Global Identity and Cultural Intelligence in Multicultural Teams

1 Global Identity and Cultural Intelligence in Multicultural Teams Efrat Shokef Miriam Erez Acknowledgment: This research was supported by a grant from the Center of Cultural Intelligence at the Nanyang Business School, Singapore. We thank Alon Lisak for his help in data collection; Dana Vashdi and Sivan Aldor for their help in data analyses; Kok-Yee Ng and Soon Ang for their helpful comments; Simon Dolan, Mannsso Shin, Leigh Thompson, Linn Van-Dyne, and Jane Yang for their participation in the multicultural team project in which the empirical data was collected. Finally, we thank Betty Chung, Giuseppe Delmestri, Sharon Glazer, and Susan Schneider, for their participation in the earlier projects and their contribution to its development. 1 2 Global Identity and Cultural Intelligence in Multicultural Teams ABSTRACT The paper focuses on two possible factors that may help global multicultural team members better adapt to the global multicultural environment: global identity and cultural intelligence. Results show that working in multi-cultural teams as part of an academic program facilitates team members’ levels of global identity and cultural intelligence, while the local identity remains stable. Global identity and cultural intelligence are distinct yet related factors, and present reciprocal relations. Country and cultural values of openness to change moderate the development of global identity. Cultural values of self-transcendence (universalism, benevolence) positively affect individual’s level of cultural intelligence. Initial results suggest that global identity and cultural intelligence at the team level affect the team level of satisfaction and learning from the academic project by enhancing the level of team participation, commitment, and trust, and by reducing the level of process-conflict. Yet, these results should be considered carefully as agreement levels within each team may not be sufficient. 2 3 INTRODUCTION As part of the globalizing work environment, new forms of organizations have emerged, ranging from international to transnational organizations. These organizations require high levels of cross-national interdependence, and often the formation of multicultural teams (MCTs), nested within them. Members of MCTs hold diverse cultural identities, affecting their understanding, interpretation, and way of responding to various situations (Erez & Earley, 1993). Employees who operate in this global multinational context are expected to develop shared common meanings, values, and codes of behaviors in order to effectively communicate with each other and coordinate their activities. What helps global MCT members create the social cohesiveness that connects them together beyond the national cultures to which they belong? In this paper we propose to focus on two possible factors that may facilitate team members’ adaptation to MCTs, and enhance the effectiveness and performance of MCTs?: (a) Global Identity defined as “an individual’s sense of belonging to groups nested within the global work environment of multinational organizations (i.e., MCTs), and the expectations associated with the roles of working in such groups” (Shokef & Erez, 2006), and (b) Cultural Intelligence (CQ), defined as “a person’s capability to deal effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity” (Earley & Ang, 2003). Both global identity and CQ aim at improving our understanding of the factors that explain why some people succeed better than others in coping with situations involving cultural diversity. The objective of this paper is to explore the relation between global identity and CQ and their possible roles in MCTs focusing on the interrelations of 3 4 CQ and global identity at the individual level of analyses, and their possible contribution to team performance at the team level of analyses. Multicultural Teams MCTs consist of “individuals from different cultures working together on activities that span national borders” (Snell, Snow, Davidson & Hambrici, 1998). Multinational organizations recognize the need to leverage the diversity of their employees in order to sustain their competitive advantage in the global marketplace (Ely, 2004; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004) and, accordingly, they establish MCTs that pool global talents and meet organizational goals (Joshi, Labianca, & Caligiuri, 2002). MCTs are typically formed when specialized skills are possessed by experts who are situated in different places (Prieto & Arias, 1997). One advantage of MCTs is that they can be rearranged and reassigned to respond to shifting opportunities in global markets (Solomon, 1995) so as to meet ever-changing task requirements in the highly turbulent and dynamic global business environment (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Mowshowitz, 1997). Although MCTs and traditional teams share many characteristics, their team composition and communication patterns differ. MCTs face additional challenges with which they must cope. An in-depth study of the challenges faced by 40 managers working in MCTs conducted by Behfar, Kern, and Brett (2006) revealed that similar to any other team, MCTs cope with interpersonal tensions and disagreements about work pace, fairness in the workload distribution, and procedures for getting the work done. However, in addition, other issues related to cultural diversity such as differences in work 4 5 norms and behaviors, violation of respect and hierarchy, and lack of common ground, language fluency, and ways of communicating, whether implicit or explicit, emerge. These extra challenges underscore the importance of knowing how to effectively deal with situations characterized by cultural diversity. Cultural Intelligence CQ is an individual’s capability to deal effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Earley & Ang, 2003). Individuals with high levels of CQ are expected to work more effectively on multinational workforces, and adjust successfully to overseas assignments. CQ is a multidimensional concept comprising three dimensions: (a) mental – meta-cognitive and cognitive; (b) motivational; and (c) behavioral. Meta-cognitive and cognitive CQ focus on cognitive processes of thinking, learning, and strategizing. Metacognitive CQ refers to the individual's cultural awareness and consciousness during interactions with others from different cultural backgrounds. Those with a high metacognitive CQ, consciously question cultural assumptions, think about culture and cultural preferences or norms before and during interactions with others, and check and adjust their mental models based cross-cultural interactions (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). Cognitive CQ focuses on individual's knowledge of specific norms, practices, and conventions in different cultural settings, acquired from education and actual interaction with others from other cultures. It allows individuals to assess similarities and differences across cultural situations in ways that enhance their performance (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). Motivational CQ refers to an individual's sense of efficacy and confidence, drive and interest in learning about and functioning in situation characterized 5 6 by cultural differences. It also refers to individuals’ persistence in multi-cultural situations and their affect for new cultures. Those with high motivational CQ are expected to be confident in their ability to engage in cross-cultural interactions and should experience intrinsic satisfaction from being in culturally diverse settings (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). Finally, behavioral CQ refers to individual’s culturally relevant behavioral repertoire social mimicry abilities. Individuals with high behavioral CQ have the flexibility to exhibit verbal and non-verbal actions when interacting with people who differ in cultural background (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). CQ is considered a malleable state that may change based on cultural exposure, during training, modeling, mentoring, socialization, and other multicultural experiences (Earley & Ang, 2003). Indeed, Moynihan, Peterson, and Earley (2006) demonstrated a change in CQ over time in MCTs. In their study, conducted on 48 MCTs of MBA students who worked together on various assignments over a year, they showed that individuals’ overall CQ levels were significantly higher after four months of working in MCTs compared to the students’ initial CQ levels. Ang et al. (2007) found that while cognitive and behavioral CQ may change over time, meta-cognitive and motivational CQ do not. However, it seems that the participants in Ang et al., (2007) study, did not go through intensive multicultural interactions between the two measurement points. Global Identity Fundamental questions such as “who am I?” and “Where do I belong?” reflect a person’s self identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000; Tajfel, 1981; Triandis, 1989), which is composed of both one’s personal and social selves, conveying what one knows or can 6 7 know about oneself (Stryker & Burke, 2000; Tajfel, 1981). The personal self contains notions about one’s own attitudes, traits, feelings and behaviors, while the social self contains affiliations, and group memberships (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Selves are created within contexts and take into account the values and norms of the others likely to participate in these contexts (Oyserman, 2004). Working in the global work environment provides individuals with additional answers to the above questions of “Who am I?” For example, people may start defining themselves as: “an employee of multinational organization X”, “a world traveler”, “a cosmopolitan”, “a member of multicultural team Y”, etc. These possible answers and internalized meanings and expectations associated with being members of various groups operating in the global work environment (such as working in a multinational organization or in MCTs nested within them) create an identity related to this group membership. Hence, global identity is defined as the individual’s sense of belonging to, and identification with groups (such as MCTs), operating in the global work environment of multinational organizations (Shokef & Erez, 2006). In order for an individual to develop a social identity, such as a global identity, related to a specific group, this group should have a psychological meaning to this individual (Tajfel, 1978). This meaning does not necessarily have to include physical interaction with any of its members. In a study conducted on virtual groups, McKenna and Bargh (1998) showed that participation in a virtual newsgroup had significant effects on the transformation of an individual’s social identity. Increased involvement led to increased salience of the virtual group, followed by increased self acceptance of the group identity. Thus, membership in MCTs, which are often to some extent virtual in 7 8 their nature (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), can provide a group identity. Being part of a global work team with team members of diverse cultural backgrounds is different than being a member of a culturally homogeneous team, to which most people belong in their local cultural settings. A person may hold multiple identities, reflecting his belonging to multiple groups (Stryker & Burke, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Individuals in the global world environment develop a bi-cultural identity that combines a local identity and a global identity, which do not necessarily compete with each other (Arnett, 2002); rather, individuals assume the relevant identity depending on the situation. A person’s global identity, local identity, and other forms of identity become salient in different situations depending on the level of commitment to a particular social group instigated by the situation. Once the affiliation with a particular group becomes salient, the corresponding identity, whether global or local, dominates the other identities (Stryker, 1980). The level of commitment is influenced by the cost of not expressing the identity based roles and behaviors relevant to the salient social network (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In the work environment, employees respond to role-expectations in line with the most salient identity in a given situation. When a work situation stimulates two identities that compete with each other, the one with the stronger commitment determines the behavioral responses (Stryker & Burke, 2000). While in homogenous, same culture teams, a local identity is more likely to be dominant, working in an MCT is expected to evoke the individual’s global identity. Recent empirical studies repeatedly find global identity and local identity to be independent of one another (Cohavi, Erez, & Shokef, 2008; Shokef & Erez, 2006; 8 9 Shokef, Erez, & De-Haan, 2008). The development of a global identity was found to be related to a number of factors (Cohavi et al., 2008). First, global identity was related to the individual’s level of involvement in both global work activities, such as working with others from different cultures, and in non-work global activities, such as having friends from different cultural backgrounds, and leisure traveling to various countries. Second, similar to Ang, Van-Dyne, and Koh (2006) who found that openness to experience was a crucial personality characteristic for functioning in culturally diverse environments, global identity was also found to be related to the individual’s level of ‘openness’ as a personal disposition (Cohavi et al., 2008). This relationship was mediated by personal involvement in non-work related global activities such as surfing the Internet. Finally, global identity was found to be related to two biographic characteristics: the number of languages one speaks, and the number of countries one has lived in for more than one year. Local identity was not related to any of the above characteristics. Yet, it was related to the individual’s level of embeddedness, reflecting the extent to which individuals become part of their work surrounding and their community (Mitchel, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001), hence, supporting the differentiation between global and local identities (Cohavi et al., 2008). These findings suggest that the sense of global identity can develop not only in relation to work-related experiences, but also on the basis of personal dispositions and a life experience of being part of the global environment. Global identity was found to be stronger for individuals working in global organizations, compared to those working in international organizations, and localdomestic organizations (Cohavi et al., 2008). Furthermore, employees working for multinational organizations who had strong global identities were found to attribute 9 10 greater importance to global work values than others (Shokef et al., 2008). Most likely, this relationship between global identity and global work values is reciprocal: global identity influences the acceptance of global work values, which reciprocally strengthens the global identity. Employees working in multinational organizations and MCTs develop a sense of belonging to these groups and learn their role expectations from members operating in the global work environment and from the cultural values that dominate the global work environment. Reciprocally, individuals endorsing the values of the global work culture, such as openness to diversity, are more likely to feel at ease in multicultural groups, and to develop a sense of a global identity. Findings from a study conducted on 69 MCTs of MBA students who participated in a four-week joint virtual project showed that working in MCTs increased the level of participants’ global identity over time. Nonetheless, it did not lead to any change in a person’s local identity (Shokef & Erez, 2006). SECTION 1 This section focuses on the relation between global identity and CQ at the individual level. The Relation between Individual Global Identity and CQ in MCTs It is often suggested that familiarity or experiences with other cultures may temper misunderstandings (Martin & Hammer, 1989). Indeed, personal involvement in both work and non-work related global activities has been found to be related to global identity (Cohavi et al., 2008). Moynihan, Peterson, and Earley (2006) demonstrated that the individual’s level of CQ increases over time; Shokef and Erez (2006) showed that 10 11 global identity increases over time. These findings suggest that exposure to the global work environment, with its multicultural nature, enhances the development of individual’s CQ and global identity. They also indicate that both global identity and CQ are shaped by social learning processes and by the opportunity to form a shared meaning system for understanding and overcoming cultural differences. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1: Working in MCTs enhances the development of CQ and global identity. What type of relationship exists between global identity and CQ? We refer to global identity and CQ as independent constructs. While global identity focuses on the sense of belonging to groups nested within the global work environment (Shokef & Erez, 2006), CQ is the individual’s capability to deal with situations characterized by cultural diversity (Earley & Ang, 2003). According to social identity theory, the individual’s identity affects the way she thinks, feels, and behaves in all social domains (Meal & Ashforth, 1992; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). One belongs to specific groups prior to accepting the groups’ common behaviors, norms and values, and before one develops the ability to deal with these groups. Yet, other theories suggest that acceptance of a group’s values influences one’s identification with this group (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991), and that through a process of socialization, the group’s values are internalized and represented in the self (Erez & Earley, 1993). Once the group values are represented in the self, the individual will develop a sense of belonging to this group and identify with 11 12 it. These two approaches can possibly present a reciprocal relationship. When employees work in MCTs, which are groups nested within the global work environment, they develop a sense of belonging to the MCT and learn what is expected of them as part of their role as employees in this particular global environment. Since the global work environment is multicultural in nature (Miroshnik, 2002; Trefry, 2006), individuals who develop a sense of global identity reflecting their belongingness to the MCT are likely to encounter multicultural situations that lead to the development of CQ. Reciprocally, individuals experienced in dealing effectively in multicultural situations are more likely to join multicultural groups. Once they become part of such groups they are likely to develop a sense of belonging to these groups – that is, a global identity. The sense of belonging to an MCT may facilitate the development of CQ. In turn, knowing how to effectively deal with others from various cultures enhances one’s global identity. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2: The relation between CQ and global identity is reciprocal: Individuals with high CQ are more likely to develop a global identity when working in MCTs. Reciprocally individuals with a strong global identity are more likely to develop CQ when working in MCTs. MCT Members Cultural Background In the discussion of MCTs one can not ignore the different cultural background of team members. Team member’s cultural backgrounds are likely to affect the development of both global identity and CQ as a result of exposure to the global work environment and 12 13 to multi-cultural situations. Cultural values (Noorderhaven & Harzing, 2003) may partially explain why some people have a high CQ or global identity, while others do not. Cultural values of collectivism, power distance, and high uncertainty avoidance increase resistance to change, while high individualism, low power distance, and low uncertainty avoidance facilitate adaptation to change (Harzing & Hofstede, 1996) and, therefore, should increase adaptation to a multi-cultural, global work environment (Erez & Gati, 2004). Individuals endorsing these values may often work in multinational organizations and MCTs more than will others, and while working in MCT, these people will be more likely to develop CQ and global identity. There are a number of typologies of national culture values (Hofstede, 1980; House, et al., 2004; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Schwartz, 1992; 1994; Trompenaars, 1994). In this research we rely on Schwartz (1994; 1999) typology, which refers to cultural values as they are represented both at the cultural and at the individual level. Schwartz’s value typology is organized along two bipolar dimensions: (1) Self-enhancement (power, achievement) that encourages the pursuit of one’s own interests, as opposed to selftranscendence (universalism, benevolence) that emphasizes concern for the welfare of others. (2) Openness to change (self-direction, stimulation) that welcomes change and encourages the pursuit of new ideas and experiences, as opposed to conservation (security, tradition, conformity) that emphasizes maintaining the status quo and avoiding threat. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 3: Cultural values of openness to change (self-direction and stimulation; Schwartz, 1992; 1994) will moderate the effect of working in MCTs 13 14 on the development of global identity and CQ. These effects will be stronger for employees with strong, rather than weak values of openness to change. METHOD Participants Participants were 191 MBA students from Israel (n = 35; Mean (SD) age = 31.89 (5.35) ; % of Males = 60), Hong-Kong (n = 35; Mean (SD) age = 31.80 (5.01) ; % of Males = 34), Spain (n = 27; Mean (SD) age = 22.96 (1.45) ; % of Males = 70), SouthKorea (n = 24; Mean (SD) age = 38.42 (6.43) ; % of Males = 88), and the United States (n = 70; Mean (SD) age = 27.69 (3.98) ; % of Males = 61), who participated in an academic multi-cultural team project. Participants were assigned to 55 teams of three to four diverse participants each. Team Project The project assigned to all teams was to develop guidelines for an expatriate who visits a "host country" chosen by team members. In addition to preparing guidelines, teams were asked (a) to analyze and compare the difficulties that managers from their own countries may encounter while visiting the host country, and (b) to reflect on their work processes. The project lasted three weeks. The team’s outcome was a 12-slide power-point presentation (in English). Each team had its own team page on a website designed especially for the project (http://iew3.technion.ac.il/~rol/xc/) which included the project instructions, a file library, and a message board. Students communicated mostly through emails and chat programs such as ‘messenger’, and were free to use other ICT 14 15 channels. They were obligated to conduct at least one chat a week, with all team members present. Procedure Prior to the project, students were assigned into MCTs of three to four diverse members, and received the project instruction. At this stage, about a week prior to the start of the project, prior to communicating with their team members, students were asked to fill out the first set of questionnaires, as will be described in the next section. During the first week of the project team members started communicating and coordinating their work time through emails. During that week they were asked to (a) get to know one another and (b) decide together what country will be their "host country" for the project. During the second and third weeks teams worked on their projects. By an assigned date at the end of the third week, teams submitted their projects. Once teams submitted their project, their members were asked to fill out the second set of questionnaires, before getting feedback on their performance. Then, all participants presented their team’s project in their respective countries to the other students in their class. Questionnaires The first set of questionnaires, administered prior to the project, assessed biographic information, national- cultural values, cultural intelligence, and global and local identities. The second set of questionnaires, administered at the end of the project, re-assessed cultural intelligence, global and local identities, and additional team processes and outcome measures (see description in the team level section). Following 15 16 the post-project questionnaires, students received feedback of their personal scores, team scores, and country scores. Measures Dependent and independent variables Cultural Intelligence. (Ang, et al., 2007) included four scales: meta-cognitive CQ (4 items, e.g., “I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions”); cognitive CQ (6 items, e.g., “I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures”); motivational CQ (5 items, e.g., “I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me”); and behavioral CQ (5 items, e.g., I change my non verbal behavior when a cross-cultural interaction requires it”). CFA analysis confirmed the emergence of four CQ factors with acceptable fit levels in both measurement points (Time 1 (T1): CFI=.98; Time 2 (T2): 2 2 [161]=282.31, p<.001; RMSEA=.062; NNFI=.98; [161]=299.87, p<.001; RMSEA=.067; NNFI=.98; CFI=.98), 2 significantly better than a one-factor of CQ (T1: RMSEA=.191; NNFI=.88; CFI=.89; 2 [165]=1336.88, p<.001; [4]=1054.57, p<.001; T2: p<.001; RMSEA=.186; NNFI=.87; CFI=.88; 2 2 [165]=1272.15, [4]=972.28, p<.001). The internal consistency reliability estimates of the four factors at T1 were: .91; .91; .91; .90 for metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ respectively; and at T2 .89; .90; .89; .91 for meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ respectively. Global Identity and Local Identity. The global and local identity scales included 4 items each (e.g., global identity: “I see myself as part of the global international community”; local identity: e.g., I see myself as part of my society (e.g., Israeli, 16 17 American, Korean, etc.)), developed to be parallel in content each referring to the global/local environment, by Cohavi, Erez, & Shokef (2008), with a 7-point Likert-type scale (1-does’nt fit me at all to 7-fits me very much). CFA analysis confirm that global and local identity are independent factors (T1: NNFI=.97; CFI=.98; T2: 2 2 [16]=34.44, p<.01; RMSEA=.077; [16]=29.68, p<.05; RMSEA=.066; NNFI=.98; CFI=.99), significantly better than a one-factor model (T1: 2 [17]=266.18, p<.001; RMSEA=.275; NNFI=.57; CFI=.74; 2 [1]=231.74, p<.001; T2: 2 NNFI=.46; CFI=.67; 2 [1]=322.26, p<.001). The internal consistency reliability [17]=351.94, p<.001; RMSEA=.319; estimate for both global identity and local identity was .88 at T1, and .90 at T2. Independent variables Time. Time captures the repeated measure of the dependent variables. Time 1 (T1) refers to the measurement prior to the beginning of the project. Time 2 (T2) refers to the measurement at the end of the project. The effect of Time was used to test whether there was a change in the values of the dependent variables along the project. Cultural values. We used Schwartz Value Survey (SVS; 1994), which includes 57 items (on a 9-point scale, ranging from 0-not important to 7-of supreme importance, including (-1)-opposed to my values). The measure can generate values at both the individual and the cultural level. In this study we used it at the individual level. At the individual level, the measure generates 10 values (conformity (e.g., politenss; obedient); tradition (e.g., humble; respect for tradition); benevolence (e.g., loyal, helpful); universalism (e.g., equality, a world at peace); self-direction (e.g., freedom, creativity); stimulation (e.g., a varied life, an exciting life); hedonism (e.g., pleasure, enjoying life); 17 18 achievement (e.g., ambitious, influential); power (e.g., authority, social power); and security (e.g., social order, family security). The scale has been used all over the world and has shown adequate psychometric properties (Schwarz, 1994; 1999). Internal consistency reliability estimate (Cronbach’s Alpha) in the study presented here was .96. Control variables Biographic information. Age, gender, and further personal biographic information relevant to a multicultural environment such as number of nationalities (i.e., citizenships), number of spoken languages, and whether students ever lived in other countries. Social desirability. Nine items, with a 7-point Likert-type response scale (1- not true to 7 - very true). Six items were adopted from the BIDR (Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; Paulhus, 1984; 1991), assessing individual's tendency to answer in a social desirable manner. The items were adopted based on their loadings in previous research and their face validity across cultures. Three additional items were adopted from the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Ray, 1984). Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency estimate was .58. Analysis CFA was conducted using LISREL 8.8. In order to account for the nested structure of individuals within teams, we applied Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) with ‘team’ as the random effect, using ‘proc mixed’ within SAS. In our study there were 191 individual participants nested within 55 teams (i.e., individuals were level-1 unit in the HLM analysis and Teams were level-2 unit in the 18 19 HLM analysis). This analysis also allowed taking into account the repeated measures of global identity, local identity, and CQ dimensions, comparing their level between the two time points. We controlled for the effects of age, gender, and social desirability. Null models for the dependent variables, including the control variables are presented in Model 0 in Table 2; Models 9 and 14 in Table 3; Models 19 and 24 in Table 4; and Model 29 in Table 5. RESULTS Individual level of analysis Descriptive statistics Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the research variables, in both time points. T1 refers to the pre-project data collection, and T2 refers to the post-project data collection. -------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here -------------------------------------- Factor structure of CQ and Global Identity As can be observed in the correlation presented in Table 1 and confirmed by CFA the four CQ dimensions, global identity, and local identity are independent factors (T1: 2 [328]=524.99, p<.001; RMSEA=.056; NNFI=.97; CFI=.98; T2: 2 [328]=554.88, p<.001; RMSEA=.060; NNFI=.97; CFI=.97), significantly better than a one-factor model (T1: 2 [343]=2073.26, p<.001; RMSEA=.161; NNFI=.85; CFI=.87; 19 2 [15]= 1548.27, 20 p<.001; T2: 2 2 [343]=2342.63, p<.001; RMSEA=.173; NNFI=.80; CFI=.82; [15]=1787.75, p<.001). Although global identity, local identity, and the four CQ dimensions clearly emerge as distinct factors, in line with hypothesis 2, significant correlations were found between individual’s level of global identity and the four CQ dimensions in both time points. Greater correlations are found between global identity and motivational CQ (T1 pre project r = .53; T2 - past project r = .50). CFA analysis conducted only on the global identity and motivational CQ items, confirm they are independent constructs (T1: 2 [23]=33.32, ns; RMSEA=.048; NNFI=.99; CFI=.99; T2: 2 [23]=36.43, p<.05; RMSEA=.055; NNFI=.99; CFI=.99), significantly better than a one-factor model (T1: 2 [24]=291.86, p<.001; RMSEA=.240; NNFI=.83; CFI=.89; 2 [1]=258.54, p<.001; T2: 2 [24]=238.95, p<.001; RMSEA=.215; NNFI=.83; CFI=.89; 2 [1]=202.52, p<.001). No correlations are observed between individual’s local identity and the four CQ dimensions at T1. At the second time point, no correlations are observed between local identity and cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ. Yet, a significant correlation is observed between local identity and meta-cognitive CQ. Work in MCTs enhances the development of Global identity and CQ According to hypothesis 1, working in MCTs was expected to enhance the development of CQ and global identity, while team members’ local identity was expected to stay stable. Tables 2 through 5 summarize the Results of HLM analysis, with ‘team’ as the random effect while controlling for age, gender, and social desirability, for hypotheses 1 to 3. Table 2 summarizes the results for global identity as the dependent 20 21 variables. Table 3 summarizes the results for meta-cognitive and cognitive CQ as the dependent variables. Table 4 summarizes the results for motivational and behavioral CQ as the dependent variable. Table 5 summarizes comparative results pertaining to local identity as the dependent variable. The effect of time in Tables 2 through 5 points to a significant increase in participants’ level of global identity (model 1 in Table 2), meta-cognitive CQ (Model 10 in Table 3), motivational CQ (Model 20 in Table 4), and behavioral CQ (Model 25 in Table 4) as a result of their experience in working on their multicultural projects in the MCTs. These effects are illustrated in Figure 1 and were beyond the effect of the control variable (Model 0 in Table 2; Models 14 and 19 in Table 3; Models 24 and 29 in Table 4). Yet, these effects are stable also when including the other dependent variables tested (the CQ dimensions and their interaction with time) in the model only for global identity (See Table 2). No changes were observed for local identity (Model 30 in Table 5) and cognitive CQ (Model 15 in Table 3). Participant’s level of local identity was already fairly high when the students began working on the MCTs. Furthermore, a consistent level of local identity is to be expected, since working on an MCT does not evoke one’s local identity. The relatively low and stable scores of cognitive CQ in T1 and T2 may be partially explained by an interaction with one’s country as can be drawn from Figure 4. While an increase in observed for participants from South-Korea, no increase is observed for participants from Israel, and a decrease is observed for participants from Hong-Kong, USA, and Spain (more on this interaction in the section focusing on cultural values). Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported for global identity which significantly increased along the project while the level of local identity stayed stable. The hypothesis 21 22 was only partially supported for the CQ dimensions as an increase was observed only for meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ and not for cognitive CQ. Furthermore, the increase in the level of CQ dimensions was eliminated when including individual's level of global identity pointing to the relation between global identity and CQ as will be discussed next. -------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here -------------------------------------- The Relation between Individual Global Identity and CQ According to hypothesis 2, a reciprocal relation was expected between CQ and global identity. Specifically, we hypothesized that individuals with high CQ will be more likely to develop a global identity when working in MCTs, and that reciprocally individuals with a strong global identity will be more likely to develop CQ when working in MCTs. Results summarized in Tables 2 through 4, support hypothesis 2. When examining the relation between individual's level in each of the CQ dimension prior to the beginning of the project with the overall level of global identity1, positive relations are observed between global identity and all four CQ dimensions (See models 2, 3, 4, and 5 in Table 2 for meta-cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ, respectively). Yet, when including all four CQ dimensions only motivational CQ was related to the overall global identity score (model 6 in Table 2), meaning that participants with motivational CQ prior to the project hold a stronger global identity, beyond time points. Reciprocally, global identity prior to the beginning of the project was positively 1 The overall level refers to the level beyond the two time points. 22 23 related to individuals overall level of meta-cognitive CQ (model 11 in Table 3), cognitive CQ (model 16 in Table 3), motivational CQ (model 21 in Table 4), and behavioral CQ (model 26 in Table 4). Overall these results support hypothesis 2 while pointing to a stronger relation between global identity and motivational CQ. -------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here -------------------------------------In order to test whether individual's level of global identity and CQ prior to the project also affects the extent of change in CQ and global identity respectively, we further tested whether global identity measured at T1 was related to the change in CQ level from T1 to T2, and reciprocally whether CQ measured at T1 was related to change in global identity level from T1 to T2. These relations were tested by looking at the interaction between the variable at time 1 with time and its effect on the dependent variable. Results summarized in Tables 2 through 5 point for a number of interactions with time2. First, an interaction is observed between motivational CQ and time in its relation with global identity (model 4 in Table 2). Specifically, contrary to the expected, the change in global identity from T1 to T2 is greater for those with low ( global identity = 0.58) versus high ( global identity = 0.25) motivational CQ at T1. These results, point that the effect of Motivational CQ (T1 - prior to the project) on global identity is different in each time point and suggest that motivational CQ may moderate to some extent the 2 Note that the coefficient direction, whether positive or negative is based on the delta's between T1 and T2. In most cases here it is positive when the delta between T1 and T2 for those who were low in the independent variable is greater than the delta for those who were high, thus, producing a positive interaction coefficient although the interaction pattern may seem in the opposite direction. 23 24 increase in global identity as a result of working in MCTs. As the starting point for those with a high initial global identity was fairly high (mean = 5.28), it is possible that the limited degree of change for those with higher initial global identity is related to a ceiling effect. Figure 2A present this interaction. Furthermore, the degree of change in meta-cognitive CQ (model 11 in Table 3) from T1 to T2 is also greater for those with low ( meta-cognitive CQ = 0.41) versus high ( meta-cognitive CQ = 0.06) levels of global identity at T1 (See Figure 2B). The same pattern is observed also for the change in motivational CQ (model 21 in Table 4) which is greater for those with low ( motivational CQ = 0.24) versus high ( motivational CQ = 0.02) levels of global identity at T1 (See Figure 2C). The change in the level of cognitive CQ along the project is not significant (See the effect of time in model 16 in Table 3). Yet, when testing the interaction of global identity T1 and time and its effect on cognitive CQ, a small increase in cognitive CQ is observed for those with low levels of global identity at T1 ( cognitive CQ = 0.06), while a decrease is observed for those with a higher initial level of global identity ( cognitive CQ = 0.23; see Figure 2D). No interaction is found between global identity and time on behavioral CQ (model 26 in Table 4). Interestingly, local identity at T1 enhances both the level of meta-cognitive CQ (model 11 in Table 3), and motivational CQ (model 21 in Table 4). Furthermore, local identity influences not only the overall level of meta-cognitive and motivational CQ but also their increase long the project. The increase in meta-cognitive CQ (model 11 in Table 3) is greater for those with high ( meta-cognitive CQ = 0.39) versus low ( metacognitive CQ = 0.12) levels of local identity at T1 (see Figure 2E). Similarly, the change 24 25 in motivational CQ (model 21 in Table 4) is greater for those with high ( motivational CQ = 0.16) versus low ( motivational CQ = 0.08) levels of local identity at T1 (See Figure 2F). These results point to the importance of local identity in multi-cultural settings as will be further discussed. -------------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here --------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here --------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here -------------------------------------- Moderating effects of Cultural Values In order to test the effect of cultural values (hypothesis 3), we first grouped the values into four categories according to Schwartz (1992) bi-polar dimensions: (1) selfenhancement including the values of ‘power’, and ‘achievement’; versus (2) selftranscendence including the values of ‘universalism’, and ‘benevolence’; (3) openness to change, including the values of ‘self-direction’, and ‘stimulation’; versus (4) conservation including the values of ‘security’, ‘tradition’, and ‘conformity’. Global identity was related to the values of openness to change (model 8 in Table 2), in line with our hypothesis that the cultural dimension of openness to change 25 26 moderates the effect of working in MCTs on the development of global identity. While a difference in global identity between those with high versus low levels of openness to change is observed in T1 (mean difference = 0.47(SD=0.17), t(189)=2.69, p<.01), no difference is observed in T2 (mean difference = 0.06 (SD=0.17), t(189)=0.28, ns). Contrary to our hypothesis, the extent of change from T1 to T2 for those with low ( = 0.64) levels of openness to change, is greater than for those with a high ( = 0.18) level of openness to change value (See Figure 3A). An interaction is also observed between values of conservation and time on global identity (model 8 in Table 2). This effect seems to stem from a difference in the extent of change in global identity from T1 to T2 between those with high ( =0.49) versus low ( =0.33) values of conservation (See Figure 3B). Additional finding show that the level of local identity was positively related to participants’ level of conservation values (model 32 in Table 5). Finally, a positive relation is found between the values of self -transcendence and all four CQ dimensions (model 13 and 18 in Table 3; models 23 and 28 in Table 4). -------------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here --------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here -------------------------------------As the participants in the MCTs were located in different countries we conducted further analysis and examined possible differences between participants from different countries. Indeed, as summarized in Tables 2 through 5 a relation between participant's 26 27 country in the MCT project3 and some of the research variables, is observed. Country was entered into the analysis as a dummy variable with Spain as the reference country. Specifically, the overall level of global identity, beyond time points, is not equivalent across countries (see model 7 in Table 2); Differences for local identity (model 31 in Table 5) and motivational CQ (model 22 in Table 4) are found between Spain and SouthKorea, Hong-Kong, and USA; Finally, differences are also found between Spain and Hong-Kong in their overall level of meta-cognitive CQ (Model 12 in Table 3). Hence, the overall level of global identity, local identity, motivational CQ, and meta-cognitive CQ, beyond time points, is not equivalent across countries. As illustrated in Figure 4, in addition to differences in the overall level of the above variables between countries, the pattern of change from T1 to T2 differs between some of the countries. Specifically, the pattern of change in global identity (model 7 in Table 2), meta-cognitive CQ (Model 12 in Table 3), cognitive CQ (Model 17 in Table 3), and motivational CQ (Model 22 in Table 4) differs between Spain and South-Korea. Greater increases in the above variables are observed for South-Korea (global identity: mean difference = 1.20 (SD=1.48), t(23)=3.97, p<.001; meta-cognitive CQ: mean difference = 0.66 (SD=0.85), t(23)=3.77, p<.001; cognitive CQ: mean difference = 0.49 (SD=0.81), t(23)=2.93, p<.01; motivational CQ: mean difference = 0.48 (SD=0.70), t(23)=3.30, p<.01). Further investigation points that participants from Spain seem to hold a high initial global identity, meta-cognitive CQ, and motivational CQ, with no significant difference between time points (global identity: mean difference = 0.25 (SD=0.88), t(26)=1.48, ns; meta-cognitive CQ: mean difference = 0.00 (SD=0.66), t(26)=0.00, ns; motivational CQ: mean difference = -0.00 (SD=0.45), t(26)=0.68, ns). 