Thomas Rockstuhl & Kok-Yee Ng

1. Affective and cognitive trust in multicultural work groups and the role of Cultural Intelligence as a moderator of the effects of cultural diversity Thomas Rockstuhl & Kok-Yee Ng Special thanks to David A. Kenny

2. Agenda • Theory Development • Empirical Testing (Experimental Methods) • Empirical Testing (Field Methods) • Additional Methods • Discussion

3. Motivation • Growing number of employees work in MCTs (Grensing-Pophal, 2002) • Challenge to create MCTs that work effectively remains (Montaya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001) • Cultural diversity broadens range of perspectives, skills, and insights (Maddux & Galinsky, 2006), yet cultural barriers can cause misunderstandings (Behfar, Kern, & Brett, 2006) • Trust particularly relevant in global collaborations where uncertain and incomplete knowledge of group members is common (Child, 2001)

4. Cultural Diversity Performance Diversity and performance • The simple model of diversity… • Has received no empirical support… • in reviews (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) • in meta-analysis (Stewart, 2006; Webber & Donahue, 2001) +

5. Diversity and performance (2) Trust / Cohesion - + Cultural Diversity Performance + Creativity / Resources + …because the two effects likely cancel each other out (e.g., Reagans et al., 2004)

6. But what about levels of analysis? • Explanations of negative effects rely on Social Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987) and Similarity-Attraction-Paradigm (Byrne, 1971) • Essentially located at the Relational or dyadic level of analysis • Problem best addressed by SRM (e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2006) • Examine trust as outcome because conceptualized as individual, dyadic, and group-level construct (Rousseau et al., 1998)

7. Cognitive foundations of trust exist if the partner reliably and dependably meets the actors expectations More likely to depend on partner’s role performance than social categorization processes H1: Cognitive trust is not reciprocal H2: Cognitive trust does not depend on dyadic cultural diversity Affective foundations of trust exist in the emotional bonds between individuals Likely to depend on social categorization processes H1: Affective trust is reciprocal H2: Affective trust is negatively related to dyadic cultural diversity Cognitive and affective foundations of trust (McAllister, 1995)

8. The capability of an individual, group, or organization to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity Cultural Intelligence… Cultural intelligence helps individuals and organizations (i) overcome cultural barriers, and (ii) synergize differences to achieve win-win outcomes. - Earley & Ang, Cultural Intelligence, Stanford University Press, 2003

9. … may dampen negative effects of cultural diversity… • based on Sternberg’s (1986) integrative framework of intelligences: • mental CQ: Cognitive – processes and strategies of knowing (metacognitive); knowledge (cognition) • motivational CQ: drive & interest in learning and adapting to other cultures • behavioral CQ: flexibility in enacting appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions across cultures • CQ may change the flexibility of process of identification and categorization (Moynihan et al., 2006) • Diversity trainings essentially aim at competencies that are related to high CQ (Roberson, 2006)

10. …by affecting the social categorization process! • Individuals high in mental CQ possess more flexible self-concepts (Moynihan et al., 2006) that integrate new cultural aspects more easily and thus reduce feelings of dissimilarity • Individuals high in behavioral CQ are more likely to enhance the sense of familiarity by putting the other party at ease (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004) • H3: The actors mental CQ positively moderates the negative effect of dyadic cultural diversity • H4: The partners behavioral CQ positively moderates the negative effect of dyadic cultural diversity

11. Sample & Measures • 259 students from 40 project teams at NBS •  age 22 years (SD=1.9) • 75 % female • 197 local Singaporean, the rest exchange students from 9 countries • group diversity range: 0 - 0.81 • 623 dyads of which 199 (32%) are cross-cultural • Affective Trust (McAllister, 1995) 3 items (α=0.89) • Cognitive Trust (McAllister, 1995) 3 items (α=0.86) • CQ (Ang et al., 2006) • mental CQ (4 items meta-cognitive; α=0.77 / 6 items cognitive; α=0.87) • behavioral CQ (5 items; ; α=0.81) • CQ assessed at project start, trust at project end (4 months)

12. Not all types of trust are relational… * * * * * * * * p < .01 Reciprocity: • Affective Trust 0.379 • Cognitive Trust 0.082

13. …or affected by dyadic cultural diversity • Ethnic background of partner only affects affective trust but not cognitive trust • Effect is quite large (Cohen’s d = -0.91) • Supportive of Social Categorization Process * p< .05; ** p< .01

14. But Cultural Intelligence does matter… † p<.1; * p< .05; ** p< .01

15. …in reducing negative effects of cultural diversity! mono-cultural dyad cross-cultural dyad

16. Future directions • Group-level trust? • issues of subgroup formation • trust-climate vs. group trust • Linking Trust back to performance • Moderator or Mediator • Development of Trust over time… • Training interventions for CQ?