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
39 85: 80-115.
40 Haas, M. R. 2006. Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams: The roles of
41 cosmopolitans and locals. Organization Science, 17: 367–384.
42
Hackman J. R., Wageman, R., Ruddy, T. M., & Ray, C. R. 2000. Team effectiveness in theory
43
44 and practice. In: C. Cooper & E.A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organizational
45 psychology: Theory and practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
46 Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. 2007. Feelings and consumer decision making: The
47 appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17: 158–168.
48 Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. 1998. When groups consist of
49 multiple nationalities: Toward a new understanding of the implications. Organization
50
51
Studies, 19: 181–205.
52 Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. 1982. Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social
53 loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 1214-1229.
54 Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams and task
55 performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning.
56 Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029–1045.
57
Haslam, S. A. 2004. Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.).
58
59
London: Sage.
60 Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 2003. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a
1
2
3 meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 89-106.
4
5
Hogg, M. A. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
6 Review, 5: 184–200.
7 Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. 1993. Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of
8 network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science
9 Quarterly, 38: 277-303.
10 Isen, A. 2008. Some ways in which positive affect influences decision making and problem
11
solving. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of
12
13
emotions. New York: Guilford Press.
14 Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. 1984. The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of
15 Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1206–1217.
16 Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. 2011. Work team diversity. In Z. Sheldon (Ed), APA handbook of
17 industrial and organizational psychology (vol 1: 651-689). Washington, DC: APA.
18 James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability
19
with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
20
21 Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A
22 field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
23 Quarterly, 44: 741-763.
24 Kanter, R. M. 1993. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
25 Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. 2009. Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The
26 promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 77–89.
27
28
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. 1993. Beyond pessimism: Effects of sadness and
29 anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 740–752.
30 Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. 2005. Group-based emotions as determinants of ingroup
31 identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41: 677–685.
32 Kilduff, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. 2013. From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-
33 oriented mindsets lead to greater status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34
105: 816–831.
35
36
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. 2009. Individual power
37 distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level,
38 cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 744-764.
39 Köhler, T., Cramton, C.D., & Hinds, P.J. 2012 The meeting genre across cultures: Insights
40 from three German–American collaborations. Small Group Research, 43: 159-185.
41 Kotter, J. P. 1985. Power and inﬂuence. New York: Free Press.
42
Latané, B. 1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36: 343-356.
43
44 Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. 2010. Portrait of the angry decision maker: how appraisal
45 tendencies shape anger's influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
46 19: 115-137.
47 Levy, D. A., Collins, B. E., & Nail, P. R. (1998). A new model of interpersonal influence
48 characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 715–735.
49 Li J., Li A., Chattopadhyay, P., George, E. & Gupta, V. 2018. Team emotion diversity and
50
51
performance: The moderating role of social class homogeneity. Group Dynamics: Theory,
52 Research, and Practice, 22: 76-92.
53 Loyd, D., Wang, C., Phillips, K., & Lount, R. 2013. Social category diversity promotes pre-
54 meeting elaboration: The role of relationship focus. Organization Science, 24: 757–772.
55 Martin, J.S. & Eisenhardt, K.M. (2010). Cross business unit collaborations in multi-business
56 organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2): 265-301.
57
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. 2009. Laying the foundation for successful team performance
58
59
trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied
60 Psychology, 94: 90–103.
1
2
3 Mikels, J., Fredrickson, B. L., Larkin, G., Lindberg, C., Maglio, S., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A.
4
5
2005. Emotional category data on images from the International Affective Picture System.
6 Behavioral Research Methods, 37: 626–630.
7 Moscovici, S. 1980. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
8 in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13: 209-239. New York: Academic Press.
9 Murray, N., Sujan, H., Hirt, E. R., & Sujan, M. 1990. The influence of mood on categorization:
10 A cognitive flexibility interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59:
11
411–425.
12
13
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. 2013. Top management team nationality diversity and firm
14 performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 373-382.
15 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-
16 Hill.
17 Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1987. Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition
18 and Emotion, 1: 29-50.
19
Oldmeadow, J. A., Platow, M. J., Foddy, M., & Anderson, D. 2003. Self-categorization, status,
20
21 and social influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66: 138–152.
