See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260109971

Leadership emergence in multicultural teams:

The power of global characteristics

Article in Journal of World Business · February 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

CITATIONS READS

11 863

2 authors:

Alon Lisak Miriam Erez

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 4,819 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Miriam Erez on 30 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12

Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global

characteristics
Alon Lisak a,*, Miriam Erez b,1
a
Department of Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
b
The William Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Building on theories of person-environment fit and on the pattern approach, we hypothesized that

emergent leaders in multicultural teams score higher than non-leaders in terms of the three global
Article history:
Available online xxx characteristics, of cultural intelligence, global identity and openness to cultural diversity. We tested this
hypothesis on a sample of 317 MBA students who worked on a four-week joint project in virtual
multicultural teams. Employing logistic regression analysis, the results revealed that individuals who
Keywords:
Global leadership scored high on the above three global characteristics were significantly more likely to emerge as leaders
Global characteristics than were other team members.
Multicultural teams ß 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Leadership emergence
Pattern approach

1. Introduction
Global organizations face the twin challenges of creating
synergy among their culturally diverse and geographically
dispersed subsidiaries and coordinating their activities to maxi-
mize efficiency in their missions (Ely, 2004; Jehn & Bezrukova,
2004). There is wide agreement that one key for global success is
the ability of global organizations to select, develop and place
effective global leaders at all organizational levels (Butler, Zander,
Mockaitis, & Sutton, 2012; Tung & Varma, 2008). These global
leaders are ‘‘influencing the thinking, attitudes, and behaviors of a
global community to work together synergistically toward a
common vision and common goals’’ (Osland & Bird, 2006, p. 123),
and accordingly, they contribute significantly to the success of
global units in accomplishing their organizational goals (Zander,
Mockaitis, & Butler, 2012).
Nonetheless, there are only a limited number of empirical
studies on global leadership (Osland, Taylor, & Mendenhall, 2009)
and almost no empirical studies on leadership in multicultural
teams (see Kearney & Gebert, 2009, as an exception). Most of the
research on leadership and culture has assumed a cross-cultural
perspective to examine differences and similarities in leadership
characteristics across cultures (e.g., Atwater, Wang, Smither,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 54 9988854; fax: +972 4 6371445.
E-mail addresses: lisaka@som.bgu.ac.il (A. Lisak), merez@ie.technion.ac.il
(M. Erez).
1
Tel.: +972 4 8294461.
& Fleenor, 2009; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004; Wendt, Euwema, & Van Emmerik, 2009). This approach may
not work in multicultural teams, however, where leaders must
simultaneously manage a culturally diverse workforce. Hence,
global leadership research in general and multicultural team
leadership in particular should attempt to identify the personal
characteristics and behaviors of leaders that enable them to
effectively lead followers who are culturally diverse and often
located in different geographical zones (Osland, 2013). Further-
more, global leadership scholars search for global characteristics,
which are defined as context-dependent characteristics that
facilitate adaptation to the global work context (e.g., Bird,
Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010; Bird & Osland, 2004).
Multicultural teams are defined as teams consisting of
‘‘individuals from different cultures working together on activities
that span national borders ‘‘(Snell, Snow, Davidson, & Hambrick,
1998, p. 147). Two important aspects of global multicultural teams
are that they are culturally diverse and geographically dispersed,
and their members typically communicate virtually with each
other (Stanko & Gibson, 2009). Therefore, the global multicultural
team environment differs in many aspects from that of co-located
culturally homogeneous teams and thus represents a complex and
dynamic environment (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).
A plethora of research on emergent leadership has studied the
general characteristics of emergent leaders in teams, such as
general intelligence (e.g., Ilies, Gerhardt, & Le, 2004; Kickul &
Neuman, 2000), personality traits (e.g., Taggar, Hackett, & Saha,
1999) and emotional responses (e.g., Côté, Lopes, Salovey, &
Miners, 2010; Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006). However, most