3 Not always eqivalent to the participants country of origin and/or nationaly. 27 28 Yet, their level of cognitive CQ decreased along the project (mean difference = -0.33 (SD=0.62), t(26)=-2.81, p<.01). Participants from Israel show an increase in global identity (mean difference = 0.36 (SD=0.72), t(34)=3.00, p<.01) and meta-cognitive CQ (mean difference = 0.41 (SD=1.12), t(34)=2.15, p<.05), while no change is observed for cognitive CQ (mean difference = 0.00 (SD=0.97), t(34)=0.06, ns) and motivational CQ (mean difference = 0.00 (SD=0.79), t(34)=0.56, ns). The level of global identity of participants from Hong-Kong increased (mean difference = 0.66 (SD=1.08), t(34)=3.59, p<.001), while no significant changes are observed for meta-cognitive CQ (mean difference = -0.00 (SD=0.75), t(34)=-0.11, ns), cognitive CQ (mean difference = -0.17 (SD=0.86), t(34)=-1.18, ns) and motivational CQ (mean difference = 0.12 (SD=0.67), t(34)=1.05, ns). Finally, a significant increase for participants from USA is found only for meta-cognitive CQ (mean difference = 0.23 (SD=1.01), t(69)=1.92, p=.06). No significant changes are observed for participants from the USA for global identity (mean difference = .11 (SD=0.90), t(69)=0.99, ns), cognitive CQ (mean difference = -0.18 (SD=1.09), t(69)=1.41, ns) and motivational CQ (mean difference = 0.00 (SD=0.78), t(69)=0.92, ns). The observed interactions of cognitive CQ and country, may explain the lack of significant change from T1 to T2 when tested along the whole data set. -------------------------------------Insert Figure 4 about here -------------------------------------- DISCUSSION Individual level of analysis 28 29 The objective of this section was to explore the relation between the related constructs of CQ and global identity at the individual level, and their development within the context of the multi-cultural environment of MCTs. Both concepts have emerged from the global multicultural work environment and are being used to gain a better understanding of why some people are more successful than others in coping with situations involving cultural diversity. Global identity, local identity, and the four CQ factors emerged as distinct factors supporting the notion that global identity and CQ are different, yet related concepts. The important finding of a significant increase in participants’ level of global identity, meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ as a result of their experience working together in MCTs, support hypothesis 1 and demonstrate the benefits of getting involved in a multicultural team context for the development of global identity and CQ. Specifically, participants sense of belonging to groups nested within the global work environment, as captured by global identity, increased as a result of their MCT experience. This may possibly make the adjustment to future multi-cultural environment easier, as they will already sense some level of belongingness. The development of a global identity along the project, may add to individual’s multiple identities (Arnett, 2002; Shokef & Erez, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-concept (Erez & Earley, 1993), hence, increasing the likelihood of adopting the values of the global work environment (Erez & Shokef, in press; Shokef & Erez, 2008) and the motivation for future involvement in similar groups. Second, the increase in the level of meta-cognitive CQ shows that an academic MCT experience can help individual develop the mechanisms for acquiring and thinking about culturally relevant knowledge, which could 29 30 possibly be at hand in future cross-cultural interactions. This knowledge and flexibility is of major importance in order to incorporate new information into a coherent picture of an unfamiliar, culturally different environment, and understanding it (Earley, 2002). Third, in addition to pointing to a positive overall experience, the increase in motivational CQ show that participants were motivated to use the knowledge they acquired in the project, in their class, and from their experience in other multicultural encounters. It further suggested that participants developed a self-efficacy regarding their ability to cope in multi-cultural novel settings, and accomplish a certain level of performance (Bandura, 1986). The sense of ability to cope in multicultural environments increases the efforts individuals invest to manage and understand these encounters successfully. Finally, the increase in behavioral CQ means not only a larger behavioral repertoire, but also an increase in individual’s abilities to acquire behaviors appropriate for a new culture. Adapting one’s behavior to be consistent with a target culture is an important aspect of multicultural adjustment (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). A person with high behavioral CQ is able to adapt be appropriate to any given cultural context. Overall, these findings suggests that adaptation to the global work context is a matter of learning and that opportunity to work in interdependent multicultural teams that have a common goal can overcome or reduce cross-cultural differences in norms and behaviors. The experience gained in the academic project enhances individuals, sense of belongingness to the global, multicultural environment, their ability to think and understand multi-cultural encounters, their motivation to engage in multi-cultural situations, their sense of self-efficacy that they can manage them well, and their ability to enlarge their relevant behavioral repertoire. Hence, facilitating the development of 30 31 employee’s global identity and CQ may help individuals adapt to work in global work environments. Reciprocal relations between global identity and CQ Global identity and CQ present reciprocal relations supporting hypothesis 2. All four CQ dimensions at the beginning of the project affected the overall level of global identity. Reciprocally, global identity prior to working in the MCTs affected individual’s overall level in all CQ dimensions. Individuals holding a sense of global identity reflecting their belongingness to the MCT were more likely to welcome the multicultural situation, which lead to the development of CQ. Reciprocally, individuals experienced in dealing effectively in multicultural situations, were more likely to develop a sense of belonging to the MCT – that is, a global identity. The sense of belonging to an MCT facilitated the development of CQ. In turn, knowing how to effectively deal with others from various cultures enhanced one’s global identity. Although not directly tested statistically, a stronger link between the two concepts appears to be between global identity and motivational CQ, as indicated when including all CQ dimensions in a model predicting global identity. Once an individual feels confident about her ability to engage in cross-cultural interactions, she experiences intrinsic satisfaction from being in culturally diverse settings, which heighten the chances of developing a sense of belongingness to these groups – a global identity. Reciprocally, individuals’ wish to belong to groups that compare favorably with, and are distinct from other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Hence, individuals with a high global identity were more likely to be interested in learning about and functioning in situations characterized 31 32 by cultural differences. They seek and enjoy situations that are culturally different, as defined by motivational CQ. Further findings pointed that the change in global identity from T1 to T2 was greater for those with lower level of motivational CQ at T1. Reciprocally, the change in motivational CQ was greater for those with lower global identity at T1. The high correlation between global identity and motivational CQ suggest that those with a high initial global identity also had a high initial motivational CQ, and that those with a low global identity also had a low initial motivational CQ. Thus, the moderating effects found seem to point to a parallel interrelated increase in both global identity and motivational CQ. An additional finding to the lower increase in motivational CQ and global identity for those with a higher initial level in global identity or motivational CQ respectively is a ceiling effect. As can be drawn from the means presented in Table 2, those with a high initial level did not have much to increase to. This explanation may explain some of the other interactions obtained with time presented next. Similar to the relation between motivational CQ and global identity, the change in meta-cognitive CQ was also greater for those with lower level of global identity at T1. Meta-cognitive CQ at the beginning of the project does not moderate the change in global identity. This finding may possibly suggest that in addition to a parallel development of global identity and meta-cognitive CQ, that those with a lower sense of belonging to the MCT, felt a greater need to develop the mechanisms for thinking about and understanding multi-cultural situations. Overall, the greater increase observed for those with lower levels of global identity, motivational CQ, and meta-cognitive CQ respectively, and the lack of difference observed at the end of the project for those with 32 33 high a initial level of motivational CQ or global identity, suggests that participation in an academic MCT context can help individual prepare and adapt to work in a multi-cultural context. Local Identity Individuals working in MCTs are exposed to the global work context while at the same time they continue to belong to groups of their cultures of origin as they often work in the MCTs from their home country, as was the case in this project. The level of participants’ local identity was fairly high and stable across time points. A consistent level of local identity is to be expected, since working on an MCT does not evoke one’s local identity. Yet, the change in meta-cognitive CQ and motivational CQ was greater for those with a stronger local identity at T1. This result is of importance as it points to the role played by local identity in the acculturation to the global, multi-cultural environment of MCTs. “Acculturation refers to cultural and psychological change brought about by contact with other people belonging to different cultures, and exhibiting different behaviors” (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992, p.19). Holding a strong local identity along with a strong global identity, as captured by a “glocal” type of acculturation (Shokef & Erez, 2006), is parallel to Berry’s (1980) “integration” type, and facilitate individual’s adaptation to the multi-cultural environment of MCTs, as seen in the greater increase in meta-cognitive CQ and motivational CQ for those with a stronger local identity. “Glocal” does not mean that individuals hold a third identity that is neither local nor global. Rather, it represents both a strong global identity as well as a strong local identity. Individuals holding a “glocal” identity hold both the values of their local 33 34 national groups and the values of the global work culture endorsed in their global groups, drawing upon each identity, based on its salience at a given situation (Shokef & Erez, 2006). MCTs are indeed considered more successful when they manage to preserve the cultural diversity of their members and allow the coexistence of differences (Janssens & Brett, 2005). Cognitive CQ Allegedly, no change is observed for cognitive CQ. Yet, the different patterns of change from T1 to T2 point to a possible explanation: An increase is observed for participants from South-Korea, No change is observed for participants from Israel, and a decrease is observed for participants from Hong-Kong, USA, and Spain. Furthermore, as observed in the interaction between global identity at T1 and time, a decrease in the level of cognitive CQ is observed for those with a high initial level of global identity, while a small increase in cognitive CQ is observed for those with a low initial level of global identity. Cognitive CQ reflects knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures acquired from education and personal experiences. This includes knowledge of economic, legal, and social systems of different cultures and subcultures (Triandis, 1994) and knowledge of basic frameworks of cultural values (e.g., Hofstede, 2001). Those with high cognitive CQ understand similarities and differences across cultures (Brislin et al., 2006). The lack of change and decrease for some of the countries in cognitive CQ is surprising as the project outcome focuses on developing such knowledge and knowledge of economic, legal, and social systems, framework of cultural values and their use for comparing and understanding cultures, and on understanding 34 35 similarities and differences between the cultures of team members. One possible explanation for the lack and decrease in cognitive CQ is that the experience of working in MCTs actually brought participants, especially those with a high initial global identity, to better understand what such knowledge means and how much further knowledge they need to acquire, thus reducing their level of cognitive CQ as measured using Ang et al (2007) measure. Country and Cultural Values Effects Different patterns of change were observed for participants from difference countries for global identity, meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and cognitive CQ pointing to the moderating effect one's country has on the development of these constructs and possibly to a need of considering “country” as a covariate in the analyses. Cultural values, may partially explain the effect of country. First, conservation values (security, tradition, and conformity) emphasizing the maintenance of the status quo and the avoidance of threat, were positively related to individual’s overall level of local identity. Local identity is the individual’s sense of belonging to, and identification with groups, nested within one’s local/national environment. This relation between local identity and values of conservation provide indirect support for the independence of local identity and global identity. Values of self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence) emphasizing a concern for the welfare of others, were positively related to all four CQ dimensions. This relation reflects that individuals endorsing values of universalism and benevolence hold higher initial levels of CQ. Finally, as expected, the cultural values of openness to change 35 36 (self-direction, stimulation) welcoming change and encouraging the pursuit of new ideas and experiences, moderate the change of global identity from T1 to T2. Specifically, the change in global identity was greater for those with lower levels of openness to change values in T1. As the gap in global identity between those with high versus low levels of openness to change decreased along the project, these results point to the benefit of participating in an academic MCT project in facilitating better adaptation to the global multi-cultural context. Interestingly, participants with high level of conservation values, considered as opposed to values of openness to change (Schwartz, 1992) presented more change from T1 to T2 for global identity. This effect could possible be related to the importance of a strong local identity, found to be positively related to conservation values, in adaptation to the global multi-cultural environment of MCTs, and should further be explored. Members of MCTs have three cultural systems (Shokef & Erez, 2006): (a) a global work/organizational culture (Erez & Shokef, in press; Shokef & Erez, 2006; Shokef et al., 2008); (b) a hybrid culture (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000); and (c) a national culture (Shokef & Erez, 2006). The national culture of each team member conveys the differences rather than the similarities among team members. Our findings of the importance of a strong local identity and of the moderating effect of national cultural values, illustrate the importance of one’s cultural background and local identity to the adaptation to a multi-cultural environment. Next, we present some hypotheses and analyses conducted at the team level, testing the effect of CQ and global identity on team performance, and the mediating 36 37 effect of team process on that relation. We conclude with a conclusion relating to both parts of the research. SECTION 2 This section focuses on the possible effect of global identity and CQ on team performance. We first present a theoretical introduction followed by the hypotheses and analyses conducted at the team level, testing the effect of CQ and global identity on team performance, and the mediating effect of team process on that relation. We then conclude with a conclusion relating to both parts of the research. Global Identity and CQ – Can they enhance MCTs’ performance? One of the challenges faced by organizations operating in the global environment is creating MCTs that work effectively (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). The highly diverse nature of MCTs may either facilitate or inhibit group performance. On the one hand, the MCTs’ cultural diversity enables a broad range of perspectives, skills and insights, which can increase the group’s creativity and problem solving capabilities, thereby enhancing performance (Cox & Black, 1991). On the other hand, MCTs can also have high levels of conflicts and misunderstandings (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Behfar et al., 2006; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Joshi et al., 2002; Salk & Brannen, 2000). A number of recent studies support the notion that both global identity and CQ can enhance performance at the individual level. Ang et al. (2007) found that among international executives and foreign professionals, CQ significantly explained performance and adjustment, beyond the effect of demographic characteristics and 37 38 general cognitive ability. In their findings, high mental (meta-cognitive and cognitive) CQ predicted cultural judgment and decision making; high motivational CQ and behavioral CQ predicted cultural adaptation; and high meta-cognitive CQ and behavioral CQ predicted task performance in intercultural settings. Templer, Tay, and Chandrasekar (2006) found that high motivational CQ predicted cross-cultural adjustment of foreign professionals, over and above pre-job assignment interventions such as realistic job previews and realistic living condition previews. At the team level, Moynihan et al. (2006) showed that the mean CQ level of MCTs composed of MBA students, measured at the formation of the MCTs, was positively correlated with the levels of group cohesion and trust, and with the team’s performance, three months into the joint project (Moynihan et al., 2006). Shokef and Erez (2006) found that the mean level of global identity prior to working in virtual MCTs affected the team performance. These empirical findings point to a possible relation between global identity and CQ, as studies in section 1 of this research. Further, it pointes to the possible contribution of both high levels of CQ and a strong global identity shared by the MCT members to MCTs effectiveness. Hence, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 4: Team CQ and global identity can enhance the performance of MCTs. Conceptualizing global identity and CQ at the team level Can global identity and CQ be conceptualized at the team level? What is the appropriate way to conceptualize global identity and CQ at the team level? Often, team 38 39 level characteristics are an emergent phenomenon that originates in the characteristics of individuals, amplified by their interactions and manifested as a higher level collective phenomenon (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). As previously discussed in relation to CQ (Moynihan et al., 2006), there are two major concerns when conceptualizing individual level constructs at the team level: (a) is it appropriate to conceptualize the individual level constructs at the team level? and if so, (b) What is the appropriate approach for conceptualizing and operationalizing CQ and global identity at the team level? One possibility is the composition model according to which each of the individual team members contributes to the collective pool of resources in proportion to the strength of his/her particular attribute (LePine, 2003; 2005; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). In these cases the team level characteristic is typically represented by the mean score of all team members on a specific attribute (LePine, 2003). The disadvantage of the composition model is that it may mask the effect of the most competent team members (Arbel, Erez, Weiss, & Kroll, 2005; Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2006). Both Moynihan et al. (2006) and Shokef and Erez (2006) in their studies of CQ and global identity relative to team performance used the composition model, testing the effect of mean CQ, and mean global identity, respectively, on performance. An alternative model to the composition model is the compilation approach, which views a higher-level phenomenon as a complex combination of diverse lower-level contributions (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). In this case the scores of the most capable team members may better capture the competence of the team (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998), under the assumption that this leading subgroup can carry the team to its highest performance level (Arbel et al., 2005; Barry & Stewart, 1997; West & Anderson, 1996). 