22 Organ, D. 1988. Organizational citizehship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
23 MA: Lexington Books.
24 Ottati, V. C. & Isbell, L. M. 1996. Effects on mood during exposure to target information on
25 subsequently reported judgments: An on-line model of misattribution and correction.
26 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 39–53
27
28
Paunova, M. 2015. The emergence of individual and collective leadership in task groups: A
29 matter of achievement and ascription. The Leadership Quarterly, 26: 935–957.
30 Phillips, K. W. 2003. The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence:
31 The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 3-13.
32 Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. 2006. When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The
33 effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
34
Processes, 99: 143-160.
35
36
Phillips, K. W., Liljenquist, K., & Neale, M. A. 2009. Is the pain worth the gain? The
37 advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Personality and
38 Social Psychology Bulletin, 35: 336–350.
39 Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 2006. Surface-level diversity and decision-
40 making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help?. Group Processes & Intergroup
41 Relations, 9: 467-482.
42
Roberson, Q., Ryan, A. M., & Ragins, B. R. 2017. The evolution and future of diversity at
43
44 work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 483-499.
45 Rogelberg, S.G., O’Connor, M.S. & Sederberg, M. 2002. Using the Stepladder Technique to
46 Facilitate the Performance of Audioconferencing Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,
47 87: 994-1000.
48 Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
49 Russell, J. A., & Barrett, F. L. 1999. Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other
50
51
things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social
52 Psychology, 76: 805–819.
53 Salk, J. E., & Brannen, M. Y. 2000. National culture, networks, and individual influence in a
54 multinational management team. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 191-202.
55 Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. 1990. Happiness, sadness, and helping: A motivational
56 integration. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and
57
cognition: Foundations of social behavior: 265–296. New York: Guilford Press.
58
59
Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of
60 affective states. Guilford Press.
1
2
3 Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. 2003. Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological
4
5
Inquiry, 14: 296-303.
6 Seo, M., & Barrett, L. F. 2007. Being emotional during decision making—Good or bad? An
7 empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 923–940.
8 Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. 2016. A review of perceived diversity in
9 teams: Does how members perceive their team's composition affect team processes and
10 outcomes?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: S89-S106.
11
Sinclair, R. C. 1988. Performance appraisal: The effects of order on information acquisition
12
13
and affective state on halo, accuracy, information retrieval and evaluations.
14 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42: 22–46.
15 Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. 2010. Unraveling the effects of
16 cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups.
17 Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 690–709.
18 Stein, N. L., Liwag, M. D., & Wade, E. 1996. A goal-based approach to memory for emotional
19
events: Implications for theories of understanding and socialization. In R. Kavanaugh, B.
20
21 Zimmerberg, & S. Fein (Eds), Emotion: Interdisciplinary Perspectives: 91-118. New
22 Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel
24 & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
25 Tropp, L. R., Stout, A. M., Boatswain, C., Wright, S. C., & Pettigrew, T. F. 2006. Trust and
26 acceptance in response to references to group membership: Minority and majority
27
28
perspectives on cross-group interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 769–
29 794.
30 Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and
31 organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549–579.
32 Tung, R. L. 1995. Guest Editor’s introduction: Strategic human resource challenge: Managing
33 diversity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6: 482–493.
34
Tung, R. L. 2008. The cross-cultural research imperative: The need to balance cross-national
35
36
and intra-national diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 41–46.
37 Turner, J. C. 1987. A self-categorization theory. In M. Hogg, P. Oakes, S. Reicher, & M. S.
38 Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the Social Group. A Self-Categorization Theory: 42–67.
39 Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
40 Van der Vegt, G.S. & Bunderson, J.S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary
41 teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management
42
Journal, 48: 532-547.
43
44 van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C., & Homan, A. 2004. Work group diversity and group
45 performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology,
46 89: 1008–1022.
47 van Knippenberg, D., Kooij-de Bode, H. J. M., & van Ginkel, W. P. 2010. The interactive
48 effects of mood and trait negative affect in group decision making. Organization Science,
49 21: 731–744.
50
51
van Knippenberg, D., & Mell, J. N. 2016. Past, present, and potential future of team diversity
52 research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity. Organizational Behavior
53 and Human Decision Processes, 136: 135-145.
54 van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of
55 Psychology, 58: 515-541.
56 Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
57
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
58
59
Organizational Behavior, 18: 1–74.
60 Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. 1994. Minority
1
2
3 influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological
4
5
Bulletin, 115(3), 323-345.