1090-9516/$ – see front matter ß 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
2 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
of these studies on emergent leaders were conducted in local
(culturally homogeneous), co-located teams, not in multicultural,
virtual teams. Hence, to the best of our knowledge, there is no
published research on emergent leaders of multicultural teams.
In this paper, we build upon the person-environment (P-E) fit
model (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) to study
leadership emergence in multicultural teams. The P-E fit model
suggest that a fit between specific personal characteristics and
specific contexts influences who will assume leadership positions
over time (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). Thus, we
propose that emergent global leaders should possess context-
dependent characteristics that enable them to successfully adapt
to and operate in the multicultural team context as possessing
these characteristics will increase their likelihood of being
identified by other team members as emergent global leaders.
Specifically, we examined the following three global character-
istics that may contribute to the likelihood of a multicultural team
member being identified by other team members as an emergent
leader: Cultural Intelligence, which is defined as an individual’s
capability to deal effectively in culturally diverse settings (Ang &
Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003); Global Identity, which
conveys a sense of belongingness to the global work context (Erez
& Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006); and openness to cultural
diversity, which is ‘‘the degree of receptivity to perceived
dissimilarity’’ (Härtel, 2004, p. 190).
Furthermore, instead of studying these three global character-
istics independent of one another, we follow the pattern approach
that suggests that the pattern of the relationships among the
characteristics should be perceived as complementary to the
variable approach in explaining the dynamics and processes
related to leadership emergence (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Smith &
Foti, 1998). We assert that these global characteristics have a
synergetic power. That is, multicultural team members who are
culturally intelligent, who perceive themselves as members of the
global work context and who accept their team members’
diversity, are more likely to emerge as leaders of these teams
than other members.
Accordingly, our study contributes to the understanding of
leadership emergence in multicultural teams by identifying the
global characteristics of emergent leaders that dovetail with the
global work context and by examining the pattern of the
combination of these three global characteristics in emerging
global leaders over their independent effects.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Contextual influence on the leadership emergence process
The research literature distinguishes between appointed and
emergent leaders. An appointed (or assigned) leader is a member
who is designated by a superior authority to a leadership position.
The emergent leader is a team member who is perceived by her
peers as a leader or is elected to become the leader through an
interactive process (Hollander, 1974; Hollander, Fallon, & Edwards,
1977). Therefore, unlike other leadership phenomena (such as
leadership effectiveness) which is measured by between-group
comparisons, leadership emergence is a within-group phenome-
non, and the emergent leader is an individual perceived by other
team members as a potential leader who has the ability to exert
more influence than other members of the same group (Côté et al.,
2010).
Although the existing leadership emergence literature makes
an important contribution to our understanding of this phenome-
non (e.g., Druskat & Pescosolido, 2006; Reichard et al., 2011), these
studies do not consider the context in which the team is operating
as a factor in their model, and there is no discussion of possible
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
relations between context-dependent individual characteristics
and leadership emergence.
A main research direction that can assist in answering this
possible relation between context-dependent individual charac-
teristics and leadership emergence is the person-environment fit
approach (P-E fit). In the last decades, P-E fit has been the main
research concept as it emphasizes the influential effect of
contextual factors on organizational behavior processes (Edwards,
2008). According to Kristof-Brown (2000), individual character-
istics (e.g., personality traits, values, knowledge, skills and
abilities), which are in congruence with the organization
environment, lead to positive organizational outcomes, such as
commitment, satisfaction and tenure.
Consistent with the P-E fit perspective, Schneider’s (1983, 1987)
Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) model proposes that attrac-
tion to an organization occurs ‘‘as a function of their (people)
implicit judgments of the congruence between those organiza-
tions’ goals (and structures, processes, and culture as manifesta-
tions of those goals) and their own personalities’’ (Schneider,
Goldstein, & Smith, 1995, p. 749). Selection occurs when these
individuals have the ‘‘attributes the organization desires’’ (Schnei-
der et al., 1995, p. 749), as exhibited in hiring decisions (Cable &
Judge, 1997). Attrition occurs when an individual’s characteristics
do not fit well with the organization (Chatman, 1991). Hence, due
to the attrition processes, ‘‘over time, the environment will become
more homogeneous because similar people will stay in the
organization and dissimilar ones will leave’’ (Schneider et al.,
1995; p. 756).
An interesting assumption of the ASA model is that organiza-
tional founders, and later on, top management team members, tend
to work with others who are similar in their values and perceptions
and who fit within the organizational culture. This will result in a
relatively homogeneous group of top-level managers in the
organization (Schneider et al., 1998). Strong empirical support
was found for this assumption. Organizationally shared prototypes
of effective leadership were shared by organizational members and
varied between different types of organizations (Dickson, Resick, &
Hanges, 2006). Top management team members were found to have
high levels of homogeneity with respect to personal characteristics,
demographic characteristics and values. Additionally, newcomers to
top management teams who were promoted from middle manage-
ment lines tended to be more homogeneous with existing members
of that team, compared to external newcomers (Boone, van Olffen,
van Witteloostuijn, & de Brabander, 2004; Jackson et al., 1991;
Nielsen, 2009). Studies of large samples of managers at all
organizational levels revealed a significant effect for organizational
and sectorial membership on the homogeneity of personality
characteristics (Schneider et al., 1998) and found that the greater the
congruence of values of managers with their organization, the more
likely it is that they will remain with the organization (Posner,
Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). Hence, the above studies suggest that
individuals who fit with their organizations tend to have longer
tenure in these organizations and are likely to be promoted to
management positions over time.
Although this assumption was not studied at the team level,
the P-E fit model at the organizational level can also be applied to
the team level (Person-Team (P-T fit), which is defined as the
compatibility between individuals and their work groups (Kristof,
1996).
Person-Team fit models focus on the interpersonal character-
istics necessary for effective cooperation and communication with
other group members, as such characteristics are likely to impact
organizational effectiveness by promoting group cooperation and
synergy (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999).
Recent studies of person-team fit found that both personality
characteristics (e.g., extraversion) and values that fit with the
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
team work culture lead to positive outcomes, such as higher
levels of performance, increased work satisfaction and increased
levels of trust of these individuals than of others (DeRue &
Morgeson, 2007; Glew, 2012; Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens,
2005). A meta-analysis confirmed the positive effect of the
congruence between team members’ characteristics and their
team’s values with respect to satisfaction, commitment and
tenure (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, et al., 2005). Hence, with this line
of thought, we will assert in the next section that newcomers who
fit well within their team environment (e.g., multicultural team)
will face a higher probability of promotion to leadership positions
over time.
2.2. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams
Although multicultural teams and local teams (consisting of
members from the same national culture) share many character-
istics, they also differ in a number of important ways. As opposed to
local teams whose members share basic national values and beliefs
regarding the appropriate way to behave and respond to each other
(Hofstede, 2001), multicultural team members bring different
cultural perspectives to their teams with respect to work norms,
procedures, expectations and decision making styles. Such cultural
differences may impede the emergence of a shared group identity
(Janssens & Brett, 2006; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2009).
In addition to the challenges presented by cultural diversity,
most multicultural teams are located on a continuum of virtuality
that requires them to use primarily computer-mediated commu-
nication rather than face-to-face communication because of
geographical distance (Cramton & Hinds, 2010; Stanko & Gibson,
2009). Virtual communication is generally considered to be a
relatively lean communication channel because of the limitations
inherent in the transmission of visual and nonverbal cues
(Vignovic & Thompson, 2010). As such, it takes longer for
multicultural virtual teams to establish team trust and team
identity than co-located teams (Earley & Mosakowsky, 2000;
Webster & Wong, 2008). The ability of a leader to communicate
effectively in a virtual environment and to phrase his/her messages
in a conversational and personal manner seems critical for team
effectiveness (Kayworth & Leinder, 2002; Yoo & Alavi, 2004).
Moreover, geographical dispersions challenge multicultural team
leaders because of the need to design teamwork in a manner that
can overcome different time zones, different regulations and
different team member expectations (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Cascio
& Shurygalio, 2003).
As a result, leaders and emergent leaders of such teams face the
challenges of overcoming cultural differences, geographical
dispersion and lean communication channels in building the
shared understanding and team unity that are necessary for team
cooperation, coordination and performance (Avolio, Kahai, &
Dodge, 2001). Thus, the unique global context in which they work
demands that multicultural leaders have unique characteristics
that enables them to influence followers’ perceptions and emerge
as masters of the global environment (Zander et al., 2012).
Team members search for a leader (or potential leader) who
displays confidence in the complex global environment, who
seems well adjusted and capable of communicating with the entire
team and who helps to further the creation of shared understand-
ing and trust among team members. A team member with such
qualities is likely to emerge as a multicultural team leader.
The person-environment fit approach has a direct influence on
the success of multicultural teams. In their multi-level model of
culture, Erez and Gati (2004, see also Shokef & Erez, 2006, 2008)
assert that members of multicultural teams nested in global
organizations should share the values and norms of the global
work culture in which these organizations operate. While these
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
3
values and norms (such as trust, interdependence and openness to
cultural diversity) are the building blocks of team trust and team
identity in the global context, they may differ from those that are
deemed acceptable in the home cultures of global team members
(Glikson & Erez, 2013).
Building upon the person-team fit approach (Kristof-Brown,
Barrick, et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, et al., 2005), we
assert that individuals who hold personal characteristics that fit in
the global work context of multicultural teams are more adaptable
to the multicultural context, are able to master their environment
more effectively and, hence, are more likely to lead others to adapt
to this global work context. Over time, these individuals will be
perceived by others as having leadership qualities and will emerge
as multicultural team leaders. This study aims to identify the
context-dependent individual characteristics that a multicultural
team member should possess to be identified as a leader by other
team members.
However, the following question remains: What are the
personal characteristics that distinguish those who emerge as
leaders of multicultural teams from other members of the team?
Recent studies in the global context suggest three such
individual global characteristics – cultural intelligence (Earley &
Ang, 2003), global identity (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2008),
and openness to cultural diversity (Härtel, 2004) – all of which
complement each other. Cultural intelligence pertains to the
cognitive aspects of cultural awareness and cultural knowledge, as
well as to the motivation to adapt to various cultural contexts and
to behave accordingly. Global identity pertains to a person’s self-
concept, and as such, it reflects an individual’s identity as shaped
by a sense of belongingness to the global work context (Erez et al.,
2013). Openness to cultural diversity reflects the basic attitude of
the individual toward diverse others (Fujimoto, Hartel, & Hartel,
2004).
Therefore, we propose that the emergent multicultural team
leader should score higher on these three global characteristics
than other team members. Because of the importance of these
characteristics, we further elaborate on them and their relation-
ships to leadership emergence in the multicultural team context.
2.2.1. Cultural intelligence (CQ)
Cultural intelligence (CQ) is defined as an individual’s capability
to effectively address culturally diverse settings. As such, it is
culture-free and refers to a general set of capabilities that is
relevant to situations that are characterized by cultural diversity
(Earley & Ang, 2003). CQ requires three types of fundamental
interactive components, which are categorized as mental, motiva-
tional, and behavioral (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006). The mental
component refers to the ability to perceive and understand new
cultures using various types of cultural cues. This component is
manifest both in a meta-cognitive dimension, in which mental
processes are used to acquire and understand cultural knowledge,
and in a cognitive dimension, in which knowledge about the
norms, practices and conventions of different cultures is acquired
through education and personal experience. The motivational
component refers to self-motivation and the commitment to adapt
and adjust to a diverse cultural environment. The behavioral
component encompasses the capability to exhibit appropriate
verbal and non-verbal actions when interacting with people from
different cultures (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2007).
Individuals with high CQ effectively manage multicultural situa-
tions, make correct cultural decisions in a timely manner (Chen,
Liu, & Portnoy, 2012; Chua, Morris, & Mor, 2012) and facilitate
desirable processes and outcomes in a global context. Research
findings have shown that members of multicultural teams who
have high CQ levels integrate into and adapt to their teams more
smoothly (Flaherty, 2008; Shokef & Erez, 2008), and they develop
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12