39 40 Based on the definition of CQ and global identity, we suggest that the composition approach may be more appropriate for conceptualizing global identity at the team level while the compilation approach may be more appropriate for conceptualizing CQ at the team level. Our reasons are as follows. CQ is the individual’s capability to cope with situations characterized by cultural diversity (Earley & Ang, 2003). In the context of MCTs and especially newly formed ones, team members can vary greatly in their level of CQ. In such a case, we suggest that the members with the knowledge, motivation, and behavioral repertoire of coping with cross-cultural and multicultural situations can help the team rise above possible misunderstandings and miscommunications. Naturally, even a few MCT members who have high CQ can contribute significantly to MCT performance, and the more members with high CQ, the better will be the team performance. Global identity is derived from a sense of belonging to an MCT and the individual’s identity is based on one’s social identification. Similarly to CQ, a small number of team members with a strong global identity may enhance team performance. Yet, we suggest that possibly, another approach to conceptualize global identity at the team level is through the composition model, because if only a small number of team members have a sense of group belongingness the rest of the team members may not share the same understanding needed for effective team performance. A shared team global identity may help overcome barriers rising from cultural diversity by creating the common ground for a shared understanding. We differentiate between individual global identity and a shared team global identity. Individual global identity may enhance team performance by evoking cognitions, motivations, and behaviors adaptive to cross-cultural 40 41 and multicultural situations, as captured by CQ. Yet, a team global identity can enhance team performance by providing the team with a shared sense of belongingness that facilitates the emergence of a shared meaning system and the formation of a common foundation of values, norms and appropriate behaviors necessary for effective team performance. A shared meaning system is an important factor in overcoming many challenges in MCTs, allowing team members to understand each other and interpret each other’s intentions and behaviors (Earley & Gibson, 2002). For example, Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) found that developing a team shared mental model, which is a shared psychological representation of the team’s environment, increased the propensity of members to trust each other and hence, improved team performance. Team processes Most team processes that take place in teams in general also characterize global MCTs (Ilgen, LePine, & Hollenbeck, 1997). Effective team processes are known to enhance team performance (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). In their study of MCTs Moynihan et al. (2006) found that team level initial level of CQ positively correlated with group cohesion, trust, and hybrid norms three month later, these were then correlated with subsequent processes of group coordination, group efficacy, strength of hybrid norms, innovation, and extent of learning in the team. Shokef and Erez (2006) found that effective team processes in terms of trust mediated the effect of global identity on the MCT’s performance. Ang et al. (2004) suggested that individuals with higher meta-cognitive capabilities learn and perform more effectively because they monitor their progress, 41 42 determine when they are having problems, and adjust their behaviors accordingly. In addition, those with high cognitive CQ are expected to have a rich and complex cultural schema containing well organized and interconnected knowledge. Therefore, we suggest that effective team processes of reflexivity, referring to the teams evaluation of its progress towards accomplishing its goals (West, 2002); and of task conflict referring to an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions about the task and way of achieving it (Jehn & Mannix, 2001), mediate the relationship between meta-cognitive and cognitive CQ and MCT performance (See Figure 5). Furthermore, team processes of relational conflict which is an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities, including affective components such as dislike and tension among team members (Jehn & Mannix, 2001); participation, referring to the extent to which team members tended to cooperate with one another (Erez, Lepine, & Elms, 2002); commitment, referring to the extent to which team members are committed to accomplishing the team’s goals (Larson & LaFasto, 1989); and trust referring to team members ability to relate to other team members in the belief that the other’s actions will be beneficial rather than detrimental, although this cannot be guaranteed (Child, 2001), are expected to mediate the relations between the drive to learn about and experience cultural differences, as captured by motivational CQ, and MCT's performance (See figure 5). Finally, the processes of relational conflict, participation, commitment, and trust, are expected to mediate also the relations between the ability to express culturally appropriate words and gestures, as captured by behavioral CQ, on the one hand, and MCT's performance, allowing interactions of higher quality. Therefore, we hypothesize: 42 43 Hypothesis 5: Effective team processes will mediate the effect of team CQ on MCT performance. Specifically, (a) Effective team processes of reflexivity and task conflict will mediate the effect of meta-cognitive and cognitive CQ on MCT’s performance; (b) Effective team processes of relational conflict, participation, commitment, and trust, will mediate the effect of motivational CQ on MCT’s performance; (c) Effective team processes of relational conflict, participation, commitment, and trust, will mediate the effect of behavioral CQ on MCT’s performance. Once a team holds a shared global identity, their mutual sense of belonging to the global work environment and their MCT is enhanced. Their shared sense of belongingness should facilitate the effectiveness to their team processes such as commitment, participation, reflexivity, and trust, and reduce the levels of conflict in their work. By that, enhance the overall team performance. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 6: Effective team processes of participation, commitment, reflexivity, trust, and conflict, will mediate the effect of team global identity on MCT performance. -------------------------------------Insert Figure 5 about here -------------------------------------- 43 44 METHOD Participants Participants were the same as those in the first section. Of the initial 55 teams five teams were omitted from the analyses, as we did not have the full data for both time points for at least three of the team members. Hence, the analyses were done on 50 teams, based on the data of 182 participants. Team Project, Procedure, and Questionnaires Same as in section 1. Measures Cultural Intelligence. Same as in section 1. Global Identity and Local Identity. Same as in section 1. Measures of Team Processes Participation. Included 5 items (e.g. “Everyone had a chance to participate”), on a 7-point Likert scale (1-almost never-…4-sometimes…–7-almost always). Items were based on Kramer & Dailey (1997). The internal consistency reliability estimate was .86. Reflexivity. Included 3 items (e.g. “My team often reviews its objectives”), on a 7point Likert scale (1-almost never-…4-sometimes…–7-almost always). Items were based on West (2002). The internal consistency reliability estimate was .83. Commitment. Included 2 items (e.g. “Team members are willing to devote whatever effort is necessary to achieve team success”), on a 7-point Likert scale (1- 44 45 strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree). Items were based on Larson and LaFasto (1989). The internal consistency reliability estimate was .81. Mutual trust. Includes 3 items (e.g. “I could rely on my team members to deliver their parts as promised”), on a 7-point Likert scale (1-almost never-…4-sometimes…–7almost always). Items were based on Spreitzer, Noble, Mishra, and Cooke (1999). Internal consistency reliability estimate was .87. Conflict. Included 3 scales of relational conflict, task conflict, and process conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Each scale included 3 items with a 7-point Likert scale (1-not at all to 6-a lot).The internal consistency reliability estimate for the relational conflict scale was .80, for the task conflict scale: .89, and for the process conflict scale: .89. Performance Measures Three performance measures were used: Performance. Performance was measured by grades assigned to the "guide to an expatriate" power-point presentation prepared by the teams. Satisfaction refers to the satisfaction from the team's work (e.g., “How satisfied are you with overall team performance?”). Included 4 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1not at all to 7-very much). Internal consistency reliability estimate was .88. Learning refers the degree to which students felt that they learned from the project (e.g., “I learned from working with participants from other cultures”). Includes 5 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree). Internal consistency reliability estimate was .89. 45 46 Analysis In order to test the hypotheses at the team level we characterized global identity, local identity and the four CQ dimensions at the team level in two ways: (1) mean team level; (2) team score based on the most competent members, computed by the maximum team score. In order to be able to aggregate the individual scores to a mean team score, we first tested for interrater agreement using the Rwg coefficient (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984), and for the level of ICC(1) and ICC(2) (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). An Rwg value of 0.70 or above is suggested as a ‘good’ amount of homogeneity of responses (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1993). Brown & Hauenstein (2005) suggested to consider values from 0 to .59 as unacceptable level of agreement, .60-.69 as weak agreement, .70.79 as moderate agreement and .80 and above as strong agreement. Hence, overall, reasonable agreement levels in terms of Rwg were found (Rwg range .68-.95; mean median = 0.85), indicating that team members shared perceptions regarding the identity, CQ, team processes, and performance measures. Yet, the levels of intra-class correlation (ICC(1)) were not in the acceptable range, which .00 to 0.50 with a median of 0.12 (James, 1982). The overall median for ICC(1) in our sample was (-)0.04. The low ICC(1) indicates that team membership does not account for the variance in the identity, CQ, team processes, an performance measures. Furthermore, ICC(2) is mostly expected to be greater than .70, as common for reliability. Yet, the overall median for ICC(2) in our sample was (-)0.17, indicating that the teams cannot be reliably differentiated based on average member ratings of the various measures. The negative signs in both ICC(1) and ICC(2) stem from a greater within team variance (MSW) in comparison to the between team variance (MSB). Table 6 presents the Rwg, ICC(1), and ICC(2) for each group of 46 47 measures, and each measure separately. -------------------------------------Insert Table 6 about here -------------------------------------The major meaning of the inadequate ICC(1) and ICC(2) scores is that any analyses at the team level is not reliable. However, for the purpose of this report and in order to have better perceptions of the processes taking place within our MCT project, some analyses were conducted and we present their results here. Based on the data presented in Table 6, it is very important to consider any of the below results carefully. Assessment of indirect mediations effect were tested using Preacher and Hayes (2004) SPSS macro for bootstrapping indirect effects in multiple mediation models. Bootstrapping is a nonparametric approach to effect-size estimation and hypothesis testing that makes no assumptions about the shape of the distributions of the variables or the sampling distribution of the statistic. It is considered as a more adequate test for small samples compared to the Sobel test. Bootstrapping is accomplished by taking a large number of samples of size n (where n is the original sample size) from the data, sampling with replacement, and computing the indirect effect, in each sample (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The number of bootstraps used was 1000. RESULTS Team level of analysis Descriptive statistics Table 7 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the 47 48 research variables, at the team level. -------------------------------------Insert Table 7 about here -------------------------------------- Global identity and CQ effects on Team Performance As noted earlier two measures representing the team were used: (1) team aggregated mean score; (2) score of the most competent member, as represented by the maximum score within the team. We report both the conclusions based on the correlations found between the various variables, as summarized in Table 7, and the corresponding statistical assessment of indirect mediations effect tested using Preacher and Hayes (2004). The effect of team’s initial (Time 1) global identity and CQ on team performance First, as can be seen in Table 7, contrary to our expectation, no direct relations were observed between team global identity and CQ measured at the beginning of the project and any of the team performance measures. Interestingly, team local identity was related to the teams grade on their project outcome, measured at the end of the project (r=.27, p=.05). This result may point to the importance of local identity when working in a multi-cultural environment. Although not as hypothesized, a number of indirect effects are observed between team global identity and CQ measured prior to the beginning of the project to the team’s level of satisfaction and learning, mediated by team processes. Tables 8 through 11 48 49 summarize the results of these mediation effects using Preacher and Hayes (2004) macro for bootstrapping indirect effects in multiple mediation models. A number of testes for each model were conducted. First, we included all mediators within the same model. Then we tested for the mediating effect of those variables that seems to have a significant effect with both the independent variable and the dependent variable, separately. Based on the results of these analyses we re-ran a model including only the mediators that showed a significant effect. The results summarized in Tables 8 to 11 present only the final analyses (for detailed results, including for cognitive CQ and local identity – See Tables 8A to 13A in the Appendix). The total effect X Y in Tables 8 to 11 refers to the effect of X (independent variable: e.g., global identity or CQ) on Y (dependent variable: e.g., performance, satisfaction, and learning). The direct effect X Y refers to the effect of X on Y, while controlling for M (mediator: e.g., team processes). These are parallel to Baron and Kenny (1986) mediation equations. The indirect effect X Y refers to estimate of the effect of X on Y, while controlling for M, based on bootstrapping (=1000) results using Preacher and Hayes (2004) macro. As can be drawn from tables 8 to 11 team processes mediate a number of the tested relations. First, participation mediates the effect of mean global identity time 1 score on both the team’s satisfaction and learning. Second, participation also mediates the effect of the maximum global identity score, which is the score of the highest team member, on both satisfaction and learning. Third, participation also mediates the effect of mean team meta-cognitive CQ at the beginning of the project on both satisfaction and learning, and the effect of mean behavioral CQ at the beginning of the project on both satisfaction and learning. Meaning, a high team global identity, one member with high 49 50 global identity, a high team meta-cognitive CQ, or a high team behavioral CQ at the beginning of the project, lead to greater levels of participations in the group which in hence, lead to more satisfaction and a higher level of team learning from the project. Fourth, when testing for each mediator separately, the effect of mean team motivational CQ at the beginning of the project on the level of satisfaction is mediated by the processes of participation, commitment, trust, relational-conflict, task-conflict, and process conflict. Yet, when testing them all in a model of multiple mediators, only commitment and process-conflict marginally (p<.10) appear as mediators to the effect of team motivational CQ on the level of team satisfaction. Greater team motivational CQ decreases the level of process conflict (estimate = -0.28); then, lower levels of process conflict enhances the level of team satisfaction (estimate = -0.29). The processes of participation, commitment, trust, relational-conflict, and process-conflict also mediate the effect of mean motivational CQ at the beginning of the project on the team’s level of learning. Yet, when tested together in a model of multiple mediators, only commitment appears as marginally significant as a mediator. Overall, team processes seems to mediate also the effect of mean team motivational CQ on the team’s level of satisfaction and learning. Finally, team processes of commitment and trust mediate the effect of the maximum behavioral CQ score, which is that score of the highest team member, on the level of team’s satisfaction. Processes of participation, commitment, trust, reflexivity, and relational-conflict, mediate the effect the maximum behavioral CQ score on the level of team’s learning. Yet, when tested within the same model of multiple mediators, only commitment appears as marginally significant. Figure 6 summarizes these findings. 