6 Wheelan, S. A., & Johnston, F. 1996. The role of informal member leaders in a system
7 containing formal leaders. Small Group Research, 27: 33–55.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 TABLE 1 Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
4
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5
Dependent variable
6
1. Perceived influence (T1) 5.07 0.85 (.76)
7 2. Perceived influence (T2) 4.99 0.86 0.64 (.83)
8 Moderator
9 3. Pleasant high-activation emotions 4.99 0.85 -0.04 0.08 (.92)
10 4. Unpleasant high-activation emotions 1.95 0.83 -0.00 -0.05 -0.32 (.72)
11 5.Unpleasant low-activation emotions 1.40 0.70 -0.02 -0.10 -0.40 0.59 (.72)
12 Independent variable
13 6. International dissimilarity 0.75 0.09 0.18 0.08 -0.06 0.04 -0.01
14 Controls
15 7. Task meaningfulness 6.26 0.74 0.06 0.06 0.22 -0.11 -0.11 0.00 (.82)
16 8. Task meaningfulness dissimilarity 0.63 0.35 -0.09 -0.00 -0.11 0.03 0.09 -0.03 -0.54
17 9. Learning goal orientation (LGO) 6.14 0.58 -0.01 -0.01 0.09 -0.12 -0.01 -0.09 0.36 -0.15 (.81)
18 10. LGO dissimilarity 0.50 0.23 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06 -0.01 0.03 -0.05 0.00 0.09 -0.24
19 11. Value 5.75 0.56 -0.23 -0.18 0.17 -0.12 -0.08 -0.11 0.29 -0.08 0.34 0.00 (.84)
20 12. Value dissimilarity 0.51 0.25 -0.08 -0.01 0.13 -0.04 -0.09 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.16 -0.06
21 13. Age 29.53 2.80 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.11 0.08 0.17 -0.05 0.07 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.10
22 14. Age dissimilarity 2.49 1.42 -0.08 -0.05 -0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03 -0.04 -0.03 0.10 -0.03 0.01 0.07
23 15. Postgraduate degree (1 = yes) 0.24 0.43 0.01 0.05 0.09 -0.06 0.00 0.01 -0.08 0.07 0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.04
24 16. Postgraduate degree dissimilarity 0.28 0.25 0.06 0.08 0.08 -0.00 0.02 -0.10 -0.04 0.06 0.02 -0.07 -0.06 -0.04
25 17. Number of years employed 5.43 2.37 -0.09 -0.06 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.01 0.09 0.00
26 18. Employment dissimilarity 2.12 1.22 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 -0.05 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.15
19. Functional background 1 (1 = finance) 0.19 0.39 -0.20 -0.13 -0.03 -0.01 -0.02 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.07 -0.06 0.10
27
20. Functional background dissimilarity 0.66 0.16 -0.10 -0.09 -0.01 -0.01 0.08 -0.04 -0.03 0.05 -0.12 -0.02 -0.01 -0.10
28
21. Industry background 1 (1 = finance) 0.36 0.48 -0.08 -0.11 -0.07 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.05 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.06
29
22. Industry background 2 (1 = consumer products) 0.13 0.34 0.10 0.12 0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.11
30 23. Industry background dissimilarity 0.75 0.10 -0.02 -0.05 -0.02 -0.05 0.01 -0.07 -0.04 0.00 -0.12 0.11 -0.09 0.01
31 24. Perceived dissimilarity gender 4.70 1.35 0.01 -0.02 -0.06 0.03 0.02 -0.09 -0.03 0.03 0.05 -0.03 0.14 0.08
32 25. Perceived dissimilarity work experience 4.90 1.39 -0.01 -0.07 0.07 -0.09 -0.03 -0.06 0.07 -0.11 0.10 0.00 0.21 -0.01
33 26. Perceived dissimilarity attitude toward team 3.18 1.34 0.09 -0.02 -0.13 0.06 0.09 -0.05 -0.10 0.02 -0.13 0.11 0.01 -0.10
34 27. Identification with team 5.61 0.95 0.03 0.04 0.28 -0.11 -0.09 -0.10 0.15 -0.05 0.06 -0.01 0.18 0.02
35 Cronbach’s alphas reported in parentheses. N = 192. p < .05 for all |r| > .14. p < .01 for all |r| > .18.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2
3 TABLE 1 (continued)
4
5
Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
6 Variable 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
7 Control
8 14. Age dissimilarity 0.40
9 15. Postgraduate degree (1 = yes) 0.25 0.03
10 16. Postgraduate degree dissimilarity 0.13 -0.04 0.72