4 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

more interpersonal trust among team members (Rockstuhl & Ng, social identification of team members with their teams to facilitate
2008) than those with low CQ. CQ is therefore considered to be an trust and cohesiveness within the teams. Following this line of
essential learning capability that leaders use to translate their thought, we assert that potential emergent leaders with highly
global experiences, characteristics and behaviors into experimen- developed global identities may serve as global role models for
tal learning, adjustment and effectiveness (Kim & Van Dyne, 2011; other members. These members observe their strong sense of
Lovvorn & Chen, 2011; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009). Furthermore, belongingness to their multicultural teams, which they view as
CQ appears is related to the leadership effectiveness of expatriates their in-group, hence, facilitating cooperation and understanding
(Deng & Gibson, 2008) and to leadership effectiveness in in multicultural teams.
multicultural teams (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). Last, it has also Therefore, we hypothesize:
predicted global leadership effectiveness in career development
programs for international assignments (Pless, Maak, & Stahl, Hypothesis 1b. Global identity will be related to leadership emer-
2011). Recently, Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, and Annen gence in multicultural teams. Emergent leaders will have a higher
(2011) found that, among Swiss army officers, emotional intelli- level of global identity than other multicultural team members.
gence was a stronger predictor of domestic leadership effective-
ness while cultural intelligence was a better predictor of cross-
2.2.3. Openness to cultural diversity
border leadership effectiveness.
Diversity reflects differences among individuals regarding any
We propose that CQ differentiates emergent global leaders from
attribute that leads to the perception that others are different from
other team members. Potential global leaders with high CQ should
the self (Riordan & McFarlane-Shore, 1997; Van Knippenberg, De
be sensitive to different practices and conventions (Cognitive CQ),
Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Individuals with high levels of openness to
should have the motivation to resolve team conflicts and maintain
cultural diversity view differences as positive, are open to learning
team identity (Motivational CQ), should have the capability to
from dissimilar others and make an effort to understand dissimilar
exhibit appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors (behavioral
perspectives. In contrast, individuals low on this dimension regard
CQ) and should be able to reflect upon their own behavior using the
differences as negative and are not open to understanding dissimilar
cultural context as a guide (Meta cognitive CQ). Accordingly, these
others (Fujimoto, Hartel, Hartel, & Baker, 2000). Thus, individuals
qualities should increase the likelihood of emerging as a global
who are open to cultural diversity are motivated to actively seek new
leader.
cultural experiences, they are curious about other national cultures
Therefore, we hypothesize:
and they are non-judgmental about other cultural behaviors and
expectations (Hartel & Fujimoto, 2000; Shokef & Erez, 2006). These
Hypothesis 1a. Cultural intelligence will be related to leadership
individuals are willing to adopt and express behaviors that indicate
emergence in multicultural teams. Emergent global leaders will
and dovetail with tolerance, they respect dissimilar individuals, and
have a higher level of cultural intelligence than other multicultural
they are motivated to reduce the possible negative effects of cultural
team members.
misunderstandings (Fujimoto et al., 2004; Härtel, 2004; Hobman,
Bordia, & Gallois, 2004).
2.2.2. Global identity
Openness to cultural diversity serves as an important intercul-
Basic questions such as ‘‘Who am I?’’ reflect a person’s self-
tural competency among multicultural team members that leads
identity (Neisser, 1993). Self-identity represents both the private
to positive outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment and trust
self, i.e., a person’s traits, feelings and behaviors, and the social self,
(Lloyd & Härtel, 2011). In analyzing the interpersonal interactions
which is related to affiliations and group memberships (Triandis,
among researchers working in multicultural teams, Ettorre (2000)
1989). The social self is shaped by the social context through the
found openness to diversity to be an important leadership
process of socialization, which reflects the values and the
characteristic in the success of international projects. In the
behavioral norms of other members of their social community
current paper, we propose that multicultural team members who
(Erez & Earley, 1993; Oyserman, 2004). Because individuals are
are open to cultural diversity are more likely to emerge as leaders.
motivated to become valued, they strive to maintain positive
They will actively seek to interact with other team members and
relationships with their team members and avoid being rejected
will regard these cultural interactions as interesting and challeng-
(Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Social inclusion and a sense of
ing instead of threatening. Such members will initially show more
belonging are thus important for a person’s adaptation to a social
respect to – and trust in – other team members despite national
environment (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kark, Shamir, & Chen,
cultural differences and will actively and voluntarily create
2003; Kirpatrick & Ellis, 2004).
positive relations with dissimilar members. This, in turn, facilitates
The social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg,
cross-understanding among team members (Huber & Lewis, 2010).
Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) posits that a shared social
Therefore, we hypothesize:
identity emerges when people’s perceptions of their mutual and
collective similarities are enhanced. Consistent with this line of
Hypothesis 1c. Openness to cultural diversity will be related to
thinking, Arnett (2002) proposed that in a world in which
leadership emergence in multicultural teams. Emergent global
globalization has become a significant phenomenon in everyday
leaders will have a higher level of openness to cultural diversity
life, people develop a global identity that gives them a sense of
than other multicultural team members.
belonging to the global community, which facilitates their
communication (face-to-face or virtual) with members of other
cultures. Members of multicultural teams in global organizations 2.3. The pattern approach as a frame for leadership emergence in
who share a common interest to accomplish a team goal are multicultural teams
motivated to overcome cultural barriers and maintain positive
relationships with other team members (Erez & Gati, 2004; Shokef & Most studies on leadership emergence have utilized the
Erez, 2006). This sense of belongingness to others with diverse variable approach, searching for individual difference variables
cultural backgrounds who are working in the same global with the strongest correlations with leadership emergence criteria
organization reflects a person’s global identity (Shokef & Erez, 2006). (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). However, over the last decade, Foti and
Self-concept based leadership theories (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, colleagues have suggested that the pattern approach should be
1999; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) emphasize the importance of considered as complementary to the variable approach in