50 51 -------------------------------------Insert Figure 6 about here -------------------------------------- DISCUSSION Team level analysis The aim of this section was to explore the possible contribution of global identity and CQ to MCTs performance. Although Rwg scores justify aggregation to the team level, ICC scores point that the measures at the team level are not reliable, therefore questioning the reliability of the results obtained. While looking at the results with the needed doubt, they do present some interesting direction that should be further explored. Overall, results presented above indicate that both global identity and CQ at the team level can affect team performance. These relations are not direct, but are mediated by team processes. A high team global identity, one member with high global identity, a high team meta-cognitive CQ, or a high team behavioral CQ at the beginning of the project, lead to greater levels of participations in the group which in hence lead to more satisfaction and a higher level of team learning from the project. High team motivational CQ at the beginning of the project lead to greater levels of team commitment, which in hence lead to more satisfaction and a higher level of team learning from the project. It also leads to lower level of process-conflict, leading to greater levels of satisfaction. One member with high behavioral CQ at the beginning of the project can lead to greater levels of team commitment, further leading to greater levels of satisfaction and learning. In 51 52 addition, one member with high behavioral CQ, lead to greater levels of team trust, which then enhances the level of team satisfaction. The above results give us a general picture of the relations between global identity and CQ at the team level on team satisfaction and learning mediated by team processes, and should further be explored. Yet, they do not allow us to determine whether global identity and CQ can be aggregated to the team level (ICC scores of team processes, satisfaction, and outcome were not sufficient either). Overall, the results obtained are not in line with our expectation. Both mean team global identity and one high team member’s global identity, enhance the level of participation in the team, and by that, facilitate the team’s level of satisfaction and learning. These results fit both the composition model, and the compilation model, respectively. As for CQ we suggested that CQ should be conceptualized at the team level based on the composition model. Other than the effect of a high team member with behavioral CQ, the effect of meta-cognitive CQ and motivational CQ, is of the mean team score and not of the high team member. These results are not completely in line with our expectations and should be further explored. CONCLUSIONS The objective of this research was to take an initial step in exploring the relation between the related constructs of CQ and global identity at both the individual and the team levels of analysis. Both concepts have emerged from the global multicultural work environment and are being used to gain a better understanding of why some people are more successful than others in coping with situations involving cultural diversity. This 52 53 research provides an initial step in examining the relation and relevance of these constructs in MCTs. Global identity, local identity, and the four CQ factors emerged as distinct factors supporting the notion that global identity and CQ are different, yet related concepts. A strong link between the two concepts at the individual level appears to be between global identity and motivational CQ. The important finding of a significant increase in participants’ level of global identity, meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and behavioral CQ as a result of their experience working together in MCTs, demonstrates the benefits of getting involved in a multicultural team context for development of global identity and CQ. This suggests that adaptation to the global work context is a matter of learning and that opportunity to work in interdependent multicultural teams that have a common goal can overcome or reduce cross-cultural differences in norms and behaviors. Hence, facilitating the development of employee’s global identity and CQ may help them adapt to work in global work environments. The moderating effect of local identity on the increase of meta-cognitive CQ and motivational CQ along the project, and the moderating effects of country and cultural values on the increase in global identity, meta-cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and cognitive CQ, point to the importance of one’s national cultural background. The national culture of each team member conveys the differences rather than the similarities among team members. Identification with one’s respective national culture enables individuals to preserve their self definition as a person, beyond their MCT work context (Shokef & Erez, 2006). Our results at the team level suggest that indeed global identity and CQ at the 53 54 team level can contribute to the team performance. These relations are not direct, but are mediated by team processes. Yet, the reliability of these results is at question and they should be looked at carefully and should be further explored. Limitations and Future Directions CQ and global identity are conceptualized using the etic approach, applying across specific cultural circumstances (Ng & Earley, 2006) and providing a sense of belongingness to diverse cultural environments. Nevertheless, as such, their application and examination in MCTs is yet to be elucidated. The meaning of CQ (Ang et al., 2007; Berry & Ward, 2006; Brislin, Worthley, & Macnab, 2006) and of global identity may very well differ across different cultures. Therefore, there is a need to validate the measurement equivalence of global identity and of the four factors of CQ across different cultures. Unfortunately, the sample in this study was too small for testing the measurement equivalence of these constructs as should have been done. Further complications that need to be considered when studying global identity and CQ are introduced by the structure of most MCTs, which are geographically dispersed and use virtual communication and computer mediated technologies, thus limiting the implications of our findings. Furthermore, while we find the findings in this research as important and exiting, we did not have a control group, further limiting the findings implications. Finally, the poor ICC scores question that ability to conduct any analyses at the team level. Thus, team level results are questionable and further testing and research should be conducted in that line. 54 55 REFERENCES sAdler, N.J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100-123. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N.A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335-371. Arbel, I., Erez, M., Weiss, M.P., & Kroll, E. (2005). Effects of team composition and team processes on the conceptual design of new products. Paper presented as part of a symposium on “Team innovation: effects of leadership, team composition, structure and processes” at the 2005 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Hawaii. Armstrong, D.J., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distance and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for changing work place (pp. 187-215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arnett, J.J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774783. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An 55 56 International Review, 51, 269-290. Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Societal beliefs of ethos: A social psychological analysis of society. London: Sage. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., & Mount, M.K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391. Barry, B., & Stewart, G.L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in selfmanaged groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6278. Behfar, K., Kern, M., & Brett, J. (2006). Managing challenges in multicultural teams. In E.A.M. Mannix, M. Neale, & Y. Chen (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. Volume 9 (pp. 239-269). Oxford: Elsevier Science Press. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P.R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and application. NY: Cambridge University Press. Berry, J.W., & Ward, C. (2006). Commentary on “Refining interactions across cultures and organizations”. Group & Organization Management, 31, 64-77. Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people’s goals. Group & Organization Management, 31, 4055. 56 57 Brown, R.D., & Hauenstein, N.M.A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165-184. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. Casmir, R. (1992). Third culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. Communication Yearbook, 16, 407-428. Child, J. (2001). Trust: The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 274-288. Chohavi, I., Erez, M., & Shokef, E., (2008). Antecedents to the development of a global identity. Working paper, Technion, Haifa, Israel. Cox, T.H. Jr., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45-56. Earley, P.C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 271299. Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Earley, P.C., & Gibson, C.B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Earley, P.C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49. 57 58 Ely, R.J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 755-780. Erez, A., Lepine, J.A. & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasiexperiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929-948. Erez, M., & Earley, P.C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erez, M. & Gati, E. (2004). A Dynamic, Multi-level model of culture: From the microlevel of the individual to the macro-level of a Global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 583-598. Erez, M., & Shokef, E. (in press). The culture of global organizations. In P. Smith, M. Peterson & D. Thomas (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harzing, A.W., & Hofstede, G. (1996). Planned change in organizations: The influence of national culture. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 14, 297-340. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. CA: Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications. Ilgen, D.R., LePine, J.A., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1997). Effective decision making in 58 59 multinational teams. In P.C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 377-409). San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W.E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the resistance of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(Feb), 19-51. James, L.R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applies Psychology, 67(2), 219-229. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 8598. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rWG:An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. Janssens, M. & Brett, J.M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 124-153. Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Leidner, D.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815. Jehn, K.A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity. Workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 703-729. Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 238-251 59 60 Jehn, K.A., Northcraft G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763. Joshi, A., Labianca, G., & Caligiuri, P.M. (2002). Getting along long distance: Understanding conflict in a multinational team through network analysis. Journal of World Business, 37, 277-284. Klein, K.J. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2000) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental models: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403-437. Kramer, W. M., Dailey C.J., (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes. Small group research, 28, 218-142. Larson,C.E., & LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. NY: Sage Publications. LePine, J.A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27-39. LePine, J.A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153-1167. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, E. J., & Zaccaro, J.S. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team process. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-377. 60 61 Martin, J.N., & Hammer, M.R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication competences: Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 303-332. McKenna, K.Y.A., & Bargh, J.A. (1998). Interpersonal relations and group processes: Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity demarginalization through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681-698. Meal, F.A., & Ashforth B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma matter: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123. Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M, & Naveh, E. (2006). The personal attributes that enhance individual versus team innovation. Presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meetings. Atlanta. Miroshnik, V. (2002). Culture and international management: A review. The Journal of Management Development, 21, 521-544. Mitchel, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, W.T., Sablynski, J.S., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1122. Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Massey, A.P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251-1262. Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organization. Communications of the ACM, 40 (9), 3037. Moynihan, L.M., Peterson, R.S., & Earley, P.C. (2006). Cultural intelligence and the 61 62 multicultural team experience: Does the experience of working in a multinational team improve cultural intelligence? In E.A.M. Mannix, M. Neale, & Y. Chen (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. Volume 9 (pp. 279-304). Oxford: Elsevier Science Press. Ng, K-Y., & Earley, .P.C. (2006). Culture + intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group & Organization Management, 31, 4-19. Noorderhaven, N.G. & Harzing, A.W. (2003) The "Country of origin effect" in multinational corporations: Sources, mechanisms and moderating conditions, Management International Review, 43 (2), 47-66. O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 487-516. Oyserman, D. (2004). Self concept and identity. In M.B. Brewer, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Paulhus, D. L. 1984. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 598-609. Paulhus, D.L. 1991. Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds), Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes: 17-59. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procsdures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Reserach Methods, Istruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. 62 63 Prieto, J.M., & Arias, R.M. (1997). Those things yonder are no giants, but decision makers in international teams. In P.C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 410-445). San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press. Ray J.J. (1984). The reliability of short social desirability scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 133-134. Salk, J.E., & Brannen, M.Y. (2000). National culture, networks, and individual influence in a multinational management team. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 191202. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1-65. NY: Academic Press. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45. Schwartz, S.H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48 (1), 23-47. Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a shared understanding in multicultural teams. In E.A.M Mannix, Neale, M., & Chen, Y. (Eds.), Research in managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. Oxford: Elsevier Science Press. Shokef, E., Erez, M., & De-Haan, U. (2008). Global work culture: Developing a new measure of organizational culture of multinational organizations. Working paper, Technion, Haifa, Israel. 63 64 Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 377–386. Snell, S. A., Snow, C.C., Canney-Davidson, S., Hambrick D. C. (1998) Designing and supporting transnational teams: The human resource agenda. Human Resource Management, 37, 147–158 Solomon, C.M. (1995). Global teams: The ultimate collaboration. Personnel Journal, 74(9), 49-58. Spreitzer, G.M., Noble, D.S., Mishra, A.K., & Cooke, W.N. (1999). Predicting process improvement team performance in an automotive firm: Explicating the roles of trust and empowerment. In, Wageman, R. (Ed), Research on managing groups and teams: Groups in context, Vol. 2. (pp. 71-92). Stamford, CT, US: JAI Press, Inc. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Stryker, S., & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, Worchel, S., The social psychology of group relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Pp. 33-47. 64 65 Templer, K.J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N.A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group and Organization Management, 31, 154-173. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655. Trefry, M.G. (2006). A double-edged sword: Organizational culture in multicultural organizations. International Journal of Management, 23, 563-575. Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw Hill. Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. NY: IRWIN. West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 680-693 West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 355-424. 65 66 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Global identity Local identity Meta-cognitive CQ Cognitive CQ Motivational CQ Behavioral CQ Team b Age c Gender c Social desirability c Self enhancement c Self transcendence c Openness to change c Conservation c Time 1 Mean SD Time 2 Mean SD 4.70 5.25 1.21 1.13 5.11 5.17 1.16 1.23 .11 4.95 0.99 5.19 0.91 .43** .02 3.84 1.16 3.76 1.13 .38** -.04 .52** 5.26 1.04 5.38 0.96 .53** .09 .54** .50** 4.74 / 29.8 1.39 1.13 / 6.31 0.49 4.88 / / / 1.13 / / / .26** -.03 -.15* .01 .06 -.18* .17* .13 .61** .00 -.13^ .11 .49** .09 -.04 -.09 .44** .09 -.24** -.02 .07 -.12^ .16* .01 -.09 -.16* 4.20 0.66 / / .03 .04 .08 .12 -.09 .00 .02 .04 -.02 4.40 1.05 / / .08 .05 .11 .16* .08 .19* -.09 .03 -.02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .09 .45** .31** .37** .05 .50** .10 .30** .11 -.01 -.20* .02 .16* -.04 .15* .03 .06 .38** .59** .51** -.07 -.04 .05 .09 .05 .17* .11 .20** .18* .30** .10 .14 .21* .18** .28** .22** .41** .44** .06 .16* -.18* -.02 .53** .12 -.15* -.02 .01 .07 -.03 .16* .12 .08 .11 .10 -.01 .08 -.03 .01 .08 -.09 -.16* .04 .02 .04 -.02 .07 -.09 .03 -.02 .25** -.13 .04 .12 .13 -.07 -.13 .04 .19* -.09 .16* .13 .20* .20* .12 .17* .19* .56** .69** .63** 4.76 1.02 / / .25** .12 .27** .22** .21** .32** -.13 .04 .12 .12 .56** 4.80 0.99 / / .25** .05 .27** .20** .26** .23** -.07 -.13 .04 .17* .69** .66** 4.16 1.12 / / .11 .17* .22** .16* .04 .31** -.09 .16* .13 .19* .63** .81** ^ p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01 N = 191 a Correlations between variables at Time 1 are below the diagonal; correlations at Time 2 are above the diagonal. b Team number, same for both time points. c Measured only at Time 1; The correlations appearing above the diagonal (Time 2) are identical to those below the diagonal for these variables. 