11 17. Number of years employed 0.80 0.33 0.08 0.00
12 18. Employment dissimilarity 0.43 0.70 -0.04 -0.18 0.52
13 19. Functional background 1 (1 = finance) 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 -0.05
14 20. Functional background dissimilarity 0.01 0.06 -0.06 -0.08 -0.04 0.01 0.15
15 21. Industry background 1 (1 = finance) -0.13 0.01 -0.05 -0.08 -0.07 0.01 -0.23 0.00
16 22. Industry background 2 (1 = consumer products) 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.07 -0.05 -0.23
23. Industry background dissimilarity 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.11 -0.01 -0.10 0.09 -0.00 -0.10 0.11
17
24. Perceived dissimilarity gender 0.02 0.09 -0.01 -0.00 -0.01 0.04 0.08 0.02 -0.08 0.12 0.08
18
25. Perceived dissimilarity work experience 0.14 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 -0.03 0.09 -0.06 0.05 -0.05 0.34
19
26. Perceived dissimilarity attitude toward team 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.07 -0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.13
20 27. Identification with team 0.00 -0.04 0.01 0.05 0.02 -0.02 0.06 -0.02 -0.17 0.05 0.08 -0.21 -0.07 -0.17 (.94)
21
Cronbach’s alphas reported in parentheses.
22
N = 192.
23 p < .05 for all |r| > .14.
24 p < .01 for all |r| > .18.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE 2 Multilevel Analysis Results of Study 1: Impact of International
6
7 Dissimilarity (X) and Emotions (Z) on Perceived influence (Y)ab
8 Column 1 Column 2
9 X * Z  Y (T1) X * Z, Y (T1)  Y (T2)
10 Estimate and se t value Estimate and se t value
11 Control variables
12 Postgraduate degree (1 = yes, 0 = no) -0.45 (0.17) -2.63* 0.08 (0.17) 0.47
13 Degree dissimilarity 1.03 (0.30) 3.46*** 0.32 (0.30) 1.03
Number of years employed -0.02 (0.04) -0.53 0.02 (0.04) 0.47
14
Employment dissimilarity 0.12 (0.07) 1.70+ 0.09 (0.07) 1.22
15
Perceived dissimilarity gender 0.06 (0.04) 1.48 0.06 (0.04) 1.63
16
Perceived dissimilarity work experience 0.13 (0.04) 3.53*** -0.03 (0.04) -0.78
17 Perceived dissimilarity attitude toward team -0.03 (0.04) -0.90 -0.03 (0.04) -0.88
18 Functional background (1 = finance) -0.49 (0.13) -3.79*** 0.06 (0.13) 0.47
19 Functional dissimilarity -0.24 (0.29) -0.82 -0.50 (0.29) -1.70+
20 Industry background 1 (1 = finance) 0.09 (0.11) 0.83 -0.09 (0.11) -0.81
21 Industry background 2 (1 = consumer products) 0.02 (0.14) 0.11 0.21 (0.14) 1.47
22 Industry background dissimilarity 0.34 (0.49) 0.70 0.39 (0.49) 0.79
23 Learning goal orientation -0.01 (0.09) -0.12 -0.06 (0.09) -0.59
24 LGO dissimilarity (LGO) 0.06 (0.22) 0.27 -0.24 (0.22) -1.13
25 Task meaningfulness 0.21 (0.08) 2.54* 0.15 (0.08) 1.80+
26 Task meaningfulness dissimilarity 0.06 (0.18) 0.34 0.33 (0.18) 1.86+
27 Value -0.28 (0.09) -2.94** -0.14 (0.10) -1.46
28 Value dissimilarity -0.75 (0.21) -3.59*** -0.41 (0.22) -1.92+
29 Age -0.07 (0.04) -1.79+ -0.04 (0.04) -1.14
30 Age Dissimilarity -0.03 (0.06) -0.48 0.09 (0.06) 1.56
31 Identification with team -0.04 (0.06) -0.63 -0.11 (0.06) -1.82+
32 Nationalityc 4.09*** 1.71*
33 International dissimilarity (ID) 0.90 (0.71) 1.27 -0.44 (0.71) -0.62
34 Moderating variables
35 Pleasant high-activation emotions (PHE) -0.08 (0.07) -1.16 -0.02 (0.07) -0.25
36 Unpleasant high-activation emotions (UHE) -0.18 (0.07) -2.39* 0.00 (0.08) 0.01
Unpleasant low-activation emotions (ULE) -0.14 (0.09) -1.65+ -0.22 (0.09) -2.53*
37
ID * PHE 2.06 (0.68) 3.04** 0.10 (0.69) 0.14
38
ID * UHE 2.25 (0.93) 2.42* 0.27 (0.94) 0.28
39
ID * ULE -0.10 (1.03) -0.10 2.10 (1.03) 2.03*
40 Time 1 independent variable
41 Perceived influence (T1) 0.48 (0.07) 6.78***
42 Devianced 497.2 497.2
43 Incremental deviance for main effects 35.8*** 35.8***
44
 Pseudo R2 for main effects .06 .06
45
Incremental deviance for interaction effects 28.0*** 28.0***
46
 Pseudo R2 for interaction effects .05 .05
47 aFixed effect estimates, standard errors and t values reported.