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
explaining the dynamics and processes related to leadership
emergence outcomes (e.g., Gershenoff & Foti, 2003; Foti &
Hauenstein, 2007; Smith & Foti, 1998). Based on a person-oriented
perspective (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Magnusson, 1995;
Magnusson & Torestad, 1993), the pattern approach assumes a
holistic and dynamic view of the individual as an integrated unity
over time (Foti, Thompson, & Allgood, 2011; Magnusson, 1999).
Accordingly, individuals may be classified into homogeneous
groups on the basis of the patterns of their scores across certain
personal characteristics. Once individuals have been classified into
groups with common patterns, these groups become the focus of
the research (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). Accordingly, empirical
findings have shown significant relationships between specific
motivational patterns and leadership effectiveness (McClelland &
Boyatzis, 1982; Sorrentino & Field, 1986) and between specific
patterns of transformational/transactional leadership behaviors
and leadership effectiveness (O’Shea, Foti, Hauenstein, & Bycio,
2009). Very few studies of emergent leadership have emphasized
the importance of using the pattern approach. These studies have
demonstrated that patterns of high levels of intelligence, domi-
nance, self-efficacy (Smith & Foti, 1998) and self-monitoring (Foti
& Hauenstein, 2007) are related to leadership emergence while
patterns of mixed- or low-levels of these attributes are not related
to leadership emergence. Additionally, another study found a
stronger relationship between specific patterns of gender roles and
intelligence (masculine-intelligent and androgynous-intelligent)
and leadership emergence than there was for other patterns in all-
female teams (Gershenoff & Foti, 2003).
A basic tenet of the pattern approach is that the individual is an
active part of an integrated, complex, dynamic and adaptive
person-environment system (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). We
propose that an emergent multicultural team leader should be
able to simultaneously understand the complex multicultural
team context, have a sense of belongingness to the global team,
and show tolerance and acceptance of the cultural variation of the
team. These three characteristics – also known as cultural
intelligence, global identity and openness to cultural diversity –
are found to be positively related to each other, and they positively
influence multicultural team performance (Ang et al., 2006; Shokef
& Erez, 2006, 2008). Following the holistic pattern approach, we
propose that multicultural team members who integrate all three
global characteristics will be recognized more easily by their peers
as emergent leaders compared to individuals who are not
integrating, or who hold lower levels of these characteristics.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. A multicultural team member with high levels of
openness to cultural diversity, global identity and cultural intelli-
gence (H-H-H pattern) is more likely to emerge as a leader com-
pared to members with mixed patterns and compared to members
with low levels of these global characteristics (L-L-L pattern).
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
Representing 32 nationalities, the participants included 317
MBA and graduate students from ten universities in eight countries
(USA [3], England, Hong-Kong, Germany, Israel, Italy, Spain and
Switzerland) who were part of a multicultural team project in
2009.
Of the participants, 47% were European (13% from Italy and 11%
from Germany), 21% were from the Far East (13% Chinese), 18%
were North American, 12% were Israeli and 2% were from
miscellaneous areas (e.g., Latin America and central Asia). The
average age was 26.2 years (S.D. = 4.95) and 53% were men. Most
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
5
(76%) of the participants had previous work experience in
industrial companies, and 28% reported that they were working
in global organizations at that time. Additionally, most (71%) of the
participants reported that they had worked in multicultural teams
in the past (in industry or as part of international MBA programs).
An initial condition for participation in the project was a sufficient
level of English proficiency for fluent intra-team communication
(e.g., e-mails, chats, video conversations). The mean self-reported
level of English proficiency was 4.46 (S.D = .73, 1–5 scale).
Additionally, 80% of the students completed their MBA programs
in English. Last, the proportion of nominated leaders from Anglo-
Saxon countries (20%) was close to their proportion in the sample
(19%), suggesting no bias in leadership emergence for those who
are English native speakers.
3.2. Procedure
Participants were assigned to 81 virtual multicultural teams. Of
these, 74 teams (91%) consisted of four members and the
remaining teams consisted of three members. Members of each
team were from different countries, nationalities and universities
and spoke different native languages. They were asked to work on a
four-week team project as part of their cross-cultural management
course requirements toward their final grade. The project
consisted of the following three steps:
Step1: Before the beginning of the project, all participants
completed a web-based questionnaire in English. The ques-
tionnaire assessed the respondent’s global characteristics with
respect to global identity, cultural intelligence, openness to
cultural diversity and demographics.
Step 2: The first week of the project was the ‘‘getting to know
each other’’ phase. The team members interviewed one another
and participated in discussions that expanded their knowledge
about one another. This stage consisted of two chats (at least)
among all team members, intensive daily e-mail exchanges and
discussion of a case study that presented a personal dilemma in
the context of an international acquisition.
After becoming acquainted with one another, team members
were required to reach consensus regarding a country on which
they were to write their final project.
At the end of Step 2, the team members were required to elect
‘‘the most suitable team member’’ to serve as their team leader to
lead them through their mission in Step 3. At this stage, they
received the task instructions, which included the rules for
communicating with the project coordinator.
Step 3: In this stage, the team assignment began and lasted for
two additional weeks. The task was to develop guidelines for an
expatriate who was to be assigned a position in a country
selected by the team. The country could not be the home
country of any of the team members. Each team was required to
prepare a twelve-slide presentation that included information
about the host country and a comparison of the cultural
similarities and differences with team members’ home
countries. Their grades on the final team project served as
part of their final course grades.
3.3. Measures
All global characteristics and controls were measured in the
week before the beginning of Step 1.
Cultural intelligence. We measured cultural intelligence using
the Cultural Intelligence Scale of Ang et al. (2006, 2007). This
20-item scale assesses cultural intelligence on the following four
sub-scales: metacognitive (e.g., ‘‘I am conscious of the cultural
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
6 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions’’), cognitive (e.g.,
‘‘I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behavior in other
cultures’’), motivational (e.g., ‘‘I enjoy interacting with people from
different cultures’’), and behavioral (e.g., ‘‘I change my verbal
behavior (e.g., accent and tone) when a cross-cultural interaction
requires it’’). The CQS was answered using a 7-point Likert-type
scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). The general
scale reliability coefficient (alpha) for this study was .92 (with an
alpha of .83, .87, .87 and .88 for the sub-scales, respectively). We
used the total score on the four subscales as the CQ measure.
Global identity. We measured global identity using the global
identity scale developed and validated by Erez and Shokef (Erez &
Gati, 2004; Shokef & Erez, 2006, 2008). This measure consists of
four items and uses a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all to
7 = Very Much). The items measured the level of the individual’s
identification with a global context (e.g., ‘‘I relate to people from
other parts of the world as if they were close acquaintances/
associates’’). Scale reliability coefficient (alpha) was .85.
Openness to cultural diversity. We measured openness to
cultural diversity using a scale consisting of 4 items and a 7-point
Likert-type scale (1 = Very Inaccurate; 7 = Very Accurate) that were
modified based on the openness to diversity scale of Hobman,
Bordia, and Gallois (2003). This scale measures the willingness of
the respondent to be open to diverse individuals (e.g., ‘‘I often
spend time with people from cultural groups other than my own’’).
The scale reliability coefficient (alpha) was .74.
To confirm the global characteristics’ factor structure and to
ensure that global identity, cultural intelligence and openness to
cultural diversity were independent factors, we applied a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a three-factor model. To
calculate this model, we first designed a second-order factor model
of cultural intelligence, which included the four subscales of the
cultural intelligence questionnaire, as first-order factors (meta-
cognition, cognition, motivation and behavioral). We then added
the global identity scale and the openness to cultural diversity
scale and correlated all three factors (the second-order cultural
intelligence scale, global identity scale and openness to cultural
diversity scale). All of the items significantly loaded on their
corresponding factors (p < .01) and fit indices provided evidence of
a good fit (x2 (329) = 719, p < .001; Comparative Fit Index
(CFA) = .92; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .91; Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .059) as was suggested in the
literature (Lower then .07 for RMSEA and higher then .90 for CFI
and TLI, e.g., Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Additionally, we compared this model with alternative two-factor
models. These models combined two of the three factors correlated
with the remaining factor. We then compared the x2 of the three-
factor model and each of the two-factor models to identify
significant differences. The three-factor model demonstrated
better fit than each of the two factor models. The results for the
two-factor model of global identity combined with openness to
cultural diversity and correlated with cultural intelligence were
(x2 (331) = 890.6, p < .01; CFI = .88, TLI = .86, RMSEA = .073, Dx2
Table 1
Mean standard deviations and correlations among model variables.
Variable Mean S.D.
1. Age 26.18 4.95
2. Past multicultural team work experience 0.71 0.45
3. Gender 1.47 0.50
4. Cultural intelligence 4.77 0.80