66 .66** .81** .56** .56** 67 Table 2 HLM Results for the Effects of CQ Dimensions, Country, and National Culture on Global Identity N Team Intercept Age Gender Social desirability Time Meta-cognitive CQ T1 Meta-cognitive CQ T1 * Time Cognitive CQ T1 Cognitive CQ T1 * Time Motivational CQ T1 Model o 191 Estimate (SE) 0.03 (0.08) 5.13 (0.67)*** -0.01 (0.01) -0.05 (0.16) 0.05 (0.12) Model 1 191 Estimate (SE) 0.03 (0.07) 5.31 (0.67)*** -0.01 (0.01) -0.05 (0.16) 0.05 (0.12) 0.41 (0.08)*** Model 2 191 Estimate (SE) 0.04 (0.06) 3.37 (0.72)*** -0.00 (0.01) -0.14 (0.14) -0.01 (0.11) -1.01 (0.39)** 0.42 (0.08)*** 0.12 (0.08) Difference in Global Identity Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 191 191 191 Estimate Estimate Estimate (SE) (SE) (SE) 0.01 0.03 0.03 (0.06) (0.05) (0.07) 4.25 1.82 4.12 (0.68)*** (0.77)* (0.74)*** -0.01 0.01 -0.01 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) 0.03 0.02 -0.14 (0.15) (0.14) (0.15) -0.02 0.12 0.05 (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) 0.75 1.28 0.58 (0.26)** (0.38)** (0.33)^ 0.31 (0.07)*** 0.09 (0.07) 0.47 (0.08)*** 0.17 (0.07)* Motivational CQ T1 * Time Behavioral CQ T1 Behavioral CQ T1 * Time Country: South-Korea vs. Spain Country: Israel vs. Spain Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain Country: USA vs. Spain (Country: SouthKorea vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Israel vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain) * Time (Country: USA vs. Spain) * Time Values of openness to change Values of conservation Values of selfenhancement Values of selftranscendence Values of openness to change * Time Values of 0.25 (0.07)*** 0.04 (0.07) Model 6 191 Estimate (SE) 0.02 (0.05) 1.76 (0.77)* 0.01 (0.01) 0.00 (0.14) 0.05 (0.10) 1.30 (0.45)** 0.20 (0.11)^ 0.07 (0.11) 0.07 (0.08) 0.03 (0.08) 0.33 (0.09)*** 0.15 (0.09)^ -0.03 (0.09) 0.08 (0.09) Model 7 191 Estimate (SE) 0.06 (0.07) 4.80 (0.74)*** 0.03 (0.02)^ 0.08 (0.16) 0.04 (0.12) -0.25 (0.19) Model 8 191 Estimate (SE) 0.05 (0.08) 4.62 (0.78)*** -0.01 (0.01) -0.13 (0.15) 0.02 (0.12) 1.18 (0.40)** -0.99 (0.40)* -1.25 (0.32)*** -0.97 (0.33)** -1.02 (0.27)*** -0.95 (0.27)*** -0.11 (0.25) -0.41 (0.25) 0.14 (0.22) 0.00 (0.13) 0.12 (0.14) -0.15 (0.12) 0.22 (0.15) -0.29 (0.11)* 0.34 67 68 conservation * Time Values of selfenhancement * Time Values of selftranscendence * Time -2 Res log likelihood (0.12)** 0.04 (0.10) -0.20 (0.14) 1163.6 1139.2 1103.8 1116.5 + p < .10 ; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 68 1080.6 1130.7 1088.5 1104.7 1127.8 69 Table 3 HLM Results for the Effects of Global Identity, Local Identity, Country, and National Culture on Meta-Cognitive CQ and Cognitive CQ N Team Intercept Age Gender Social desirability Model 9 191 Estimate (SE) 0.03 (0.05) 4.76 (0.51)*** -0.01 (0.01) 0.13 (0.12) 0.12 (0.09) Time Global Identity T1 Global Identity T1 * Time Local Identity T1 Local Identity T1 * Time Country: South-Korea vs. Spain Country: Israel vs. Spain Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain Country: USA vs. Spain (Country: South-Korea vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Israel vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain) * Time (Country: USA vs. Spain) * Time Values of openness to change Values of conservation Difference in Meta-Cognitive CQ Model 10 Model 11 Model 12 191 191 191 Estimate Estimate Estimate (SE) (SE) (SE) 0.03 0.02 0.03 (0.05) (0.04) (0.04) 4.86 2.86 4.17 (0.51)*** (0.56)*** (0.58)*** -0.01 -0.01 0.01 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) 0.13 0.10 0.19 (0.12) (0.11) (0.12) 0.12 0.10 0.16 (0.09) (0.08) (0.09)^ 0.27 0.00 0.24 (0.18) (0.07)*** (0.38) 0.21 (0.05)*** 0.14 (0.05)** 0.19 (0.06)*** -0.22 (0.06)*** -0.41 (0.31) -0.11 (0.25) -0.55 (0.26)* -0.14 (0.21) -0.66 (0.26)* -0.41 (0.23)^ 0.01 (0.23) -0.23 (0.21) Model 14 191 Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.00) 3.71 (0.65)*** 0.01 (0.01) -0.31 (0.02)* 0.06 (0.11) Difference in Cognitive CQ Model 15 Model 16 Model 17 191 191 191 Estimate Estimate Estimate (SE) (SE) (SE) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 3.68 2.10 3.70 (0.65)*** (0.73)** (0.74) 0.01 0.02 0.01 (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) -0.32 -0.29 -0.27 (0.15)* (0.14)^ (0.16) 0.07 0.06 0.07 (0.11) (0.11) (0.01) 0.08 0.04 0.33 (0.07) (0.40) (0.18)^ 0.25 (0.06)*** 0.13 (0.06)* 0.03 (0.07) -0.11 (0.06)^ 0.09 (0.40) 0.07 (0.32) -0.34 (0.33) -0.38 (0.26) -0.82 (0.26)** -0.34 (0.24) -0.16 (0.23) -0.15 (0.21) 0.05 (0.11) -0.03 (0.11) -0.08 (0.09) 0.30 (0.12)* -0.21 (0.12)^ -0.13 (0.11) 0.12 (0.10) 0.19 (0.12) Values of selfenhancement Values of selftranscendence Values of openness to change * Time Values of conservation * Time Values of selfenhancement * Time Values of selftranscendence * Time -2 Res log likelihood Model 13 191 Estimate (SE) 0.04 (0.04) 3.97 (0.58)*** -0.01 (0.01) 0.04 (0.11) 0.06 (0.08) 0.34 (0.36) 1006.5 998.1 955.9 992.6 + p < .10 ; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 69 995.2 Model 18 191 Estimate (SE) 0.04 (0.04) 3.97 (0.58)*** -0.01 (0.01) 0.04 (0.11) 0.06 (0.08) 0.34 (0.36) 0.05 (0.11) -0.03 (0.11) -0.08 (0.09) 0.30 (0.12)* -0.21 (0.12)^ -0.13 (0.11) 0.12 (0.10) 0.19 (0.12) 1090.1 1092.2 1073.5 1084.3 995.2 70 Table 4 HLM Results for the Effects of Global Identity, Local Identity, Country, and National Culture on Motivational CQ and Behavioral CQ N Team Intercept Age Gender Social desirability Model 19 191 Estimate (SE) 0.04 (0.06) 6.52 (0.57)*** -0.03 (0.01)** -0.09 (0.13) -0.03 (0.10) Time Global Identity T1 Global Identity T1 * Time Local Identity T1 Local Identity T1 * Time Country: South-Korea vs. Spain Country: Israel vs. Spain Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain Country: USA vs. Spain (Country: South-Korea vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Israel vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain) * Time (Country: USA vs. Spain) * Time Values of openness to change Values of conservation Difference in Motivational CQ Model 20 Model 21 Model 22 191 191 191 Estimate Estimate Estimate (SE) (SE) (SE) 0.04 0.02 0.10 (0.06) (0.04) (0.06)* 6.56 4.29 5.53 (0.57)*** (0.59)*** (0.62)*** -0.03 -0.03 0.00 (0.01)** (0.01)** (0.01) -0.09 -0.14 0.06 (0.13) (0.12) (0.13) -0.03 -0.07 0.06 (0.10) (0.09) (0.10) 0.14 0.06 0.12 (0.30) (0.13) (0.05)* 0.31 (0.05)*** 0.12 (0.04)** 0.17 (0.06)** -0.10 (0.04)* -0.93 (0.32)** -0.28 (0.25) -1.10 (0.26)*** -0.52 (0.20)* -0.53 (0.20)** -0.13 (0.18) -0.18 (0.18) -0.14 (0.16) Model 24 191 Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.00) 4.62 (0.65)*** -0.01 (0.01) 0.26 (0.15)^ 0.04 (0.11) Difference in Behavioral CQ Model 25 Model 26 Model 27 191 191 191 Estimate Estimate Estimate (SE) (SE) (SE) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 4.69 3.27 4.27 (0.65)*** (0.76)*** (0.75)*** -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) 0.26 0.23 0.23 (0.15)^ (0.15) (0.16) 0.04 0.02 0.07 (0.11) (0.11) (0.11) -0.05 0.11 0.14 (0.40) (0.18) (0.07)* 0.16 (0.07)* 0.08 (0.06) 0.13 (0.07)^ -0.11 (0.06)^ 0.14 (0.40) 0.40 (0.33) 0.17 (0.33) 0.44 (0.27) -0.28 (0.26) -0.38 (0.24) -0.08 (0.24) -0.36 (0.21)^ 0.11 (0.11) -0.16 (0.11) -0.11 (0.10) 0.29 (0.1)* -0.14 (0.08) 0.13 (0.08) -0.05 (0.08) -0.11 (0.10) Values of selfenhancement Values of selftranscendence Values of openness to change *Time Values of conservation *Time Values of selfenhancement *Time Values of selftranscendence *Time -2 Res log likelihood Model 23 191 Estimate (SE) 0.06 (0.06) 5.80 (0.65)*** -0.02 (0.01)* -0.10 (0.13) -0.05 (0.10) 0.93 (0.27)*** 941.1 941.1 886.2 918.5 + p < .10 ; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 70 938.8 Model 28 191 Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.00) 4.32 (0.75)*** -0.02 (0.01) 0.14 (0.15) -0.03 (0.11) 0.74 (0.36)* -0.06 (0.13) 0.06 (0.14) -0.09 (0.12) (0.30 (0.15)* -0.09 (0.11) -0.16 (0.11) -0.05 (0.10) 0.15 (0.12) 1087.8 1087.0 1084.7 1090.1 1083.5 71 Table 5 HLM Results for the Effects of Country and Cultural values on Local Identity N Team Intercept Age Gender Social desirability Model 29 191 Estimate (SE) 0.02 (0.07) 3.29 (0.65)*** 0.04 (0.01)** 0.40 (0.15)** 0.08 (0.11) Time Country: South-Korea vs. Spain Country: Israel vs. Spain Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain Country: USA vs. Spain (Country: South-Korea vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Israel vs. Spain) * Time (Country: Hong-Kong vs. Spain) * Time (Country: USA vs. Spain) * Time Values of openness to change Values of conservation Difference in Local Identity Model 30 Model 31 191 191 Estimate Estimate (SE) (SE) 0.02 0.02 (0.07) (0.06) 3.24 3.34 (0.65)*** (0.70)*** 0.04 0.00 (0.01)** (0.01) 0.40 0.41 (0.15)** (0.15)** 0.07 0.15 (0.11) (0.11) 0.07 0.19 (0.07) (0.19) 1.46 (0.39)*** 1.43 (0.32)*** 0.55 (0.33) 0.74 (0.26)** -0.14 (0.28) -0.20 (0.26) -0.06 (0.26) -0.24 (0.23) 0.09 (0.14) 0.30 (0.14)* 0.02 (0.13) -0.13 (0.16) 0.03 (0.11) 0.13 (0.12) 0.09 (0.10) -0.09 (0.13) Values of selfenhancement Values of selftranscendence Values of openness to change *Time Values of conservation *Time Values of selfenhancement *Time Values of selftranscendence *Time -2 Res log likelihood Model 32 191 Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.00) 2.65 (0.78)** 0.03 (0.01)* 0.34 (0.15)* 0.02 (0.11) -0.71 (0.40)^ 1112.4 1114.7 1097.8 + p < .10 ; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 71 1124.5 72 Table 6 Median Scores of Rwg, ICC(1), and ICC(2) for the Team Level Variables Measure Rwg ICC(1) ICC(2) Identity : overall Median: 0.85 0.00 0.00 Global identity Local identity Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 0.77 0.88 0.87 0.83 -0.03 -0.01 0.03 -0.04 -0.12 -0.05 0.09 -0.16 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 0.92 0.68 0.83 0.81 0.94 0.73 0.90 0.83 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.10 -0.05 -0.01 -0.04 0.03 0.28 0.41 0.04 0.28 -0.21 -0.05 -0.18 0.11 CQ: overall median: Meta-cognitive CQ Cognitive CQ Motivational CQ Behavioral CQ 0.83 Team processes1: overall median: Cooperation Commitment Participation Reflexivity Mutual trust Relational conflict Task conflict Process conflict 0.91 Performance1: overall median: Satisfaction Learning 0.83 1 0.02 -0.16 0.77 0.87 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.95 72 -0.96 -0.16 -0.15 -0.07 -0.05 -0.19 -0.23 -0.17 -0.12 -0.08 0.90 0.73 Measured only in Time 2 0.07 -1.03 -0.89 -0.31 -0.19 -1.34 -2.19 -1.18 -0.62 -0.48 -0.15 0.00 -0.94 -0.01 73 Table 7 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations a Time 1 Mean 1 SD Team number Time 2 Mean SD NA NA 1 2 3 4 5 .05 .22 .29 * .13 .07 .09 .70 ** 6 .33 * 7 .24 ^ .06 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .09 .17 .05 .02 .14 .03 .12 .14 .06 .14 .03 .09 21 22 23 24 .10 .33 * .31 * .26 ^ .18 .33 * .03 .30 * .34 * .27 ^ .04 .45 ** .23 .31 * .23 .15 .04 .29 * .23 .26 ^ .22 .14 .24 .25 ^ .48 ** .30 * .71 ** .08 .15 .19 .36 ** .37 ** .19 .34 * .51 ** .44 ** .26 ^ .46 ** .49 ** .29 * .39 ** .11 .17 .18 .14 .67 ** .26 ^ .07 .11 .22 .12 .15 .03 .03 .11 .02 .10 .17 .40 ** .64 ** .43 ** .26 ^ .23 .69 ** .27 ^ .39 ** .52 ** .25 ^ .30 * .46 ** .25 ^ .33 * .19 .13 .29 * .43 ** .45 ** .20 .06 .19 .86 ** .34 * .33 * .12 .08 .29 * .13 .04 .00 .09 .24 ^ .26 ^ .34 * .29 * Satisfaction 5.16 0.73 4 Learning 5.03 0.65 5 Mean Global identity 4.70 0.63 5.14 .60 .11 .14 .13 .13 6 Mean Local identity 5.18 0.61 5.15 .68 .34 * .27 ^ .17 .13 .16 7 Mean Metacognitive CQ 4.94 0.45 5.18 .52 .08 .02 .23 .22 .35 * .17 8 Mean Cognitive CQ 3.84 0.50 3.72 .59 .16 .03 .03 .16 .52 ** .06 .51 ** 9 Mean Motivational CQ 5.24 0.52 5.31 .53 .14 .12 .19 .19 .43 ** .31 * .43 ** .47 ** 10 Mean Behavioral CQ 4.73 0.52 4.84 .56 .10 .05 .06 .02 .29 * .01 .55 ** .46 ** .47 ** 11 Max Global identity 5.89 0.73 6.20 .55 .16 .30 * .11 .03 .57 ** .02 .40 ** .44 ** .29 * .29 * 12 Max Local identity 6.24 0.65 6.33 .60 .08 .23 .12 .23 .67 ** .04 .07 .19 .12 .12 5.90 0.58 6.06 .56 .03 .04 .26 ^ .54 ** .23 .22 4.98 0.82 4.84 .70 .18 .09 .08 .14 .57 ** .29 * .25 ^ .31 * .49 ** .31 * .11 .15 20 .40 ** 3 14 .16 .29 * 19 .23 2.78 .09 .03 .20 .16 18 .30 * 93.94 Max Metacognitive CQ Max Cognitive CQ .11 17 .11 Performance 13 16 .15 2 .29 * .21 15 .33 * .29 * .63 ** .39 ** .19 .35 * .31 * .72 ** .64 ** .26 ^ .39 ** .52 ** .24 ^ .36 * .29 * .13 .50 ** .31 * .55 ** .78 ** .22 .36 * .49 ** .34 * .40 ** .23 .12 .17 .28 ^ .31 * .26 ^ .28 * .44 ** .38 ** .27 ^ .24 ^ .04 .04 .19 .04 .16 .12 .03 .07 .01 .01 .03 .39 ** .25 ^ .57 ** .22 .41 ** .40 ** .26 ^ .15 .01 .10 .22 .03 .01 .12 .01 .35 * .03 .13 .06 .22 .48 ** .35 * .29 * .28 * .30 * .25 ^ .07 .09 .29 * 15 Max Motivational CQ 6.25 0.52 6.24 .50 .13 .02 .04 .09 .37 ** .22 .33 ** .26 ^ .60 ** .34 * .37 ** .25 ^ .49 ** .35 ** 16 Max Behavioral CQ 5.81 0.69 5.84 .65 .10 .03 .15 .02 .25 ^ .05 .31 * .17 .28 * .65 ** .41 ** .06 .48 ** .29 * 73 .05 .44 ** .32 * .40 ** .58 ** .35 * .24 ^ .33 * .49 ** .29 * .38 ** .30 * .43 ** .56 ** .39 ** .36 ** .19 .25 ^ .16 74 Co op Co m m. 17 Cooperation b 3.39 0.96 .15 .10 .77 ** .41 ** .06 .05 .17 .03 .22 .07 .22 .07 .03 .01 .05 .18 18 Commitment b 4.94 0.84 .11 .04 .84 ** .63 ** .13 .09 .19 .06 .23 .08 .16 .20 .02 .13 .02 .22 .72 ** 19 Participation b 5.98 0.45 .12 .12 .28 * .04 .66 ** .62 ** .49 ** .50 ** .29 * .00 .36 * .14 .36 * .38 ** .40 ** .03 .21 .16 .03 .01 .06 .08 .17 .18 .01 .06 .45 ** .26 ^ .67 ** .40 ** .70 ** .62 ** .60 ** .11 .80 ** .58 ** .11 .18 .18 .06 .25 ^ .18 .13 .13 .11 .01 .01 .33 * .77 ** .81 ** .69 ** .63 ** 20 Reflexivity 21 Trust b b Relational conflict .04 .05 .05 .13 .02 Par Re f 4.66 0.73 5.48 0.80 0.85 .14 .11 .57 ** .35 * .19 .09 .04 .03 .29 * .05 .17 .04 .03 .17 .11 .24 ^ .60 ** .60 ** .69 ** .42 ** .58 ** Tr u 22 b 2.20 23 Task conflict b 2.67 0.81 .13 .02 .26 ^. .11 .20 .18 .03 .02 .25 ^ .03 .12 .09 .08 .04 .22 .20 .30 * .39 ** .37 ** .20 .24 ^ .69 ** 24 Process conflict b 2.05 0.60 .30 * .08 .62 ** .39 ** .06 .18 .18 .11 .28 ^ .01 .11 .09 .07 .21 .08 .12 .65 ** .59 ** .58 ** .25 ^ .64 ** .74 ** ^ p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01 n = 53 teams. a b Correlations between variables at Time 1 are below the diagonal; correlations at Time 2 are above the diagonal. Measured at Time 2 Marked in yellow – The correlations between GI & CQ measures in Time 1 and performance, satisfactions, learning and team processes (measured in Time 2). Marked in light blue – The correlations between performance, satisfaction, and Learning and team processes (all measured in Time 2). Marked in gray – correlations among the performance measures Marked in green – correlations between GI&CQ in Time 2 and performance, satisfaction, learning, and team processes – All measured in Time 2. 74 .61 ** Re co nf Ta co nf Pr oco nf 75 Table 8 Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Global Identity Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Dependent variable Mean Participation Satisfaction Global Identity Time 1 Mean Participation Learning Global Identity Time 1 Maximum Participation Satisfaction Global Identity Time 1 Maximum Reflexivity Satisfaction Global Identity Time 1 Maximum Participation Satisfaction Global Identity Reflexivity Time 1 Maximum Participation Learning Global Identity Time 1 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Pearson Correlation Estimate (SE) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation Estimate (SE) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation Confidence Interval Low High = .16 (.17) 0.22* (.10) 1.13*** (.18) -.09 (.14) 0.24 (.12) .005 .463 .10 .14 (.15) 0.22* (.10) 0.69*** (.18) -.02 (.14) 0.14 (0.08) .011 .379 .05 0.12 (0.14) .25** (0.08) 1.21*** (0.09) -0.19 (0.12) 0.30 (0.12) 0.061 0.543 .05 0.12 (0.14) 0.17 (0.14) 0.64*** (0.12) 0.00 (0.12) 0.11 (0.07) 0.001 0.227 .10 0.12 (0.14) .25** (0.08) 0.17 (0.14) .25* (.08) 0.87*** (0.23) 0.33* (0.13) .84** (.18) -0.16 (0.11) 0.21 (0.09) 0.06 (0.04) 0.21 (0.08) 0.073 0.461 .05 -0.002 0.177 0.067 0.420 -.03 (.12) 75 -.24* (.12) .05 76 Table 9 Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Meta-cognitive CQ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Dependent variable Mean Participation Satisfaction Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Mean Participation Learning Metacognitive CQ Time 1 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Pearson Correlation Estimate (SE) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation Estimate (SE) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation Confidence Interval Low High = .39 (.23) .37** (.13) 1.10*** (.19) -.01 (.19) 0.42 (0.15) 0.151 0.139 .05 .32 (.20) .37** (.13) 0.66*** (0.19) .07 (.19) 0.25 (.10) 0.089 0.497 .05 76 77 Table 10 Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Motivational CQ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .19 Estimate (SE) 0.27 (0.20) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* Estimate (SE) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.04 (0.20) 0.49** *(0.12) 0.19^ (0.11) 0.04 (0.14) -0.06 (0.12) 0.23* (0.10) -0.41* (0.17) 1.12*** (0.19) -0.01 (0.11) -0.07 (0.16) -0.01 (0.06) 0.18 (0.12) 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.06) 0.03 (0.06) -0.08 (0.07) 0.12 (0.09) 0.34 (0.14) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** Confidence Interval Low High = Commitment .23 Reflexivity .08 Trust .25^ Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.29* Processconflict Participation -.28^ Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.11 (0.19) 0.38^ (0.21) -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.31^ (0.15) 0.31* (0.11) Commitment Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.37 (0.22) 0.74*** (0.07) -0.00 (0.11) 0.27 (0.15) 0.031 0.519 .10 Trust Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.38^ (0.21) 0.74*** (0.08) -0.01 (0.12) 0.28 (0.12) 0.045 0.579 .05 -.25^ 77 .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** -0.121 0.085 0.024 0.423 -0.029 0.099 -0.058 0.147 -0.045 0.171 -0.298 -0.008 0.032 0.408 0.081 0.658 .05 .10 78 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Relationalconflict Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) -0.46* (0.22) -0.49*** (0.10) 0.04 (0.17) 0.23 (0.12) 0.032 0.579 .05 Task-conflict Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.21 (0.13) 0.19 (0.20) 0.09 (0.08) 0.002 0.298 .10 Processconflict Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) -0.31^ (0.15) -0.78*** (0.15) 0.02 (0.16) 0.23 (0.11) 0.086 0.579 .05 Participation Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.38^ (0.21) -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.31^ (0.15) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.11 (0.19) 0.38^ (0.21 -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) 0.06 (0.20) 0.52*** (0.12) 0.14 (0.13) -0.07 (0.13) 0.19^ (0.11) -0.29^ (0.15) -0.03 (0.28) 0.40* (0.16) 0.20 (0.15) -0.06 (0.20) 0.03 (0.17) 0.21 (0.15) -0.04 (0.11) 0.02 (0.05) 0.19 (0.12) 0.05 (0.06) 0.04 (0.07) -0.07 (0.07) 0.08 (0.07) -0.01 (0.09) 0.14 (0.10) 0.02 (0.04) -0.03 (0.09) -0.02 (0.11) -0.08 (0.08) -0.047 0.141 .10 0.019 0.441 -0.020 0.213 -0.054 0.174 -0.293 -0.006 0.012 0.290 -0.194 0.129 0.008 0.368 -0.025 0.137 -0.221 0.097 -0.250 0.114 -0.309 0.004 Commitment Trust Relationalconflict Task-conflict Mean Motivational CQ Time 1 Processconflict Participation Learning .19 0.23 (0.17) .36* Commitment .23 Reflexivity .08 Trust .25^ Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.29* -.25^ 78 .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 0.09 (0.10) .10 79 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Processconflict Participation -.28^ Learning 0.23 (0.17) -0.31^ (0.15) 0.31* (0.11) Commitment Learning 0.23 (0.17) Trust Learning Relationalconflict -0.27 (0.24) 0.68** (0.11) 0.02 (0.16) 0.09 (0.10) 0.20 (0.08) 0.37 (0.22) 0.47*** (0.08 0.05 (0.14) 0.23 (0.17) 0.38^ (0.21) 0.45*** (0.09) Learning 0.23 (0.17) -0.46* (0.22) Processconflict Learning 0.23 (0.17) Participation Learning 0.23 (0.17) Commitment Trust Relationalconflict Processconflict * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 79 -.39** -0.010 0.339 0.063 0.440 .05 0.17 (0.10) 0.032 0.372 .10 0.05 (0.15) 0.17 (0.08) 0.045 0.400 .05 -0.24* (0.10) 0.11 (0.17) 0.11 (0.07) 0.009 0.333 .05 -0.31^ (0.15) -0.40* (0.15) 0.10 (0.17) 0.11 (0.06) 0.032 0.322 .05 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.38^ (0.21) -0.46* (0.22) -0.31^ (0.15) 0.14 (0.27) 0.27* (0.16) 0.13 (0.17) 0.12 (0.15) -0.06 (0.20) 0.04 (0.15) 0.04 (0.08) 0.14 (0.10) 0.04 (0.08) -0.06 (0.09) 0.02 (0.08) -0.069 0.214 .10 0.010 0.399 -0.036 0.263 -0.340 0.021 -0.077 0.202 80 Table 11 Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Behavioral CQ Total effect of X Y Model Dependent variable Pearson Correlation Effect of X M Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Mediator Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Satisfaction 0.08 (0.20) 0.32** (0.11) 1.23*** (0.18) -0.32^ (0.15) 0.41 (0.15) 0.078 0.695 .05 Participation Learning 0.02 (0.17) 0.32** (0.11) 0.79*** (0.11) -0.23 (0.16) 0.26 (0.11) 0.067 0.495 .05 Participation Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.29** (0.08) 1.22*** (0.19) -0.19 (0.12) 0.37 (0.12) 0.115 0.619 .05 Commitment Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.27 (0.17) 0.75*** (0.07) -0.04 (0.08) 0.20 (0.10) 0.002 0.436 .05 Trust Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.38* (0.16) 0.78*** (0.08) -0.13 (0.09) 0.30 (0.10) 0.093 0.515 .05 Participation Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.29** (0.08) 0.27 (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) 0.29** (0.08) 0.27 (0.17) 0.28^ 0.22 (0.18) 0.43*** (0.12) 0.32* (0.12) 0.19 (0.30) 0.33^ (0.17) 0.16 -0.14 (0.08) 0.07 (0.06) 0.12 (0.07) 0.12 (0.06) 0.07 (0.10) 0.09 (0.07) 0.04 -0.005 0.241 .05 0.172 0.316 0.002 0.271 -0.088 0.248 0.007 0.278 -0.024 0.168 Commitment Trust Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Learning -.02 0.01 (0.13) .38** Commitment .08 Reflexivity .17 80 Estimate (SE) Pearson Correlation Confidence Interval Independent Variable Estimate (SE) Pearson Correlation Direct effect X Y Effect of M Y .49*** .63*** .50*** -0.16 (0.13) Low High = .05 81 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.05 Processconflict Participation -.01 Learning 0.01 (0.13) (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) -0.29 (0.17) -0.24 (0.16) -0.11 (0.10) 0.29** (0.08) (0.15) 0.05 (0.21) 0.07 (0.17) 0.13 (0.15) -0.17 (0.24) 0.85*** (0.19) -0.24^ (0.12) (0.05) 0.02 (0.10) -0.02 (0.07) -0.03 (0.05) 0.01 (0.04) 0.27 (0.10) Commitment Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.17 (0.17) 0.50*** (0.08) -0.12 (0.10) Trust Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.38* (0.16) 