48 bAll models estimated simultaneously.
49 cF values reported testing differences across nationalities.
50 d-2 Log Likelihood values reported.
51
N = 192.
52 +p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 TABLE 3 Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
5
6 Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7 Dependent variable
8 1. Perceived influence (T2) 4.78 1.14 (.72)a
9 2. Perceived influence (T3) 4.76 1.17 0.86 (.77)
10 Moderator
11 3. Pleasant high-activation emotions 4.80 0.98 -0.08 -0.08 (.91)
4. Unpleasant high-activation emotions 2.17 1.09 0.01 -0.02 -0.41 (.85)
12
5.Unpleasant low-activation emotions 1.93 1.16 0.00 0.00 -0.53 0.76 (.89)
13
Independent variable
14
6. Intra-national dissimilarity 0.77 0.11 -0.13 -0.10 0.03 -0.07 -0.02
15 Controls
16 7. Task meaningfulness 6.33 0.72 0.04 0.07 0.16 -0.12 -0.10 -0.01 (.69)
17 8. Task meaningfulness dissimilarity 0.85 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.03 -0.50
18 9. Learning goal orientation (LGO) 5.71 1.03 -0.01 -0.04 0.03 -0.03 -0.03 0.03 0.24 -0.16 (.88)
19 10. LGO dissimilarity 1.22 0.53 -0.01 0.05 -0.04 -0.10 -0.03 0.03 -0.01 0.17 -0.30
20 11. Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO) 6.41 0.69 -0.11 -0.09 0.10 -0.04 -0.05 0.03 0.43 -0.27 0.51 -0.09 (.88)
21 12. MGO dissimilarity 0.76 0.42 0.06 0.05 -0.07 -0.03 0.00 0.03 -0.18 0.35 -0.23 0.23 -0.53
22 13. Age 23.03 1.74 -0.02 0.03 0.13 -0.06 -0.07 -0.01 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.07 -0.04 0.05
23 14. Age dissimilarity 1.99 1.03 -0.03 0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.08 0.08 -0.01 0.07 -0.04 0.02 0.01 -0.04
24 15. Education level (1=postgraduate) 0.07 0.26 0.05 0.05 -0.03 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.09 0.02
25 16. Education background (1=engineer) 0.85 0.36 0.16 0.24 0.01 0.07 0.05 -0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01
26 17. Education background dissimilarity 0.44 0.27 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 0.06 -0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.05
27 18. Number of years employed 1.08 1.32 0.08 0.17 0.10 -0.08 -0.09 -0.07 0.07 -0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.02
28 19. Employment dissimilarity 18.61 9.22 -0.11 -0.03 0.06 -0.02 -0.06 -0.07 0.05 -0.03 0.02 0.06 0.07 -0.02
29 20. Second language overlap (1 = yes) 0.76 0.29 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 0.09 0.03 -0.09 -0.02 0.02
30 21. Third language overlap (1 = yes) 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.01 -0.07 -0.07 -0.28 0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.18 0.03 -0.06
31 22. Number of languages spoken 2.57 0.78 -0.01 0.04 0.03 -0.01 -0.03 0.10 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.06
32 23. Trait pleasant high-activation emotions 4.99 1.06 0.12 0.13 0.29 -0.16 -0.15 -0.04 0.13 -0.05 0.12 -0.12 0.06 0.04
33 24. Trait unpleasant high-activation emotions 2.89 1.28 -0.02 0.00 -0.23 0.28 0.22 -0.09 -0.03 -0.02 -0.05 0.08 -0.06 -0.01