5. Global identity 4.95 1.00
6. Openness to cultural diversity 5.28 0.92
7. Leadership emergence 0.26 0.44
N = 317. Gender: 1 = man, 2 = woman; leadership emergence: 1 = leader, 0 = follower.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
(2) = 171.6, p < .001). For the two-factor model of global identity
combined with cultural intelligence and correlated with openness
to cultural diversity, the results were (x2 (334) = 918.9, p < .01;
CFI = .88, TLI = .86, RMSEA = .074; Dx2 (5) = 199.9, p < .001).
Finally, for the two factor model of cultural intelligence combined
with openness to cultural diversity and correlated with global
identity the results were (x2 (334) = 795.5, p < .01; CFI = .89,
TLI = .87, RMSEA = .072; Dx2 (5) = 76.5, p < .001). Hence, we found
support for our three-factor model structure.
Leadership emergence. Most previous studies assessed per-
ceived leadership emergence by asking team members to evaluate
each other on perceived leadership scales (e.g., Kickul & Neuman,
2000; Taggar et al., 1999). These criteria allowed them to estimate
the level of perceived leadership of each of the team members.
However, these criteria did not examine team members’ perspec-
tives regarding the most appropriate member for the leadership role
as there was no need to elect the most appropriate member to an
actual leadership position. Only a limited number of studies allowed
team members to elect the emergent leader to lead them toward the
accomplishment of their team task (Hollander et al., 1977; Pillai &
Meindl, 1991; Van Vugt & De Cremer, 2002). In the current study, we
allowed the team members to elect their emergent leader whose
role was to coordinate the team members’ activities, integrate their
contributions and motivate them to complete their assigned task on
time. We expected team members to elect the individual with the
highest potential to successfully lead the team to its task completion
due to the relation between the task product and the students’
grades. Thus, we assessed leadership emergence based on the actual
selection of one team member by his/her peers.
Control variables. We controlled for leaders’ ages, genders
(Joshi, Lazarova, & Liao, 2009), and past work experiences in
multicultural teams, because recent studies have suggested that
global work experience enhances global identity and cultural
intelligence (Li, Mobley, & Kelly, 2013; Shokef & Erez, 2008).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
The means, Standard Deviations (S.D.) and inter-correlations
appear in Table 1.
The correlations among the global characteristics (openness to
diversity, cultural intelligence and global identity) ranged between
r = 0.50 and 0.56, p < .01. All three global characteristics positively
and significantly correlated with leadership emergence. Age was
the only control variable that positively correlated with leadership
emergence (r = .13, p < .05), but did not correlate significantly with
the three global characteristics.
4.2. Hypotheses testing
We tested Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c regarding the relationship
between global characteristics and becoming an emergent leader
1 2 3 4 5 6
–
.06 –
.13* .10 –
.01 .12* .06 –
.02 .09 .06 .50** –
.02 .23** .07 .56** .53** –
.13* .04 .06 .16** .13* .16**
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 2
Mixed regression estimates of differences in global characteristics between emergent leaders and their followers.
Global characteristic Mean leaders’ score (S.D.) N = 81
Cultural intelligence 4.98 (0.80)
Openness to cultural diversity 5.30 (0.90)
Global identity 5.19 (1.07)
N = 317. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. The regressions controlled for age, gender and past work experience in multicultural teams.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
by using the PROC MIXED regression technique (Wolfinger, Tobias,
& Sall, 1991) for each of the global characteristics, taking into
consideration the team dependency effect and controlling for age,
gender and past work experience on multicultural teams (see
Table 2). The results supported Hypothesis 1 by showing that
emergent leaders initially scored significantly higher than other
team members on the three global characteristics of cultural
intelligence, global identity and openness to cultural diversity.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that multicultural team members
whose patterns showed high levels of cultural intelligence, global
identity and openness to diversity (H-H-H pattern) would have a
higher probability to emerge as leaders than team members with
mixed patterns or team members with low levels of these global
characteristics (L-L-L pattern). Following the recommendation of
Foti and Hauenstein (2007), this hypothesis was first examined
using the variable approach method of hierarchical regression and
it was then examined using the pattern approach.
Because the dependent variable (leadership emergence) was
dichotomous, we used a hierarchical logistic regressions analysis
for parameter estimation (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000). Because
logistic regression analysis is a nonlinear regression model, it does
not provide an F-statistic to test for the overall model fit. Instead,
overall and improvement chi-squared tests may be computed from
the log-likelihood statistics (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000). Logistic
coefficients (B) represent the degree to which the log odds of the
event occurring are changed for each unit increase in the
associated independent variable. The log of the odds ratio
(log [p/(1 p)] (where p is the probability to be nominated as a
leader) for a variable indicates the change in the log of the odds for
a case when the value of that variable increases by 1. The Wald
statistic assesses whether the B coefficient for the corresponding
independent variable is significantly different from zero (De Pater,
Van Vianen, Bechtoldt, & Klehe, 2009). Finally, we estimated the
exponential of the beta of the respective predictor (exp. (B), which
is the factor by which the odds change when the respective
predictor increases by one unit. For instance, multiplying by a
factor of 1.05 is equivalent to a 5% increase in odds.
Only one member in each team could be nominated to a
leadership position by peers. Hence, all team members were
strongly correlated in their decision criteria as coding ‘‘1’’ for the
emergent leader meant coding ‘‘0’’ for all other team members. To
model this strong dependency, we used the Generalized Estimating
Equations (GEE) model for our analysis, and used the GENMOD
procedure of SAS 9.2. GEE (Hardin & Hilbe, 2003) is an extension of
the standard array of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). As
likelihood-based models, traditional GLMs are based on the
assumption that individual subjects or observations are indepen-
dent. In contrast, GEE models do not require such an assumption, and
can thus handle situations where responses are correlated (see
Simola, Kuisma, Öörni, Uusitalo, & Hyönä, 2011, for demonstration).
We used the compound symmetry working correlation structure,
which modeled the same correlation between each of two
observations within the same team. Additionally, because the GEE
method is not, in general, a likelihood-based method of estimation,
inferences based on likelihoods are not possible for this method.
Hence, there is no equivalent for R2 or AIC using this method.
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
7
Mean followers’ score (S.D.) N = 236 b df t
4.70 (0.79) 0.29 234 2.93**
5.20 (0.91) 0.35 234 3.02**
4.88 (1.05) 0.33 234 2.52*
To conduct the hierarchical logistic regression, the control
variables (past work experience in multicultural teams, age and
gender) were entered into the regression equation in the first step.
The global characteristics of global identity, openness to cultural
diversity and cultural intelligence were entered in the second
step. Two-way interactions between all combinations of the
global characteristics were entered in the third step. In the fourth
step, a three-way interaction among the three global character-
istics were entered into the regression equation. The scores of the
three global characteristics were centered (the mean subtracted
from each mean score, leaving deviation scores) to reduce
multicollinearity between the variables and their interactions
(Preacher & Rucker, 2003).
The results showed non-significant (p > 0.05) effects for all
main effects and for the interaction between the global character-
istics that were over and above the control variables, with logistic
coefficients (B) lower than .01. These results indicated that the
traditional variable approach method of hierarchical regression,
did not offer meaningful results to our second hypothesis.
We further conducted a pattern approach analysis (Foti &
Hauenstein, 2007) using a clustering-by-cases procedure to
classify the multicultural team members on the basis of their
scores on the three global characteristic measures (cultural
intelligence, openness to cultural diversity and global identity).
We followed the suggestion of Bergman and Magnusson (1992)
and used the k-means relocation cluster analysis with the squared
Euclidean distance method and a start classification based on
Ward’s method. Accordingly, we started by performing a
hierarchical cluster analysis, selecting the squared Euclidean
distance as a similarity measure and using Ward’s method to
form the initial clusters without restricting their number. These
analyses provided a dendrogram based on the distance of the
clusters. Examining the dendrogram and the different clustering
solutions, we determined that the ideal number of clusters was
three, each with high fit (average silhouette width = .26).
Table 3 displays the cluster analysis results. Accordingly, fifty-
five participants were assigned to the H-H-H (high in all three
characteristics) cluster, of whom 40 percent were elected by their
peers for a leadership position. One hundred and fifty four
participants were assigned to the mixed cluster with mixed
combinations and with average scores close to the average scores
of the total sample. Of this cluster group, 27 percent were elected
by their peers for a leadership position. Finally, 108 participants
were assigned to the L-L-L cluster (low in all three characteristics),
with lower average scores than the sample average for all three
characteristics and with the lowest minimum points. Only 17
percent of this cluster was elected by their peers for a leadership
position.
These three clusters represented our three predicted patterns.
To study the relationship between the high (H-H-H) pattern of
global characteristics and leadership emergence compared to the
low (L-L-L) and mixed patterns, with gender, age and past work
experience in multicultural teams as controls, we fitted a logistic
regression model. To control team dependency we calculated again
Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model, using the GEN-
MOD procedure of SAS 9.2. The results revealed that the effects of
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12