0.51*** (0.09) Reflexivity Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.28^ (0.17) Relationalconflict Learning 0.01 (0.13) Participation Learning 0.01 (0.13) -.03 Commitment Trust Reflexivity Relationalconflict * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 81 .58*** -0.141 0.202 -0.199 0.048 -0.166 0.016 -0.012 0.183 0.080 0.460 .05 0.14 (0.07) 0.019 0.313 .05 -0.18 (0.11) 0.19 (0.06) 0.090 0.358 .05 0.47*** (0.11) -0.12 (0.12) 0.13 (0.08) 0.011 0.267 .10 -0.29 (0.17) -0.27* (0.10) -0.06 (0.13) 0.07 (0.05) 0.012 0.230 .10 0.29** (0.08) 0.17 (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) 0.28^ (0.17) -0.29 (0.17) 0.27 (0.28) 0.29^ (0.15) 0.16 (0.16) 0.12 (0.13) 0.10 (0.12) -0.21^ (0.11) 0.10 (0.09) 0.08 (0.06) 0.06 (0.08) 0.03 (0.05) -0.03 (0.04) -0.068 0.239 .10 0.009 0.259 -0.047 0.197 -0.011 0.155 -0.145 0.010 -.35* -.11 -.39** 82 Figure 1 Increase or decrease in Levels of Global Identity, Local Identity, and Cultural Intelligence along the Project (from T1 to T2) 5.5 5.5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Global Identity Local Identity Mc-CQ Mo-CQ 82 Time 2 Co-CQ Be-CQ 83 Figure 2 Interactions with Time 5.8 5.8 5.4 5.2 5 4.8 4.6 5.33 4.8 4.61 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2 4 Time 2 Time 2 Global Identity Low A Global Identity High 5 5.8 4.8 5.6 3.8 Cognitive CQ 4 5.2 5.04 4.98 4.92 5 4.8 4.6 3.6 Time 1 Global Identity Low B Global Identity High 5.6 5.53 5.37 5.4 5.15 5.2 5.23 5 4.8 4.6 3.4 4.4 4.4 3.2 4.2 4.2 4 4 3 Time 1 Time 2 Global Identity Low Global Identity High Time 1 Time 2 Local Identity Low D Local Identity High 83 C 5.8 5.4 5.35 4.4 4.2 4 Time 1 4.6 Time 2 4.8 4.4 Mo_CQ High 3.48 5 4.85 4.4 Mo_CQ Low 3.54 4.6 5.2 5.1 4.4 Time 1 4 5.4 5 4 4.23 5.4 5.2 5.02 4.09 Time 2 5.6 Meta-Cognitive CQ 4.67 5.39 Global Identity 5.28 5.6 Meta-Cognitive CQ 5.6 5.53 5.71 Motivational CQ 5.69 E Motivational CQ 5.8 Time 1 Local Identity Low Local Identity High F 84 Figure 3 Relation between Cultural Values of Openness to Change and Conservation and Global Identity 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.22 5.2 5 5 5 4.8 4.6 4.47 Time 2 4.8 4.73 4.66 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.2 4 4 Time 1 Time 2 Openness to change Low Openness to change High Global Identity 4.93 Global Identity 5.13 5.09 Time 1 Conservation Low A Conservation High 84 B 85 Figure 4 Increase or decrease in Global Identity, motivational CQ, Meta-cognitive CQ, and Cognitive CQ for Participants from Different Countries Global Identity Motivational CQ 6 6 5.5 5.5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4 4 Time 1 South-Korea Hong-Kong Spain Time 2 Time 1 Israel USA South-Korea Hong-Kong Spain Cognitive CQ Time 2 Israel USA Meta-Cognitive CQ 5.5 5.5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 Time 1 South-Korea Hong-Kong Spain Time 1 Time 2 Israel USA South-Korea Hong-Kong Spain 85 Time 2 Israel USA 86 Figure 5 Hypothesized Mediation of Team Processes Team Processes Global Identity Cognitive CQ Task conflict Relational conflict Motivational CQ Participation Commitment Behavioral CQ Trust 86 Team Performance Reflexivity Meta-cognition CQ 87 Figure 6 Mediated Effects of Team Processes Pre-project Score (Time 1) Team Processes Performance Mean Team Global Identity One member with high Global Identity 0.29 0.40 Participation 0.36 Mean Team Meta-cognitive CQ 0.66 Team Satisfaction 0.49 Team Level of Learning -0. 62 Team Satisfaction 0.38 Mean Team Behavioral CQ -0.28 Mean Team Motivational CQ Process conflict 0.23 0.84 0.63 Commitment One member with high Behavioral CQ Team Satisfaction 0.80 0.33 0.22 Trust Commitment Team Level of Learning 0.84 0.63 Team Level of Learning * Since the exact estimate vary according to the variables in the model, for the matter of the graphical illustration, we present the correlations between the variables. 87 88 APPENDIX Table 8A Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Global Identity Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Global Identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -.14 Estimate (SE) -0.63 (0.65) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .29* Commitment .13 Reflexivity .16 Trust .11 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.19 Processconflict -.06 -.20 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Global Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .13 Estimate (SE) .16 (.18) Estimate (SE) .22* (.10) .18 (.20) .17 (.17) .15 (.19) -.27 (.20) -.26 (.19) -.06 (.14) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .29* 88 Estimate (SE) .22* (.10) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -1.43 (1.56) -.126 (0.90) 0.26 (0.83) 1.33 (1.08) -1.14 (0.92) 0.36 (0.83) 0.07 (1.29) -0.55 (0.71) -0.31 (0.44) -0.23 (0.37) -0.01 (0.27) 0.17 (0.42) 0.36 (0.56) -.09 (0.37) 0.01 (0.25) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -.08 (.21) .06 (.10) -.02 (.05) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** Confidence Interval Low High -1.609 0.228 -1.327 0.219 -0.237 1.126 -0.266 1.589 -0.195 2.791 -1.519 0.332 -0.543 0.601 = .05 Confidence Interval Low -.196 High .042 = .05 89 Identity Time 1 Mean Global Identity Time 1 Commitment .13 Reflexivity .16 Trust .11 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.19 Processconflict -.06 Participation -.20 .16 (.17) Satisfaction Mediator Mean Global Identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .13 Estimate (SE) .14 (.15) .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** 0.22* (.10) Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable .18 (.20) .17 (.17) .15 (.19) -.27 (.20) -.26 (.19) -.06 (.14) 1.13*** (.18) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .29* Commitment .13 Reflexivity .16 Trust .11 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.19 -.20 89 Estimate (SE) .22* (.10) .18 (.20) .17 (.17) .15 (.19) -.27 (.20) -.26 (.19) .50*** (.12) .20^ (.11) .04 (.14) -.06 (.12) .24* (.11) -.44* (.17) .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.112 .296 -.031 .183 -.045 .133 -.029 .207 -.368 .016 -.072 .297 0.24 (.12) .005 .463 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -.03 (.29) .40* (.16) .19 (.15) -.05 (.20) .03 (.17) .22 (.15) .09 (.13) -0.01 (0.07) 0.07 (0.09) 0.03 (0.05) -0.01 (0.06) -0.01 (0.07) -0.06 (0.07) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** -.09 (.14) .09 (.10) .04 (.05) .01 (.04) .02 (.05) -.06 (.07) .03 (.07) .10 Confidence Interval Low High -0.182 0.126 -0.072 0.294 -0.037 0.207 -0.194 0.073 -0.213 0.105 -0.364 0.221 = .05 90 Processconflict Mean Global Identity Time 1 Participation -.06 Mediator Maximum Global Identity Time 1 Participation Model Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -.30* Estimate (SE) -1.12* (0.52) Pearson Correlation .40** .16 Reflexivity .18 Trust .13 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.17 Processconflict -.11 -.12 Performance -1.12* (0.52) Total effect of X Y Estimate (SE) .25** (.08) .19 (.16) .18 (.14) .14 (.16) -.20 (.17) -.14 (.15 -.09 (.12) 0.25** (0.08) Effect of X M 90 -.30 (.24) 0.69*** (.18) Effect of X M Commitment Participation -.39** 0.22* (.10) Total effect of X Y Independent Variable Maximum Global Identity Time 1 .14 (.15) Learning Model -.06 (.14) -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 -0.053 0.387 0.14 (0.08) .011 .379 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.48 (1.61) -1.29 (0.87) 0.25 (0.79) 1.16 (1.05) -0.94 (0.90) 0.34 (0.78) -0.01 (1.23) -1.11 (0.60)^ -0.17 (0.44) -0.22 (0.33) -0.00 (0.22) 0.17 (0.33) 0.19 (0.43) -0.05 (0.25) -0.05 (0.24) 0.60 (0.90) -1.27* (0.57) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.02 (.14) 0.02 (0.07) Effect of M Y Direct effect 0.11 (0.22) Indirect effect .05 Confidence Interval Low High -1.147 0.671 -1.415 0.150 -0.257 1.130 -0.258 1.193 -0.175 2.488 -1.095 0.226 -0.424 0.532 -0.232 0.664 = .05 .05 Confidence Interval 91 Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Global Identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .11 Estimate (SE) .12 (.14) Pearson Correlation .40** Commitment .16 Reflexivity .18 Trust .13 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.17 Processconflict -.11 -.12 Estimate (SE) .25* (.08) .19 (.16) .18 (.14) .14 (.16) -.20 (.17) -.14 (.15 -.09 (.12) Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** X Y X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -.01 (.22) .49** (.12) .19^ (.11) .04 (.14) -.05 (.12) .22* (.10) -.41* (.17) -.03 (.08) -0.01 (.05) 0.08 (.07) 0.04 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.04) -0.02 (0.06) 0.03 (0.08) Low High -0.093 0.079 -0.014 0.234 0.002 0.110 -0.025 0.081 -0.019 0.165 -0.260 0.020 -0.053 0.241 = .10 Maximum Global Identity Time 1 Maximum Global Identity Time 1 Participation Satisfaction 0.12 (0.14) .25** (0.08) 1.21*** (0.09) -0.19 (0.12) 0.30 (0.12) 0.061 0.543 .05 Reflexivity Satisfaction 0.12 (0.14) 0.17 (0.14) 0.64*** (0.12) 0.00 (0.12) 0.11 (0.07) 0.001 0.227 .10 Maximum Global Identity Time 1 Participation Satisfaction 0.12 (0.14) .25** (0.08) 0.17 (0.14) 0.87*** (0.23) 0.33* (0.13) -0.16 (0.11) 0.21 (0.09) 0.06 (0.04) 0.073 0.461 .05 -0.002 0.177 Model Reflexivity Total effect of X Y Effect of X M 91 Effect of M Y Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Confidence Interval 92 Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Global Identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation -.03 Estimate (SE) -.03 (.13) Pearson Correlation .40** Commitment .16 Reflexivity .18 Trust .13 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.17 Processconflict -.11 Maximum Participation Learning Global Identity Time 1 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 -.12 -.03 (.12) Estimate (SE) .25* (.08) .19 (.16) .18 (.14) .14 (.16) -.20 (.17) -.14 (.15 -.09 (.12) .25* (.08) 92 Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) .20 (.30) .38* (.16) .18 (.15) -.06 (.19) .07 (.17) .17 (.15) -.15 (.23) -.16 (.11) 0.05 (0.08) 0.07 (0.08) 0.03 (0.04) -0.01 (0.05) -0.02 (0.06) -0.02 (0.05) 0.03 (0.07) .84** (.18) -.24* (.12) 0.21 (0.08) Low High -0.085 0.301 -0.042 0.283 -0.019 0.152 -0.165 0.062 -0.213 0.072 -0.238 0.034 -0.058 0.368 0.067 0.420 = .05 .05 93 Table 9A Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Meta-cognitive CQ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -.02 Estimate (SE) -.12 (.88) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* Commitment .19 Reflexivity .01 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.04 Processconflict -.18 -.03 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Commitment Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .23 Estimate (SE) .39 (.23) Estimate (SE) .37** (.13) .36 (.27) .01 (.23) .32 (.26) -.08 (.27) -.05 (.26) -.24 (.19) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* .19 93 Estimate (SE) .37** (.13) .36 (.27) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -2.28 (1.72) -1.21 (0.90) 0.43 (0.85) 1.26 (1.09) -1.35 (0.97) 0.52 (0.81) -0.06 (1.27) 0.65 (1.07) -0.84 (0.85) -0.44 (0.56) 0.01 (0.25) 0.46 (0.75) 0.19 (0.54) -0.03 (0.31) -0.00 (0.49) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -.19 (.22) .49*** (.12) .18 (.14) -0.07 (0.09) 0.19 (0.15) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** Confidence Interval Low High -3.081 0.434 -2.194 0.277 -0.598 0.592 -0.616 2.651 -0.642 1.776 -0.811 0.528 -0.824 1.579 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.350 0.049 -0.106 0.496 = .05 94 Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Reflexivity .01 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.04 Processconflict -.18 Participation -.03 .39 (.23) Satisfaction Mediator Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .22 Estimate (SE) .32 (.20) .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** .37** (.13) Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable .01 (.23) .32 (.26) -.08 (.27) -.05 (.26) -.24 (.19) 1.10*** (.19) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* Commitment .19 Reflexivity .01 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.04 Processconflict -.18 -.03 94 Estimate (SE) .37** (.13) .36 (.27) .01 (.23) .32 (.26) -.08 (.27) -.05 (.26) -.24 (.19) .23* (.11) .05 (.14) -.11 (.12) .24* (.10) -.40* (.16) .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** -0.127 0.108 -0.068 0.246 -0.060 0.147 -0.163 0.138 -0.052 0.412 0.42 (0.15) 0.151 0.139 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -.12 (.31) .38* (.16) .23 (.15) -.05 (.20) -.02 (.18) .21 (.15) -.25 (.23) .19 (.19) -0.06 (0.16) 0.16 (0.14) -0.01 (0.06) -0.02 (0.10) 0.00 (0.07) -0.02 (0.07) 0.06 (0.10) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** -.01 (.19) -0.00 (0.05) 0.02 (0.06) 0.01 (0.05) -0.02 (0.07) 0.11 (0.12) .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.426 0.222 -0.080 0.521 -0.153 0.128 -0.311 0.136 -0.112 0.230 -0.195 0.126 -0.065 0.375 = .05 95 Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Mean Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Learning .32 (.20) .37** (.13) 0.66*** (0.19) .07 (.19) 0.25 (.10) 0.089 0.497 .05 Commitment Learning 0.32 (0.20) 0.36 (0.27) 0.46*** (0.08) 0.15 (0.16) 0.18 (0.13) -0.127 0.443 .05 Trust Learning 0.32 (0.20) 0.32 (0.26) 0.44*** (0.09) 0.17 (0.17) 0.15 (0.13) -0.088 0.443 .05 Processconflict Learning 0.32 (0.20) -0.24 (0.17) -0.39** (0.14) 0.23 (0.19) 0.10 (0.09) -0.071 0.294 .05 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -.09 Estimate (SE) -0.42 (0.68) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .21 Commitment -.02 Reflexivity .06 Trust .11 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .03 Processconflict -.07 -.08 95 Estimate (SE) .16 (.11) -0.03 (.21) 0.07 (0.18) 0.16 (0.20) 0.04 (0.21) -0.10 (0.19) -0.07 (0.14) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -1.46 (1.62) -1.34 (0.94) 0.26 (0.83) 1.42 (1.12) -0.99 (0.98) 0.36 (0.85) -0.09 (1.27) -0.39 (0.79) -0.19 (0.35) 0.07 (0.40) -0.00 (0.22) 0.21 (0.53) -0.02 (0.24) -0.07 (0.19) -0.06 (0.22) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Confidence Interval Low High -1.341 0.251 -0.588 1.243 -0.291 0.832 -0.810 1.449 -0.775 0.286 -0.803 0.190 -0.239 0.808 = .05 96 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .03 Estimate (SE) 0.03 (0.18) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .21 Commitment -.02 Reflexivity .06 Trust .11 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .03 Processconflict -.07 -.08 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Metacognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .04 Estimate (SE) 0.04 (0.16) Estimate (SE) .16 (.11) -0.03 (.21) 0.07 (0.18) 0.16 (0.20) 0.04 (0.21) -0.10 (0.19) -0.07 (0.14) Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .21 Commitment -.02 Reflexivity .06 Trust .11 Relational- .03 96 Estimate (SE) .16 (.11) -0.03 (.21) 0.07 (0.18) 0.16 (0.20) 0.04 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.08 (0.21) 0.51** *(0.12) 0.20^ (0.11) 0.03 (0.14) -0.07 (0.13) 0.23* (0.11) -0.42* (0.17) 0.04 (0.10) -0.01 (0.04) 0.00 (0.11) 0.01 (0.04) 0.02 (0.05) -0.01 (0.02) -0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.05) Effect of M Y Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.02 (0.30) 0.41* (0.17) 0.19 (0.15) -0.07 (0.20) 0.01 0.06 (0.14) -0.00 (0.05) -0.00 (0.09) 0.01 (0.05) -0.01 (0.08) -0.00 Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* Confidence Interval Low High -0.153 0.047 -0.301 0.181 -0.068 0.119 -0.090 0.115 -0.079 0.038 -0.185 0.134 -0.052 0.173 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.157 0.102 -0.315 0.134 -0.039 0.201 -0.197 0.082 -0.060 0.096 = .05 97 conflict Task-conflict Processconflict (0.21) -0.10 (0.19) -0.07 (0.14) -.08 -.07 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 97 -.11 -.39** (0.18) 0.22 (0.15) -0.27 (0.23) (0.03) -0.03 (0.04) 0.02 (0.05) -0.184 0.029 -0.041 0.206 98 Table 10A Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Motivational CQ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation .12 Estimate (SE) 0.63 (0.74) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* Commitment .23 Reflexivity .08 Trust .25^ Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.29* Processconflict -.28^ -.25^ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Commitment Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .19 Estimate (SE) 0.27 (0.20) Estimate (SE) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.11 (0.19) 0.38^ (0.21 -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.31^ (0.15) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* .23 98 Estimate (SE) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -2.21 (1.55) -1.14 (0.89) 0.46 (0.83) 1.14 (1.08) -1.20 (0.91) 0.62 (0.82) -0.18 (1.26) 0.86 (0.83) -0.57 (0.54) -0.43 (0.46) 0.02 (0.24) 0.54 (0.65) 0.58 (0.70) -0.20 (0.47) -0.05 (0.50) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.04 (0.20) 0.49** *(0.12) -0.01 (0.11) -0.01 (0.06) 0.18 (0.12) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** Confidence Interval Low High -2.230 0.067 -1.565 0.207 -0.195 1.018 -0.731 1.974 -0.244 2.781 -1.983 0.347 -0.639 1.508 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.121 0.085 0.024 0.423 = .10 99 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Reflexivity .08 Trust .25^ Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.29* Processconflict -.28^ 0.11 (0.19) 0.38^ (0.21) -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.31^ (0.15) -.25^ .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** 0.19^ (0.11) 0.04 (0.14) -0.06 (0.12) 0.23* (0.10) -0.41* (0.17) 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.06) 0.03 (0.06) -0.08 (0.07) 0.12 (0.09) -0.029 0.099 -0.058 0.147 -0.045 0.171 -0.298 -0.008 0.032 0.408 Participation Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.31* (0.11) 1.12*** (0.19) -0.07 (0.16) 0.34 (0.14) 0.081 0.658 .05 Commitment Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.37 (0.22) 0.74*** (0.07) -0.00 (0.11) 0.27 (0.15) 0.031 0.519 .10 Trust Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) 0.38^ (0.21) 0.74*** (0.08) -0.01 (0.12) 0.28 (0.12) 0.045 0.579 .05 Relationalconflict Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) -0.46* (0.22) -0.49*** (0.10) 0.04 (0.17) 0.23 (0.12) 0.032 0.579 .05 Task-conflict Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.21 (0.13) 0.19 (0.20) 0.09 (0.08) 0.002 0.298 .10 Processconflict Satisfaction 0.27 (0.20) -0.31^ (0.15) -0.78*** (0.15) 0.02 (0.16) 0.23 (0.11) 0.086 0.579 .05 99 100 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Participation 0.27 (0.20) Satisfaction 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.38^ (0.21) -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.31^ (0.15) Commitment Trust Relationalconflict Task-conflict Processconflict Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Mean Motivation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .19 Estimate (SE) 0.23 (0.17) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .36* Commitment .23 Reflexivity .08 Trust .25^ Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.29* Processconflict -.28^ Participation -.25^ Learning 0.06 (0.20) 0.52*** (0.12) 0.14 (0.13) -0.07 (0.13) 0.19^ (0.11) -0.29^ (0.15) 0.23 (0.17) Estimate (SE) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.11 (0.19) 0.38^ (0.21 -0.46* (0.22) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.31^ (0.15) 0.31* (0.11) 100 .