34 25. Trait unpleasant low-activation emotions 2.72 1.40 -0.07 -0.06 -0.27 0.31 0.26 -0.06 -0.07 -0.02 -0.05 0.06 -0.06 -0.04
26. Perceived dissimilarity valued MBA outcomes 4.15 1.38 -0.04 -0.10 0.16 -0.08 -0.08 0.05 0.10 -0.01 0.10 -0.03 0.10 -0.04
35
27. Perceived dissimilarity gender 4.21 1.50 -0.01 -0.08 -0.02 -0.06 -0.02 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.06 -0.01 0.02 -0.01
36
28. Perceived dissimilarity education 4.71 1.78 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.11 -0.06 0.02 0.01 0.11 -0.07
37
29. Perceived dissimilarity attitude toward team 4.71 1.41 -0.16 -0.12 0.38 -0.28 -0.34 0.01 0.11 0.03 -0.03 0.00 0.11 -0.05
38 30. Identification with team 4.79 1.26 0.08 0.11 0.47 -0.23 -0.31 -0.00 0.15 -0.04 0.06 -0.04 0.08 0.00
39 aCronbach’s alphas reported in parentheses. N = 338.p < .05 for all |r| > .14. p < .01 for all |r| > .18.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2
3 TABLE 3 (continued) Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
4
5 Variable 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6 Control
7 14. Age dissimilarity 0.22
8 15. Education level (1=postgraduate) 0.17 0.04
9 16. Education background (1=engineer) -0.05 -0.12 0.04
10 17. Education background dissimilarity 0.03 0.15 -0.03 -0.50
11 18. Number of years employed 0.80 0.20 -0.03 0.04 0.01
12 19. Employment dissimilarity 0.43 0.60 -0.01 -0.10 0.12 0.49
13 20. Second language overlap (1 = yes) 0.00 0.04 0.07 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 0.03
14 21. Third language overlap (1 = yes) 0.03 0.04 0.13 -0.03 -0.01 0.08 0.13 0.06
15 22. Number of languages spoken 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.02 -0.06 0.13 0.12 0.30 0.29
16 23. Trait pleasant high-activation emotions 0.06 0.04 0.07 -0.05 0.05 0.06 0.01 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 (.94)
17 24. Trait unpleasant high-activation emotions -0.05 -0.03 0.10 0.00 -0.06 -0.05 -0.03 0.07 0.07 0.00 -0.42 (.89)
18 25. Trait unpleasant low-activation emotions -0.04 -0.06 0.06 0.01 -0.02 -0.07 -0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 -0.48 0.82 (.91)
19 26. Perceived dissimilarity valued MBA outcomes 0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.12 0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.04
20 27. Perceived dissimilarity gender 0.00 0.14 -0.06 0.02 -0.08 -0.01 0.10 -0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 0.03
21 28. Perceived dissimilarity education 0.04 -0.07 0.01 0.31 -0.20 0.04 -0.06 0.04 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.01 -0.03 0.15 0.40
22 29. Perceived dissimilarity attitude toward team -0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.04 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.09 -0.12 -0.12 0.25 0.05 0.06
30. Identification with team 0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.07 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.43 -0.28 -0.33 0.14 -0.15 -0.12 0.33 (.96)
23 aCronbach’s alphas reported in parentheses.
24
25 N = 338.
p < .05 for all |r| > .14.