8 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Descriptive statistics for the cluster analysis results-81 teams.

Cluster/pattern N Variable Mean S.D. Min Max Number and proportion of emergent
leaders in each cluster

L-L-L 108 Global identity 3.92 0.84 2.25 6.25 18 (17%)

Openness to cultural diversity 4.58 0.84 2.50 7.00
Cultural intelligence 4.15 0.74 2.15 6.05

Mixed 154 Global identity 5.26 0.61 4.00 7.00 41 (27%)

Openness to cultural diversity 5.39 0.65 3.25 6.75
Cultural intelligence 4.84 0.47 3.60 6.00

H-H-H 55 Global identity 6.12 0.54 4.75 7.00 22 (40%)

Openness to cultural diversity 6.37 0.31 5.75 7.00
Cultural intelligence 5.82 0.35 5.15 6.70

General sample 317 Global identity 4.96 1.05 2.25 7.00 81

Openness to cultural diversity 5.28 0.92 2.50 7.00
Cultural Intelligence 4.77 0.80 2.15 6.70

the total model were significant (Wald x2 = 10. 81, p < .05). The
model indicated no significant effects for controls of gender
(B = 0.001, Wald x2 = 0.58, ns) or age (B = 0.001, Wald x2 = 3.06, ns)
but found a significant positive effect for past work experience
in a multicultural team (B = 0.0001, Wald x2 = 5.36, p < .05,
Exp (B) = 1.001). A comparison between the H-H-H pattern and
the L-L-L pattern demonstrated a significantly higher odds ratio for
leadership emergence for the H-H-H pattern group compared to
the L-L-L pattern group (B = 0.01, Z = 2.41, p < .05, Exp (B) = 1.001).
However, the results did not reveal a significant difference
between the H-H-H pattern group and the mixed pattern group
(B = 0.0006, Z = 1.08, ns). Finally, no significant difference was
found between the effect of the mixed pattern group and the L-L-L
pattern group on leadership emergence (B = 0.001, Z = 1.21, ns).
The pattern analyses demonstrated weak effects and only
partially supported hypothesis 2. However, we assert that these
results do not demonstrate the full effect of the three global
characteristics on leadership emergence in multicultural teams. In
our second hypothesis, we asserted that team members with an H-
H-H pattern are more likely to emerge as leaders compared to
members with mixed patterns and compared to members with an
L-L-L pattern. Taking into account the strong intra-group depen-
dence that exists in these teams (when coding 1 for the emergent
leader in the criterion means coding 0 for other team members),
we assert that hypothesis 2 can be fully examined only in teams
that include members with an H-H-H pattern because this pattern
is the reference point of our hypothesis (in other words, if there is
no H-H-H pattern individual, the hypothesis cannot be tested). To
test this assertion, we repeated the pattern analysis phases
described above, but this time only with teams that met this
requirement. As 39 teams did not include individuals with an H-H-
H pattern, they were excluded from the analysis. An additional 10
teams with two or three H-H-H members were also excluded from
the analysis because they inflated the likelihood that the H-H-H
individual would be elected as a leader.
The remaining 32 teams in the analysis included members who
represented the three patterns. On each team, there was only one
member with the H-H-H pattern. Of the 32 teams, 31 consisted of
four members.
Table 4 represents the cluster analysis descriptive results using
K-means and ward methods. The analysis found the same three
differentiated clusters – H-H-H, mixed and L-L-L – that represent
our suggested patterns. Thirty-two participants (each on a
different team) were assigned to the H-H-H cluster, of whom 47
percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position. Sixty-
one participants were assigned to the mixed cluster, of whom 21
percent were elected by their peers for a leadership position.
Finally, thirty-four participants were assigned to the L-L-L cluster,
of whom only 11 percent were elected by their peers for a
leadership position.
To compare odds ratios that a member of the high (H-H-H)
cluster will emerge as leader versus the odds that a member from
the low (L-L-L) cluster or mixed cluster, we controlled for gender,
age and past work experience in a logistic regression. To control
team dependency, we calculated generalized estimating equations
(GEE) model using the GENMOD procedure of SAS 9.2. The results
revealed that the effect of the total model was significant (Wald
x2 = 9.28, p < .05). The model indicated no significant effects for
gender (B = 0.21, Wald x2 = 1.21, ns), past work experience on a
multicultural team (B = 0.01, Wald x2 = 0.01, ns) or age (B = 0.002,

Table 4
Descriptive statistics for the cluster analysis results-32 teams.

Cluster/pattern N Variable Mean S.D. Min Max Number and proportion of

emergent leaders in each cluster

L-L-L 34 Global identity 4.00 0.80 2.50 5.50 4 (12%)

Openness to cultural diversity 4.51 0.82 3.00 6.25
Cultural intelligence 4.17 0.58 2.85 5.45

Mixed 61 Global identity 5.24 0.66 4.00 6.75 13 (21%)

Openness to cultural diversity 5.31 0.70 3.75 6.50
Cultural Intelligence 4.84 0.41 3.65 5.95

H-H-H 32 Global identity 6.12 0.51 5.25 7.00 15 (47%)

Openness to cultural diversity 6.40 0.33 5.75 7.00
Cultural intelligence 5.80 0.39 5.15 6.70

General sample 127 Global identity 5.13 1.03 2.50 7.00 32

Openness to cultural diversity 5.37 0.95 3.00 7.00
Cultural Intelligence 4.91 0.75 2.85 6.70

Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Wald x2 = 0.001, ns). A comparison between the H-H-H pattern
and the L-L-L pattern demonstrated a significantly higher odds
ratio for leadership emergence for the H-H-H group compared to
the L-L-L group (B = 1.62, Z = 2.74, p < .01, Exp (B) = 5.04). Addi-
tionally, the results revealed a significant difference between the
H-H-H pattern group and the mixed pattern group (B = 1.39,
Z = 2.47, p < .05, Exp (B) = 4.00) with a higher odds ratio for
leadership emergence in the H-H-H group. Finally, no significant
difference was found between the effect of the mixed pattern
group and the L-L-L pattern group regarding leadership emergence
(B = 0.09, Z = 0.26, ns). These results fully support our second
hypothesis.
5. Discussion
Our objective in this study was to contribute to the existing
body of knowledge about leadership emergence in the following
three ways: first, by studying leadership emergence in multicul-
tural teams, a phenomenon that has not been studied before;
second, by identifying the global leadership characteristics that
differentiate emergent leaders from other team members; and
third, by testing whether the combination pattern of the three
global leadership characteristics predicts emergent leadership
better than their individual effects. Achieving these three
objectives, we made contributions to the following four lines of
research: (a) leadership emergence, (b) leadership in multicultural
teams, (c) person-environment fit approach, and (d) the pattern
approach.
Our study design enabled us to assess the global characteristics
of multicultural team members before they formed the work teams
and to test whether the team member who emerged as a leader had
higher level of global characteristics than the other team members.
Such a design is difficult to achieve in global organizations where
different multicultural teams are at different stages of maturity.
Our study design allowed us to test our first hypothesis that
emergent global leaders will have higher levels of cultural
intelligence, global identity and openness to diversity than their
other team members. The results revealed that, on average, all
three global characteristics were initially higher among those who
were elected to leadership positions by their peers, compared to
other team members.
Consistent with the multi-level model of culture (Erez & Gati,
2004), our study refers to the multicultural team context as nested
in the global work culture in which people from different national
cultures establish a new cultural environment and create a new
global cultural entity. In our study, we demonstrated that global
characteristics are important for leadership emergence in this
context and that the fit between global leadership characteristics
and the global multicultural team context predicts leadership
emergence. Therefore, our study extends the limited empirical
research in this field and supports both the person-environment fit
approach (Kristof, 1996) and related models of the Attraction-
Selection-Attrition (Schneider, 1987) model and person-team fit
(Kristof-Brown, Barrick, et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman,
et al., 2005).
Moreover, this study responds to the call by Gelfand, Erez, and
Aycan (2007) to adopt a global perspective to the study of
leadership and organizational behavior in the global work context
as a substitute to the cross-cultural approach that focuses on cross-
cultural differences. The traditional cross-cultural approach, which
focuses on cross-cultural differences in the perceived leadership
characteristics of successful leaders, does not contribute to the
understanding of emergent leaders in the global context, which
comprises a shared working environment for individuals who are
culturally diverse and geographically dispersed. Developing a
sense of belongingness to the multicultural team reflects the global
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
9
identity, which emerges independent of the local national identity
(Erez & Gati, 2004). Therefore, local leaders with high levels of local
identity and low levels of global identity may not be successful in
building a multicultural team (Lisak & Erez, 2013). Rather, leaders
who exhibit high global leadership characteristics are perceived by
their team members as having a better fit to the global work
context and therefore are appointed by their team members as the
team leader. Having a better fit to the global work context enables
global leaders to serve as role models and to unite the culturally
diverse team members into a single coherent global team.
Additionally, the current study supports the growing trend of
looking at patterns or configurations of personal characteristics
rather than examining the independent effects of isolated personal
traits on behavior (Foti, Bray, Thompson, & Allgood, 2012; Miron-
Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2011). Our findings support our second
hypothesis that multicultural team members with high levels of
openness to diversity, global identity and cultural intelligence (H-
H-H pattern) are more likely to emerge as leaders than team
members with mixed patterns or members with low levels of these
global characteristics (L-L-L pattern). Although each of the global
characteristics in our research was valuable for emergent leaders, a
high level of all three gave the highest odds to emerge as a leader
compared to other combinations. Thus, our study supports the
assertion of Bergman and Magnusson (1997) that variables in
themselves have a limited meaning, and it is the pattern or profile
of these variables operating in the system that takes on meaning.
We join the recommendation that the pattern approach should
serve as a complement to the traditional variable approach in
complex contexts (Foti et al., 2011).
5.1. Managerial relevance
The current study reveals that global individual characteristics
are important for leadership emergence in multicultural teams.
Today, global HR departments exert considerable effort when
selecting and training expatriates (Tung & Varma, 2008). Further-
more, most HR programs in global organizations focus on
providing knowledge on specific norms and behaviors that are
relevant to specific cultures (Bhawuk, 2009; Bhawuk & Brislin,
2000). These programs engage a cross-cultural perspective
because they emphasize differences and similarities of values
and behaviors between countries. However, most of these
programs do not consider the features of the global work culture,
and they do not focus on the unique characteristics required to
succeed in this context. Thus, the effectiveness of these programs
in the selection and training of leaders and members of
multicultural teams may be limited. Leaders and members of
virtual multicultural teams operate in a global cultural context in
which values and norms are likely to differ from those in their
respective local cultures (Shokef & Erez, 2006). Thus, they should
build the norms and values in their multicultural teams that will be
shared by all culturally diverse team members to facilitate their
adaptation in the global work context. We assert that the selection
measures and training programs for multicultural team members
and leaders should focus on global characteristics, such as
openness to cultural diversity, global identity and cultural
intelligence, all of which facilitate adaptation to the global context.
5.2. Limitations and future directions
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to
empirically examine leadership emergence in multicultural teams.
As such, it is not without limitations that must be addressed and
that may serve as reference points for future studies. First, our
study examines the global characteristics that differentiate
emergent leaders from non-leaders on multicultural teams.
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
10 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
However, it does not examine how these characteristics shape the
team processes of cooperation and trust. We suggest that team
members with high levels of global characteristics displays
behaviors that contribute to creating a safe team communication
climate and strengthens team identity. Team members recognize
the contributions of certain team members to team building, and
they are more likely to elect these members as their leaders. Thus,
future research should focus on the mediating behaviors between
global characteristics and leadership emergence in MCTs.
Second, similar to other studies of multicultural teams (e.g.,
Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Sarker, Sarker, & Schneider,
2009), participants in this study were MBA students who were
working on a short-term assignment in the context of multicul-
tural virtual teams as a partial fulfillment for their course
requirements. In this sense, it simulates short-term action teams
whose members unite to perform short-term missions (Saunders &
Ahuja, 2006). Future research should generalize the present
findings by examining the same global characteristics in stable,
long-term multicultural teams in multi-national organizations
(MNOs).
Third, in this study we examine the global personal character-
istics of multicultural team members prior to their participation in
the multicultural team project. However, research has demon-
strated that these global characteristics are malleable and may be
developed as team members gain work experience in the global
context (Erez et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013; Pless et al., 2011).
Therefore, future research may take a longitudinal approach to
examine how these global characteristics develop over time and
how they influence leadership emergence over the long run.
6. Conclusions
This study takes a global focus rather than a cross-cultural focus
as it examines the global characteristics of emergent leaders on
multicultural teams. These characteristics – cultural intelligence,
global identity and openness to diversity – enable the global leader
to better navigate the team in the global context. These qualities, as
they are reflected in the way this person interacts with others on
the multicultural team, influence team members to elect this
person as their leader. Consistent with the person-environment fit
approach, we demonstrate that the likelihood of emerging as a
leader is significantly higher for team members with global
characteristics that fit the global context. Our study also highlights
the strong predictive power of the pattern approach compared to
the predictive power of independent traits. Finally, this study has
practical applications when selecting and training global leaders
and global members.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Ayala Cohen and Etti Doveh for their
helpful statistical advises. This study was supported by the SHRM
Foundation (Grant no. 128). The interpretations, conclusions and
recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the SHRM Foundation. An early version of
this article was presented at the August 2013, 73rd Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL, USA.
References
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence. In S. Ang & L.
Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and
applications (pp. 3–15). Armonk, NY: M.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model
of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1): 100–123.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., & Tay, C. (2007). Cultural
intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization
Review, 3(3): 335–371.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10): 774–
783.
Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J. W., & Fleenor, J. W. (2009). Are cultural characteristics
associated with the relationship between self and others’ ratings of leadership?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4): 876–886.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-leadership: Implications for theory,
research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 615–668.
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the ‘‘E’’ to E-leadership: How it may impact
your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4): 325–338.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–
529.
Bergman, L., & Magnusson, D. (1992). Stability and change in patterns of extrinsic
adjustment problems. In D. Magnusson, L. Bergman, G. Rudinger, & B. Törestad
(Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research: Stability and change (pp. 323–
346). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research
on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9(2):
291–319.
Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology,
49(1): 162–191.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2009). Intercultural training for the global workplace: Review,
synthesis, and theoretical explorations. In R. S. Bhaght & R. M. Steers (Eds.),
Cambridge handbook of culture organizations and work (pp. 462–488). Cambridge:
University Press.
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). Defining the content domain
of intercultural competence for global leaders. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25:
810–828.
Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2004). Global competencies: An introduction. The Blackwell
handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity. Oxford, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Boone, C., van Olffen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A., & de Brabander, B. (2004). The genesis
of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management
teams in Dutch newspaper publishing’. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 633–
656.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit in the
analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588–606.
Butler, C. L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Sutton, C. (2012). The global leader as boundary
spanner, bridge maker, and blender. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(2):
240–243.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit
and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546–561.
Cascio, W. F., & Shurygalio, S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational
Dynamics, 31(4): 362–376.
Chatman, I. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459–484.
Chen, X. P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational
cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence
from US real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 93–106.
Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural
metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118: 116–131.
Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelligence
and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3):
496–508.
Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, T. P. J. (2010, August). Ticking in different ways: The dialectical
struggle to resolve cross-national differences in distributed teams. San Diego, CA:
American Psychological Association Convention.
Deng, L., & Gibson, P. (2008). A qualitative evaluation on the role of cultural intelligence
in cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership Stud-
ies, 3(2): 181–197.
De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Klehe, U. C. (2009). Employees’
challenging job experiences and supervaisors’ evaluations of promotability. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 62(2): 297–325.
DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-
role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-
efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5): 1242.
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic variation in organiza-
tionally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organiza-
tional form. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5): 487–505.
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2006). The impact of emergent leader’s emotionally
competent behavior on team trust, communication, engagement, and effective-