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** 0.02 (0.05) 0.19 (0.12) 0.05 (0.06) 0.04 (0.07) -0.07 (0.07) 0.08 (0.07) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.03 (0.28) 0.40* (0.16) 0.20 (0.15) -0.06 (0.20) 0.03 (0.17) 0.21 (0.15) -0.27 (0.24) 0.09 (0.10) -0.01 (0.09) 0.14 (0.10) 0.02 (0.04) -0.03 (0.09) -0.02 (0.11) -0.08 (0.08) 0.09 (0.10) 0.68** (0.11) 0.02 (0.16) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** -0.04 (0.11) 0.20 (0.08) -0.047 0.141 0.019 0.441 -0.020 0.213 -0.054 0.174 -0.293 -0.006 0.012 0.290 .10 Confidence Interval Low High -0.194 0.129 0.008 0.368 -0.025 0.137 -0.221 0.097 -0.250 0.114 -0.309 0.004 -0.010 0.339 0.063 0.440 = .10 .05 101 al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivational CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Mean Motivation al CQ Time 1 Commitment Learning 0.23 (0.17) 0.37 (0.22) 0.47*** (0.08 0.05 (0.14) 0.17 (0.10) 0.032 0.372 .10 Trust Learning 0.23 (0.17) 0.38^ (0.21) 0.45*** (0.09) 0.05 (0.15) 0.17 (0.08) 0.045 0.400 .05 Relationalconflict Learning 0.23 (0.17) -0.46* (0.22) -0.24* (0.10) 0.11 (0.17) 0.11 (0.07) 0.009 0.333 .05 Task-conflict Learning 0.23 (0.17) -0.37^ (0.21) -0.05 (0.12) 0.20 (0.18) 0.02 (0.04) -0.036 0.189 .05 Processconflict Learning 0.23 (0.17) -0.31^ (0.15) -0.40* (0.15) 0.10 (0.17) 0.11 (0.06) 0.032 0.322 .05 Participation Learning 0.23 (0.17) 0.31* (0.11) 0.37 (0.22) 0.38^ (0.21) -0.46* (0.22) -0.31^ (0.15) 0.14 (0.27) 0.27* (0.16) 0.13 (0.17) 0.12 (0.15) -0.06 (0.20) 0.04 (0.15) 0.04 (0.08) 0.14 (0.10) 0.04 (0.08) -0.06 (0.09) 0.02 (0.08) -0.069 0.214 .10 0.010 0.399 -0.036 0.263 -0.340 0.021 -0.077 0.202 Commitment Trust Relationalconflict Processconflict Model Total effect of X Y Effect of X M 101 Effect of M Y Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Confidence Interval 102 Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -0.02 Estimate (SE) -0.10 (0.74) Pearson Correlation .13 Commitment -.02 Reflexivity .02 Trust .01 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.11 Processconflict -.08 -.22 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation -0.04 Estimate (SE) -0.06 (0.20) Estimate (SE) 0.11 (0.12) -0.03 (0.23) 0.03 (0.19) 0.01 (0.22) -0.17 (0.23) -0.34 (0.21) -0.08 (0.16) Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .13 Commitment -.02 Reflexivity .02 Trust .01 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.11 -.22 102 Estimate (SE) 0.11 (0.12) -0.03 (0.23) 0.03 (0.19) 0.01 (0.22) -0.17 (0.23) -0.34 (0.21) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -1.75 (1.53) -1.20 (0.91) 0.29 (0.83) 1.28 (1.09) -1.15 (0.93) 0.48 (0.84) -0.11 (1.28) -0.02 (0.80) -0.14 (0.34) 0.06 (0.34) -0.01 (0.19) -0.05 (0.40) 0.17 (0.53) -0.15 (0.44) -0.03 (0.32) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.04 (0.20) 0.49** *(0.12) 0.19^ (0.11) 0.05 (0.14) -0.05 (0.12) 0.22^ (0.11) -0.02 (0.10) 0.00 (0.03) -0.00 (0.10) 0.00 (0.04) 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.05) -0.07 (0.07) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ Low High -1.481 0.194 -0.581 0.973 -0.269 0.598 -0.708 1.017 -0.291 3.334 -1.733 0.294 -0.623 0.774 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.096 0.048 -0.227 0.211 -0.078 0.089 -0.071 0.049 -0.037 0.377 -0.406 -0.001 = .05 103 Processconflict -.08 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Motivational CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation -0.09 Estimate (SE) -0.11 (0.17) -.62*** Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .13 Commitment -.02 Reflexivity .02 Trust .01 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.11 Processconflict * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 -0.08 (0.16) -.22 -.08 103 Estimate (SE) 0.11 (0.12) -0.03 (0.23) 0.03 (0.19) 0.01 (0.22) -0.17 (0.23) -0.34 (0.21) -0.08 (0.16) -0.41* (0.17) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.04 (0.28) 0.38* (0.16) 0.18 (0.15) -0.04 (0.20) 0.04 (0.17) 0.18 (0.15) -0.26 (0.23) -0.06 (0.15) 0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.08) -0.00 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) -0.02 (0.06) -0.05 (0.07) -0.02 (0.07) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** 0.03 (0.08) -0.083 0.283 Confidence Interval Low High -0.068 0.128 -0.163 0.192 -0.047 0.145 -0.057 0.162 -0.154 0.157 -0.366 0.021 -0.045 0.410 = .05 104 Table 11A Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Behavioral CQ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation .05 Estimate (SE) 0.27 (0.73) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .38** Commitment .08 Reflexivity .17 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.05 Processconflict -.01 -.03 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Commitment Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .06 Estimate (SE) 0.08 (0.20) Estimate (SE) 0.32** (0.11) 0.12 (0.23) 0.22 (0.19) 0.27 (0.21) -0.07 (0.23) -0.04 (0.21) 0.02 (0.16) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .38** .08 104 Estimate (SE) 0.32** (0.11) 0.12 (0.23) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -2.57 (1.76) -0.96 (0.93) 0.38 (0.83) 1.02 (1.12) -1.37 (0.95) 0.67 (0.84) -0.41 (1.31) 0.79 (0.92) -0.75 (0.79) -0.12 (0.38) 0.01 (0.33) 0.33 (0.66) 0.13 (0.53) -0.04 (0.36) 0.03 (0.29) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.03 (0.23) 0.49** *(0.13) -0.01 (0.12) -0.01 (0.07) 0.06 (0.12) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** Confidence Interval Low High -3.158 0.370 -1.357 0.393 -0.252 1.275 -0.566 2.186 -0.647 1.665 -0.888 0.644 -0.867 0.445 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.187 0.149 -0.193 0.326 = .05 105 Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Reflexivity .17 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.05 Processconflict -.01 0.22 (0.19) 0.27 (0.21) -0.07 (0.23) -0.04 (0.21) 0.02 (0.16) -.03 .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** 0.19^ (0.11) 0.05 (0.15) -0.05 (0.12) 0.22^ (0.11) -0.41* (0.17) 0.04 (0.05) 0.02 (0.06) 0.00 (0.04) -0.01 (0.06) -0.01 (0.08) -0.031 0.187 -0.076 0.183 -0.056 0.153 -0.142 0.135 -0.186 0.139 Participation Satisfaction 0.08 (0.20) 0.32** (0.11) 1.23*** (0.18) -0.32^ (0.15) 0.41 (0.15) 0.078 0.695 .05 Trust Satisfaction 0.08 (0.20) 0.27 (0.21) 0.75*** (0.08) -0.12 (0.12) 0.22 (0.18) -0.332 0.485 .05 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .02 Estimate (SE) 0.02 (0.17) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .38** Commitment .08 Reflexivity .17 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.05 -.03 105 Estimate (SE) 0.32** (0.11) 0.12 (0.23) 0.22 (0.19) 0.27 (0.21) -0.07 (0.23) -0.04 (0.21) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.09 (0.32) 0.37* (0.17) 0.17 (0.15) -0.02 (0.20) 0.06 (0.17) 0.17 (0.15) -0.07 (0.17) 0.04 (0.11) 0.05 (0.10) 0.04 (0.06) -0.00 (0.10) -0.01 (0.07) -0.01 (0.06) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 Confidence Interval Low High -0.147 0.353 -0.129 0.287 -0.036 0.264 -0.285 0.166 -0.167 0.118 -0.158 0.114 = .05 106 Processconflict Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 Mean Behavioral CQ Time 1 -.01 -.39** -0.24 (0.24) -0.00 (0.07) -0.185 0.119 Participation Learning 0.02 (0.17) 0.32** (0.11) 0.79*** (0.11) -0.23 (0.16) 0.26 (0.11) 0.067 0.495 .05 Trust Learning 0.02 (0.17) 0.27 (0.21) 0.47*** (0.09) -0.11 (0.14) 0.14 (0.12) -0.170 0.329 .05 Reflexivity Learning 0.02 (0.17) 0.22 (0.19) 0.45*** (0.11) -0.08 (0.15) 0.10 (0.10) -0.105 0.306 .05 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Model 0.02 (0.16) Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -.03 Estimate (SE) -0.14 (0.56) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .45** Commitment .22 Reflexivity .26^ Trust .33* Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.24^ Processconflict -.12 -.20 Total effect of X Y Estimate (SE) 0.29** (0.08) 0.27 (0.17) 0.28^ (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) -0.29 (0.17) -0.24 (0.16) -0.11 (0.10) Effect of X M 106 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -1.62 (1.68) -1.24 (0.93) 0.27 (0.83) 1.36 (1.17) -1.13 (0.94) 0.42 (0.87) -0.03 (1.35) -0.14 (0.72) -0.44 (0.54) -0.36 (0.37) -0.02 (0.35) 0.62 (0.60) 0.39 (0.53) -0.09 (0.30) -0.06 (0.25) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Effect of M Y Direct effect Indirect effect Confidence Interval Low High -1.797 0.357 -1.630 0.125 -0.385 1.412 -0.765 1.624 -0.118 2.418 -1.247 0.227 -0.333 0.806 = .05 Confidence Interval 107 Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .15 Estimate (SE) 0.16 (0.15) Pearson Correlation .38** Commitment .08 Reflexivity .17 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.05 Processconflict -.01 -.03 Estimate (SE) 0.29** (0.08) 0.27 (0.17) 0.28^ (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) -0.29 (0.17) -0.24 (0.16) -0.11 (0.10) Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** X Y X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.01 (0.22) 0.46** *(0.12) 0.18^ (0.11) 0.08 (0.15) -0.05 (0.12) 0.20^ (0.11) -0.38* (0.17) -0.06 (0.09) 0.01 (0.06) 0.13 (0.07) 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.06) 0.02 (0.04) -0.04 (0.05) 0.03 (0.05) Low High -0.084 0.136 0.028 0.275 0.001 0.159 -0.063 0.155 -0.029 0.124 -0.198 -0.004 -0.013 0.220 = .10 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.29** (0.08) 1.22*** (0.19) -0.19 (0.12) 0.37 (0.12) 0.115 0.619 .05 Commitment Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.27 (0.17) 0.75*** (0.07) -0.04 (0.08) 0.20 (0.10) 0.002 0.436 .05 Reflexivity Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.28^ (0.17) 0.64 (0.12) -0.01 (0.12) 0.18 (0.12) -0.044 0.436 .05 Trust Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.38* (0.16) 0.78*** (0.08) -0.13 (0.09) 0.30 (0.10) 0.093 0.515 .05 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Satisfaction 0.16 (0.15) 0.29** (0.08) 0.27 (0.17) 0.22 (0.18) 0.43*** (0.12) -0.14 (0.08) 0.07 (0.06) 0.12 (0.07) -0.005 0.241 .05 0.172 0.316 Commitment 107 108 0.38* (0.16) Trust Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Participation Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation -.02 Estimate (SE) 0.01 (0.13) 0.32* (0.12) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .38** Commitment .08 Reflexivity .17 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.05 Processconflict -.01 -.03 Estimate (SE) 0.29** (0.08) 0.27 (0.17) 0.28^ (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) -0.29 (0.17) -0.24 (0.16) -0.11 (0.10) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.19 (0.30) 0.33^ (0.17) 0.16 (0.15) 0.05 (0.21) 0.07 (0.17) 0.13 (0.15) -0.17 (0.24) -0.16 (0.13) 0.07 (0.10) 0.09 (0.07) 0.04 (0.05) 0.02 (0.10) -0.02 (0.07) -0.03 (0.05) 0.01 (0.04) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** 0.12 (0.06) 0.002 0.271 Confidence Interval Low High -0.088 0.248 0.007 0.278 -0.024 0.168 -0.141 0.202 -0.199 0.048 -0.166 0.016 -0.012 0.183 = .05 Participation Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.29** (0.08) 0.85*** (0.19) -0.24^ (0.12) 0.27 (0.10) 0.080 0.460 .05 Commitment Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.17 (0.17) 0.50*** (0.08) -0.12 (0.10) 0.14 (0.07) 0.019 0.313 .05 Trust Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.38* (0.16) 0.51*** (0.09) -0.18 (0.11) 0.19 (0.06) 0.090 0.358 .05 Reflexivity Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.28^ (0.17) 0.47*** (0.11) -0.12 (0.12) 0.13 (0.08) 0.011 0.267 .10 108 109 CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Maximum Behavioral CQ Time 1 Relationalconflict Learning 0.01 (0.13) -0.29 (0.17) -0.27* (0.10) -0.06 (0.13) 0.07 (0.05) 0.012 0.230 .10 Participation Learning 0.01 (0.13) 0.29** (0.08) 0.17 (0.17) 0.38* (0.16) 0.28^ (0.17) -0.29 (0.17) 0.27 (0.28) 0.29^ (0.15) 0.16 (0.16) 0.12 (0.13) 0.10 (0.12) -0.21^ (0.11) 0.10 (0.09) 0.08 (0.06) 0.06 (0.08) 0.03 (0.05) -0.03 (0.04) -0.068 0.239 .10 0.009 0.259 -0.047 0.197 -0.011 0.155 -0.145 0.010 Commitment Trust Reflexivity Relationalconflict * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 109 110 Table 12A Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Cognitive CQ Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Cognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation -.03 Estimate (SE) -0.13 (0.80) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .14 Commitment -.06 Reflexivity .06 Trust -.06 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .03 Processconflict .11 .02 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Cognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Commitment Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 0.03 Estimate (SE) -0.05 (0.22) Estimate (SE) 0.13 (0.13) -0.10 (0.25) 0.08 (.21) -0.10 (0.23) 0.06 (0.25) 0.03 (0.23) 0.12 (0.17) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .14 -.06 110 Estimate (SE) 0.13 (0.13) -0.10 (0.25) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -1.85 (1.58) -1.17 (0.90) 0.29 (0.83) 1.28 (1.09) -1.17 (0.93) 0.49 (0.81) -0.14 (1.28) 0.17 (0.86) -0.21 (0.44) 0.07 (0.47) 0.04 (0.29) -0.01 (0.61) -0.09 (0.74) 0.05 (0.44) -0.05 (0.43) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.07 (0.20) 0.50** *(0.12) 0.05 (0.11) -0.01 (0.03) 0.05 (0.14) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** Confidence Interval Low High -2.426 0.173 -0.509 1.503 -0.541 0.846 -2.559 0.470 -2.119 1.225 -0.674 1.206 -1.037 0.709 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.178 0.030 -0.356 0.254 = .05 111 Reflexivity .06 Trust -.06 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .03 Processconflict .11 .02 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Cognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .16 Estimate (SE) 0.20 (0.18) Pearson Correlation .14 -.06 Reflexivity .06 Trust -.06 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .03 Processconflict .11 .02 Total effect of X Y Mediator Dependent Pearson Estimate .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** Effect of X M Commitment Model Independent 0.08 (.21) -0.10 (0.23) 0.06 (0.25) 0.03 (0.23) 0.12 (0.17) Estimate (SE) 0.13 (0.13) -0.10 (0.25) 0.08 (.21) -0.10 (0.23) 0.06 (0.25) 0.03 (0.23) 0.12 (0.17) Effect of X M Pearson 111 Estimate 0.19^ (.10) 0.05 (0.14) -0.06 (0.12) 0.23* (0.10) -0.42* (0.17) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.13 (0.28) 0.42* (0.16) 0.18 (0.14) -0.04 (0.19) 0.01 (0.16) 0.22 (0.14) -0.31 (0.22) 0.28^ (0.15) -0.02 (0.06) -0.03 (0.15) 0.02 (0.06) 0.01 (0.07) -0.03 (0.11) -0.00 (0.09) -0.04 (0.10) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** Effect of M Y Pearson 0.02 (0.05) 0.00 (0.05) -0.01 (0.06) 0.01 (0.08) -0.05 (0.10) Estimate Direct effect X Y Estimate Indirect effect X Y Estimate -0.078 0.134 -0.223 0.044 -0.120 0.198 -0.162 0.226 -0.322 0.155 Confidence Interval Low High -0.250 0.067 -0.428 0.225 -0.107 0.182 -0.162 0.169 -0.117 0.340 -0.172 0.252 -0.305 0.143 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High = 112 Variable Maximum Cognitive CQ Time 1 variable Participation Performance Correlation -.03 (SE) -0.10 (0.48) Correlation -.05 Commitment -.13 Reflexivity -.05 Trust -.01 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .17 Processconflict .21 .04 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Cognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation -.18 Estimate (SE) -0.16 (0.13) (SE) -0.02 (0.08) -0.13 (0.15) -0.04 (0.12) -0.01 (0.14) 0.17 (0.15) 0.04 (0.14) 0.15 (0.10) Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Effect of X M Pearson Correlation -.05 Commitment -.13 Reflexivity -.05 Trust -.01 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .17 Process- .21 .04 112 Estimate (SE) -0.02 (0.08) -0.13 (0.15) -0.04 (0.12) -0.01 (0.14) 0.17 (0.15) 0.04 (0.14) 0.15 (SE) (SE) (SE) -1.72 (1.53) -1.23 (0.93) 0.26 (0.84) 1.35 (1.17) -1.12 (0.94) 0.43 (0.86) -0.03 (1.36) -0.10 (0.55) 0.04 (0.20) 0.17 (0.01) 0.02 (0.17) 0.01 (0.39) -0.18 (0.35) -0.00 (0.17) 0.00 90.29) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.03 (0.20) 0.48** *(0.12) 0.18 (0.11) 0.07 (0.15) -0.05 (0.12) 0.21^ (0.11) -0.38* -0.03 (0.07) 0.00 (0.01) -0.06 (0.08) -0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.03) -0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) -0.06 Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** -0.265 0.732 -0.186 1.124 -0.868 0.213 -0.982 0.806 -1.765 0.143 -0.170 0.884 -0.809 0.485 .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.033 0.051 -0.236 0.091 -0.083 0.040 -0.060 0.048 -0.141 0.030 -0.038 0.113 -0.232 0.011 = .05 113 conflict (0.10) Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Cognitive CQ Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation -.09 Estimate (SE) -0.07 (0.11) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation -.05 Commitment -.13 Reflexivity -.05 Trust -.01 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .17 Processconflict * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (0.18) .04 .21 113 Estimate (SE) -0.02 (0.08) -0.13 (0.15) -0.04 (0.12) -0.01 (0.14) 0.17 (0.15) 0.04 (0.14) 0.15 (0.10) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.01 (0.28) 0.40* (0.17) 0.19 (0.15) -0.06 (0.21) 0.03 (0.17) 0.21 (0.16) -0.28 (0.25) 0.02 (0.10) -0.00 (0.02) -0.05 (0.07) -0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.04) -0.00 (0.05) 0.00 (0.04) -0.06 (0.07) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** (0.05) Confidence Interval Low High -0.056 0.062 -0.224 0.072 -0.122 0.038 -0.112 0.071 -0.092 0.134 -0.037 0.132 -0.253 0.038 = .05 114 Table 13A Results of Indirect Mediation Effects: Local identity Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Local identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Performance Pearson Correlation .27^ Estimate (SE) 1.20 (0.62)^ Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .00 Commitment .09 Reflexivity -.03 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.09 Processconflict -.18 -.18 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Local identity Time 1 Participation Commitment Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .17 Estimate (SE) 0.20 (0.17) Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.10) 0.12 (0.20) -0.04 (0.17) 0.23 (0.18) -0.12 (0.20) -0.23 (0.18) -0.17 (0.13) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation .00 .09 114 Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.10) 0.12 (0.20) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -1.53 (1.46) -1.05 (0.87) 0.47 (0.80) 0.77 (1.09) -1.30 (0.90) 0.79 (0.80) -0.15 (1.24) 1.17^ (0.67) -0.01 (0.28) -0.12 (0.36) -0.00 (0.20) 0.25 (0.55) 0.16 (0.38) -0.17 (0.37) -0.06 (0.31) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.02 (0.19) 0.51** *(0.11) 0.13 (0.09) 0.00 (0.02) 0.06 (0.12) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** Confidence Interval Low High -0.609 0.650 -1.240 0.342 -0.771 0.278 -0.499 1.904 -0.245 1.625 -1.794 0.160 -0.430 1.245 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.094 0.036 -0.155 0.306 = .05 115 Reflexivity -.03 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.09 Processconflict -.18 -.18 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Mean Local identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .13 Estimate (SE) 0.13 (0.15) Pearson Correlation .00 .09 Reflexivity -.03 Trust .18 Relationalconflict Task-conflict -.09 Processconflict -.18 -.18 Total effect of X Y Mediator Dependent Pearson Estimate .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** Effect of X M Commitment Model Independent -0.04 (0.17) 0.23 (0.18) -0.12 (0.20) -0.23 (0.18) -0.17 (0.13) Estimate (SE) 0.00 (0.10) 0.12 (0.20) -0.04 (0.17) 0.23 (0.18) -0.12 (0.20) -0.23 (0.18) -0.17 (0.13) Effect of X M Pearson 115 Estimate 0.22^ (0.10) -0.01 (0.15) -0.07 (0.12) 0.26* (0.10) -0.42* (0.16) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.05 (0.27) 0.40* (0.16) 0.20 (0.15) -0.10 (0.20) 0.02 (0.17) 0.23 (0.15) -0.27 (0.23) 0.13 (0.12) -0.01 (0.04) 0.06 (0.11) -0.01 (0.05) -0.02 (0.07) -0.01 (0.05) -0.07 (0.07) 0.05 (0.06) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** Effect of M Y Pearson -0.01 (0.04) -0.00 (0.04) 0.01 (0.03) -0.06 (0.06) 0.06 (0.06) Estimate Direct effect X Y Estimate Indirect effect X Y Estimate -0.118 0.058 -0.135 0.073 -0.032 0.142 -0.329 0.007 -0.001 0.297 Confidence Interval Low High -0.056 0.154 -0.110 0.355 -0.145 0.064 -0.230 0.082 -0.140 0.109 -0.319 0.018 -0.027 0.284 = .05 Confidence Interval Low High = 116 Variable Maximum Local identity Time 1 variable Participation Performance Correlation .08 (SE) 0.35 (0.63) Correlation -.03 Commitment .20 Reflexivity .01 Trust .13 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .04 Processconflict -.09 -.09 Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Local identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .23 Estimate (SE) 0.27 (0.17) (SE) -0.02 (0.10) 0.27 (0.19) 0.01 (0.16) 0.16 (.18) 0.05 (0.19) -0.12 (0.18) 0.08 (0.13) Correlation -.04 -.04 .04 .11 -.11 .02 -.08 Effect of X M Pearson Correlation -.03 Commitment .20 Reflexivity .01 Trust .13 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .04 Process- -.09 -.09 116 Estimate (SE) -0.02 (0.10) 0.27 (0.19) 0.01 (0.16) 0.16 (.18) 0.05 (0.19) -0.12 (0.18) 0.08 (SE) (SE) (SE) -1.61 (1.50) -1.37 (0.91) 0.35 (0.82) 1.21 (1.08) -1.33 (0.94) 0.60 (0.82) -0.09 (1.27) 0.62 (0.28) 0.02 (0.23) -0.40 (0.45) 0.03 (0.16) 0.24 (0.51) -0.06 (0.31) -0.06 (0.23) -0.05 (0.27) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) -0.01 (0.19) 0.46** *(0.11) 0.21^ (0.10) 0.03 (0.14) -0.09 (0.12) 0.25* (0.10) -0.41* 0.14 (0.08) 0.00 (0.02) 0.11 (0.09) -0.00 (0.03) 0.01 (0.04) -0.00 (0.03) -0.02 (0.05) 0.02 Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .66*** .84*** .62*** .80*** -.57*** -.26^ -.62*** -0.185 1.066 -1.633 0.217 -0.376 0.341 -0.588 1.496 -1.328 0.294 -0.887 0.213 -0.381 1.079 .05 Confidence Interval Low High -0.061 0.035 -0.014 0.386 -0.079 0.068 -0.049 0.113 -0.156 0.032 -0.157 0.050 -0.071 0.169 = .05 117 conflict (0.13) Total effect of X Y Model Independent Variable Mediator Maximum Local identity Time 1 Participation Dependent variable Learning Pearson Correlation .12 Estimate (SE) 0.12 (0.14) Effect of X M Pearson Correlation -.03 Commitment .20 Reflexivity .01 Trust .13 Relationalconflict Task-conflict .04 Processconflict * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 (0.16) -.09 -.09 117 Estimate (SE) -0.02 (0.10) 0.27 (0.19) 0.01 (0.16) 0.16 (.18) 0.05 (0.19) -0.12 (0.18) 0.08 (0.13) Direct effect X Y Indirect effect X Y Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) 0.03 (0.28) 0.38* (0.17) 0.19 (0.15) -0.05 (0.20) 0.03 (0.17) 0.20 (0.15) -0.27 (0.23) 0.03 (0.12) -0.00 (0.03) 0.11 (0.09) 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.06) 0.01 (0.04) -0.03 (0.04) 0.01 (0.05) Effect of M Y Pearson Correlation .49*** .63*** .50*** .58*** -.35* -.11 -.39** (0.06) Confidence Interval Low High -0.059 0.064 -0.030 0.357 -0.061 0.086 -0.180 0.073 -0.103 0.082 -0.170 0.034 -0.042 0.179 = .05