26
p < .01 for all |r| > .18.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2
3 TABLE 4 Multilevel Analysis Results for Study 2: Impact of Intra-national
4
5
Dissimilarity (X) and Emotions (Z) on Perceived influence (Y)ab
6 Column 1 Column 2
7 X * Z  Y(T2) X * Z, Y(T2) Y(T3)
8 Estimate and se t value Estimate and se t value
9 Control variables
Number of years employed 0.02 (0.01) 4.30*** 0.01 (0.01) 1.43
10
Employment dissimilarity -0.03 (0.01) -3.39*** 0.00 (0.01) 0.09
11
Education level (1=postgraduate) 0.12 (0.19) 0.65 -0.14 (0.21) -0.67
12
Education background (1=engineer) 0.43 (0.20) 2.18* 0.36 (0.20) 1.77+
13 Education background dissimilarity -0.29 (0.23) -1.30 0.01 (0.23) 0.03
14 Perceived dissimilarity gender -0.02 (0.03) -0.48 -0.04 (0.03) -1.15
15 Perceived dissimilarity education 0.10 (0.03) 2.99** 0.02 (0.04) 0.49
16 Perceived dissimilarity attitudes toward team -0.17 (0.04) -4.01*** 0.03 (0.05) 0.66
17 Perceived dissimilarity valued MBA outcomes -0.10 (0.04) -2.68** -0.04 (0.04) -1.05
18 Learning goal orientation (LGO) -0.14 (0.10) -1.41 -0.12 (0.11) -1.10
19 LGO dissimilarity -0.29 (0.16) -1.79+ -0.22 (0.17) -1.32
20 Mastery goal orientation -0.11 (0.06) -1.90+ 0.02 (0.06) 0.32
21 MGO dissimilarity (MGO) 0.06 (0.11) 0.59 0.12 (0.11) 1.03
22 Task meaningfulness 0.04 (0.06) 0.59 0.11 (0.06) 1.70+
23 Task meaningfulness dissimilarity 0.18 (0.12) 1.60 0.20 (0.12) 1.70+
24 Second language overlap (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.42 (0.20) 2.13* 0.44 (0.21) 2.07*
25 Third language overlap (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.51 (0.44) 1.16 0.25 (0.52) 0.48
26 Number of languages spoken -0.07 (0.08) -0.83 -0.13 (0.08) -1.54
27 Age -0.18 (0.05) -3.58*** -0.06 (0.05) -1.19
28 Age dissimilarity 0.18 (0.07) 2.75** 0.11 (0.07) 1.65+
29 Identification with team 0.21 (0.05) 4.46*** 0.03 (0.04) 0.63
30 Statec 2.96*** 0.56
31 Trait pleasant high-activation emotions (TPHE) 0.12 (0.06) 2.10* 0.05 (0.06) 0.85
32 Trait unpleasant high-activation emotions (TUHE) -0.03 (0.07) -0.48 0.06 (0.07) 0.85
33 Trait unpleasant low-activation emotions (TULE) 0.12 (0.06) 1.92+ -0.02 (0.06) -0.30
34 Intra-national dissimilarity (IND) -0.23 (0.55) -0.42 0.21 (0.58) 0.37
TPHE * IND -1.07 (0.54) -1.98* -0.26 (0.56) -0.46
35
TUHE * IND -0.26 (0.50) -0.53 0.32 (0.52) 0.62
36
TULE * IND -0.03 (0.57) -0.06 0.16 (0.58) 0.28
37
Moderating variables
38 Pleasant high-activation emotions (PHE) -0.18 (0.07) -2.49* 0.01 (0.08) 0.14
39 Unpleasant high-activation emotions (UHE) 0.02 (0.07) 0.34 -0.10 (0.07) -1.44
40 Unpleasant low-activation emotions (ULE) -0.21 (0.07) -3.06** 0.11 (0.07) 1.52
41 IND * PHE 1.21 (0.61) 1.98* 0.77 (0.67) 1.14
42 IND * UHE -1.78 (0.67) -2.65** -1.80 (0.72) -2.52*
43 IND * ULE 1.67 (0.69) 2.43* 1.22 (0.74) 1.65+
44 Time 2 independent variable
45 Perceived influence (T2) 0.83 (0.05) 16.12***
46 Devianced 1095.70 1095.70
47 Incremental deviance for main effects 20.9*** 20.9***
48  Pseudo R2 for main effects .02 .02
49 Incremental deviance for interaction effects 17.3*** 17.3***
50  Pseudo R2 for interaction effects .02 .02
51 aFixed effect estimates, standard errors and t values reported.
52 bAll models estimated simultaneously.
53 cF values reported testing differences across states.
54 d-2 Log Likelihood values reported.