ness. Research on Emotion in Organizations, 2: 25–55.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowsky, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical
test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1):
26–49.
Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of
theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 167–230.
Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education
programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6): 755–780.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro-
level of the individual to the macro-level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53: 583–598.
Erez, M., Lisak, A., Harush, R., Glikson, E., Nouri, R., & Shokef, E. (2013). Going global:
Developing management students’ cultural intelligence and global identity in
virtual culturally diverse teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
12(3): 330–335.
Ettorre, E. (2000). Recognizing diversity and group processes in international, collabo-
rative research work: A case study. Social Policy and Administration, 34(4): 392–407.
Flaherty, J. E. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on team member acceptance and
integration in multinational teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 192–205). Armonk, NY: M.
Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self, know thy
leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader percep-
tions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 702–717.
Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership
emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 347–355.
Foti, R. J., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2011). The Pattern-Oriented approach: A
framework for the experience of work. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
4(1): 122–125.
Fujimoto, Y., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hartel, G. F. (2004). A field test of the diversity-openness
moderator model in newly formed groups: Openness to diversity affects group
decision effectiveness and interaction patterns. Cross Cultural Management, 11(4):
4–16.
Fujimoto, Y., Hartel, C. E. J., Hartel, G. F., & Baker, N. J. (2000). Openness to dissimilarity
moderates the consequences of diversity in well-established groups. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 38(3): 46–61.
Gelfand, M., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58: 479–514.
Gershenoff, A. B., & Foti, R. J. (2003). Leader emergence and gender roles in all-female
groups. Small Group Research, 34(2): 170–196.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national
diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 451–495.
Glew, D. J. (2012). Effects of interdependence and social interaction-based person-team
fit. Administrative Sciences, 2(1): 26–46.
Glikson, E., & Erez, M. (2013). Emotion display norms in virtual teams. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 12(1): 22–32.
Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context testing
the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance.
Group & Organization Management, 36(5): 535–566.
Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2003). Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton, FL: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Härtel, C. E. J. (2004). Towards a multicultural world: Identifying work systems,
practices and employee attitudes that embrace diversity. Australian Journal of
Management, 29(2): 189–200.
Hartel, C. E. J., & Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Diversity is not the problem-openness to perceived
dissimilarity is. Journal of Management & Organization, 6(1): 14–27.
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2003). Consequences of feeling dissimilar from
others in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3): 301–325.
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group
involvement. Group & Organization Management, 29(5): 560–587.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hollander, E. P. (1974). Processes of leadership emergence. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 3(4): 19–33.
Hollander, E. P., Fallon, B. J., & Edwards, M. T. (1977). Some aspects of influence and
acceptability for appointed and elected group leaders. The Journal of Psychology,
95(2): 289–296.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousands Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1–55.
Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. (2010). Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition
and performance. The Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 6–26.
Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences in leadership emer-
gence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3): 207–219.
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991).
Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heteroge-
neity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76: 675–689.
Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams. Group &
Organization Management, 31(1): 124–153.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of
trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4): 29–
64.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity: Workgroup context,
and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 703–729.
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of
inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science,
20(1): 240–252.
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
11
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 246–255.
Kayworth, T. R., & Leinder, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3): 7–40.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1):
77–89.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task
and relation leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 146–162.
Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of
personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1): 27–51.
Kim, Y. J., & Van Dyne, L. (2011). Cultural intelligence and international leadership
potential: The importance of contact for members of the majority. Applied Psy-
chology: An International Review, 61(2): 272–294.
Kirpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2004). An evolutionary-psychological approach to self
esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 52–77). MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptua-
lizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’
perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53:
643–671.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). When opposites attract: A
multi-sample demonstration of complementary person–team fit on extraversion.
Journal of Personality, 73: 935–957.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281–342.
Li, M., Mobley, W., & Kelly, A. (2013). When do global leaders learn best to develop
cultural intelligence? An investigation of the moderating role of experiential
learning style. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12: 32–50.
Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2013). The contribution of leaders’ ‘‘Glocal’’ identity to psycho-
logically safe communication climate and to leadership effectiveness in MCTs.
2013 AOM meeting.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of
leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3): 167–203.
Lovvorn, A. S., & Chen, J. S. (2011). Developing a global mindset: The relationship
between and international assignment and cultural intelligence. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9): 271–283.
Lloyd, S., & Härtel, C. (2011). Subgroup formation and team climate in culturally diverse
work teams. Australian Journal of Psychology57(1). 136-136.
Magnusson, D. (1995). Individual development: A holistic, integrated model. In
P. Moen, G. L., Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context (pp. 19–
60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Magnusson, D. (1999). Holistic interactionism: A perspective for research on person-
ality development. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (pp. 219–247). New York: Guilford Press.
Magnusson, D., & Torestad, B. (1993). A holistic view of personality: A model revisited.
Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 427–452.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1): 63–87.
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 737–774.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to
detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. The
Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 740–760.
Neisser, U. (1993). The perceived self: Ecological and interpersonal sources of self-knowl-
edge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning:
Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. The
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4): 511–526.
Nielsen, S. (2009). Why do top management teams look the way they do? A multilevel
exploration of the antecedents of TMT heterogeneity. Strategic Organization, 7(3):
277–305.
O’Shea, P. G., Foti, R. J., Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Bycio, P. (2009). Are the best leaders
transformational and transactional? A pattern-oriented analysis. Leadership, 5:
337–359.
Osland, J., & Bird, A. (2006). Global leaders as experts. In Mobley, W., & Weldon, E. (Eds.),
Advances in global leadership (Vol 4, pp. 123–142). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Osland, J., Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Global leadership: Progress and
challenges. In R. Baghat & R. Steers (Eds.), Handbook of culture, organization and
work (pp. 245–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Osland, J. (2013). An overview of the global leadership literature. In M. E. Mendenhall,
J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, M. L. Maznevski, M. J. Stevens, & G. K. Stahl (Eds.),
Global leadership: Research, practice and development (2nd ed., pp. 40–79). New
York: Routledge.
Oyserman, D. (2004). Self concept and identity. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
Self and social identity (pp. 5–24). MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The impact of a performance crisis on attributions of
charismatic leadership: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 1991 Eastern
Academy of Management Meetings.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference:
An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24:
293–309.
G Model
WORBUS-666; No. of Pages 12
12 A. Lisak, M. Erez / Journal of World Business xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders
through international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. The
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(2): 237–260.
Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. (2003). A primer on interaction effects in multiple linear
regression. Retrieved November10.
Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E.
(2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality
and intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22(3): 471–481.
Riordan, C. M., & McFarlane-Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee
attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 342–358.
Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal
trust in multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 206–220). NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond General
intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence
(CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of
Social Issues, 67(4): 825–840.
Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Schneider, C. (2009). Seeing remote team members as leaders: A
study of US-Scandinavian teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
52(1): 75–94.
Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In K.
S. Cameron & D. S. Whetten (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of
multiple models (pp. 27–54). New York: Academic Press.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437–454.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48: 747–773.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations:
A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(3): 462.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577–594.
Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a
shared understanding in multicultural teams. In B. Mannix, M. Neale, & Y. R. Chen
(Eds.), National culture and groups: Research on managing groups and teams. 9 (pp.
325–352). San Diego, CA: Elsevier JAI Press.
Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence and global identity in multicultural
teams. In S. Ang & L. Van-Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence. Theory,
measurement and applications (pp. 177–191). Armonk, NY: M.
Simola, J., Kuisma, J., Öörni, A., Uusitalo, L., & Hyönä, J. (2011). The impact of salient
advertisements on reading and attention on web pages. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 17(2): 174.
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence.
Leadership Quarterly, 9: 147–160.
Snell, S. A., Snow, C. C., Davidson, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1998). Designing and
supporting transnational teams: The human resource agenda. Human Resource
Management, 37(2): 159–172.
Please cite this article in press as: Lisak, A., & Erez, M. Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics.
Journal of World Business (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.002
Sorrentino, R. M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over time: The functional
value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6):
1091–1099.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2009). Unraveling the effects of
cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work
groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 690–709.
Stanko, T. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2009). The role of cultural elements in virtual teams. In R. S.
Bhaght & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture organizations and work
(pp. 273–304). Cambridge: University press.
Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differenti-
ating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Research,
37(6): 662–700.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous
work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4): 899–
926.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In
S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96: 506–520.
Tung, R. L., & Varma, A. (2008). In P. Smith, M. Peterson, & D. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of
cross-cultural management research (pp. 278–367). CA: Sage publications.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity
and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1008–1022.
Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (2002). Leadership and cooperation in groups: Integrat-
ing the social dilemma and social identity perspectives. European Review of Social
Psychology, 13(1): 155–184.
Vignovic, J. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collabora-
tion: Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95(2): 265–276.
Webster, J., & Wong, W. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms:
Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1): 41–62.
Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. J. (2009). Leadership and team cohesive-
ness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3): 358–370.
Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). The use of person-environment fit in the
selection process. In Ferris, G. (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol 17). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wolfinger, R. D., Tobias, R. D., & Sall, J. (1991). Mixed models: A future direction. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual SAS Users Group Conference (pp.
1380–1388).
Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: What do emergent
leaders do? Information and Organization, 14(1): 27–58.
Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of World
Business, 47(4): 592–603.