55 N = 338
+p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 1a Plot of the International Dissimilarity X Pleasant High-activation Emotions
4
5
(PHE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T1) for Study 1
6
7
8 5
9
10 4.5
11
12 4
Perceived influence (T1)
13
14 3.5
15
16 Low PHE
3
17 High PHE
18
2.5
19
20
21 2
22
23 1.5
24
25 1
26 Low international High international
27 dissimilarity dissimilarity
28
29
30
31
32 Figure 1b Plot of the International Dissimilarity X Unpleasant High-activation
33 Emotions (UHE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T1) for Study 1
34
35
36 5
37
38 4.5
39
40 4
41
42 3.5
43
Low UHE
44 3
45 High UHE
46 2.5
47
48 2
49
50
1.5
51
52
53
1
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 1c Plot of the International Dissimilarity X Unpleasant Low-activation
4
5
Emotions (ULE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T2) for Study 1
6
7
8 5
9
10 4.5
11
12 4
13
14
3.5
15
16 Low ULE
17
3
High ULE
18
19 2.5
20
21 2
22
23 1.5
24
25 1
27
dissimilarity dissimilarity
28
29
30
31 Figure 2a Plot of the Intra-national Dissimilarity X Pleasant High-activation Emotions
32 (PHE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T2) for Study 2
33
34
35
36 5
37
38 4.5
39
40 4
41
42 3.5
43
Low PHE
44 3
45 High PHE
46 2.5
47
48 2
49
50
1.5
51
52
53
1
54 Low intra-national High intra-national
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 Figure 2b Plot of the Intra-national Dissimilarity X Unpleasant High-activation
5
Emotions (UHE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T2) for Study 2
6
7
8
9 5
10
11 4.5
12
13 4
14
15 3.5
16
17 Low UHE
18
3
High UHE
19
20 2.5
21
22 2
23
24 1.5
25
26 1
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 2c Plot of the Intra-national Dissimilarity X Unpleasant High-activation
34 Emotions (UHE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T3) for Study 2
35
36
37
38 5
39
40 4.5
41
42 4
43
44 3.5
45
46 Low UHE
3
47 High UHE
48
49
2.5
50
51 2
52
53 1.5
54
55 1
58
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 2d Plot of the Intra-national Dissimilarity X Unpleasant Low-activation
4
5
Emotions (ULE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T2) for Study 2
6
7
8
9 5
10
11 4.5
12
13 4
14
15 3.5
16
17 Low ULE
18
3
High ULE
19
20 2.5
21
22 2
23
24 1.5
25
26 1
29
30
31
32 Figure 2e Plot of the Intra-national Dissimilarity X Unpleasant Low-activation
33 Emotions (ULE) Interaction on Perceived influence (T3) for Study 2
34
35
36
5
37
38
39
4.5
40
41 4
42
43 3.5
44 Low ULE
45 3
46 High ULE
47 2.5
48
49 2
50
51 1.5
52
53 1
54
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Prithviraj Chattopadhyay (p.chattopadhyay@auckland.ac.nz) is a professor of management
4
5
at the University of Auckland. He received his PhD in management from the University of
6 Texas at Austin. His research interests include relational demography and diversity, social
7 identification, managerial cognition, and employment externalization.
8
9 Elizabeth George (e.george@auckland.ac.nz) is a professor of management at the University
10 of Auckland. She received her PhD in management from the University of Texas at Austin.
11
Her research interests include new forms of work, relational demography and diversity.
12
13
14 Jiping Li (j.li@fs.de) is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Frankfurt
15 School of Finance & Management. She received her PhD in management from the Hong
16 Kong University of Science & Technology. Her research interests include relational
17 demography and diversity, social identification, social status, and team dynamics.
18
19
Vishal Gupta (vishal@iima.ac.in) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the
20
21 Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India. He is a Fellow of the Indian Institute of
22 Management Lucknow, India. His research interests include emotions, leadership, motivation
23 and team creativity and innovation.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

10 5465@amj 2017 0744

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 5465@amj 2017 0744

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

Geographical Dissimilarity and Team Member Influence: Do

Journal: Academy of Management Journal

Manuscript Type: Revision

Gender and Diversity in Organizations < Topic Areas,

It is both important and challenging to gain influence within

52 bAll models estimated simultaneously.

53 cF values reported testing differences across states.

54 d-2 Log Likelihood values reported.

You might also like