Navigating Dissimilarity: How Motivational Cultural Intelligence Enhances Psychological Empowerment And Thriving At Work

Abstract

Workplaces worldwide are changing rapidly, which poses challenges in achieving the desired outcomes. Thus, it is essential for employees to have a higher sense of thriving to cope with work responsibilities and stay positive. Drawing on the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, we examine the effect of team member dissimilarity on the psychological resource of empowerment and the effect of psychological empowerment on thriving. We also investigate the personal resource of motivational cultural intelligence on the relationships between dissimilarity-psychological empowerment and psychological empowerment-thriving at work. Based on a sample of 139 student teams with 481 members that responded to surveys at three time points, our findings suggest that dissimilarity is related to low psychological empowerment when motivational cultural intelligence is low. On the other hand, when dissimilar members are culturally intelligent, they feel more psychologically empowered. Further, psychological empowerment positively affects thriving, and this effect is amplified when individuals possess high levels of motivational cultural intelligence. Limitations and future research avenues are suggested.

Keywords

In the intricate tapestry of a diverse workforce, various factors intersect and play a vital role in shaping the experiences of individuals and their effect on organizations. This requires that companies provide a work environment that not only supports individual characteristics but also cultivates positive psychological resources. This will give companies a competitive advantage and help them sustain. Substantial research has focused on extrinsic factors such as multisource feedback (Lee & Kim, 2020), organizational culture (Chatman & Spataro, 2005), and diversity management practices (van Knippenberg et al., 2020), to enhance employee and organizational outcomes. There has also been a shift to examine the innate capacities (e.g., cultural intelligence) of individuals as relevant contributing factors (Lindsey et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2021).

The notion of ‘thriving’ has received substantial attention in Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS; e.g., Kleine et al., 2019). It is described as a ‘psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and a sense of learning at work’ (Spreitzer et al., 2005, p. 538). It has been examined to positively impact many individual and organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (Kleine et al., 2019). Scholars have explored how thriving mitigates problems by positively moderating the negative association between de-energizing relationships and performance (Gerbasi et al., 2015) and mediating the task identity and autonomy relationship with job satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2020), among others.

Further, Spreitzer and colleagues (2005) propose that thriving at work is socially embedded. This is because vitality comes from relational connections with others, and learning occurs in social interactions, both of which are rooted in social systems. This indicates that employees experience thriving when they are embedded in a system relative to others, indicating a relational perspective. However, a recent meta-analysis (Kleine et al., 2019) indicates that thriving has not yet been explored in the context of relational demography or diversity and dissimilarity. This suggests a lack of understanding of how employees’ sense of thriving will be affected when interacting with dissimilar others.

Workplace differences have been shown to impact outcomes in both positive and negative ways. For example, they can increase creativity but reduce social integration (e.g., Stahl et al., 2010). People distinguish themselves from one another regarding age, educational level, or attitudes and perspectives towards things or situations, leading to challenges related to relational demography. Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) introduced the term ‘relational demography’ (RD) to describe the differences in manager and subordinate characteristics. Goldberg (2005) explicates that the central idea of RD is not an individual’s demographic characteristics that affect work attitudes and behaviors; instead, it is an individual’s demographic characteristics relative to a referent other or group that explain these criteria. This differentiation has important implications because research indicates that the level of an individual’s (dis)similarity with their work unit affects work-related attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behaviors (Chattopadhyay, 1999) and organizational commitment and turnover (Kirchmeyer, 1995). This is conjunct with the socially embedded framework for the thriving model, necessitating the exploration of the dissimilarity effect on employees’ sense of thriving.

The purpose of this study is to find ways in which individuals, irrespective of their racial background or goal commitment, can experience thriving in the workplace. Thus, we examine the unexplored relationship between RD and thriving in the presence of innate capacities of individuals, specifically, psychological empowerment and motivational cultural intelligence. Based on the socially embedded model of thriving (Spreitzer et al., 2005), individuals are likely to thrive in the workplace to the extent that they are agentic and active. Drawing on the Conservation of Resources theory (COR), we argue that employees’ psychological empowerment will provide resources for employees to be active and purposeful at work, leading to thriving. However, from the relational demography perspective (e.g., Avery et al., 2013), being different can negatively influence members’ psychological empowerment. Thus, we argue that dissimilarity reduces psychological empowerment, but this effect can be reduced by the individual’s personal resource - motivational cultural intelligence (M-CQ). Moreover, this personal resource can further enhance the effect of the psychological resource of empowerment on thriving (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

This paper makes several contributions. We examine the relational demography-outcome relationship in light of the conservation of resources (COR) theory. We propose that the innate psychological capacities of individuals, specifically M-CQ, can be leveraged as resources to overcome the detrimental effect of dissimilarity. In particular, we propose that dissimilarity reduces an individual’s level of psychological empowerment. Thus, to manage differences better, we recognize the importance of M-CQ as a personal resource. We examine M-CQ as a potential two-stage moderator for dissimilarity’s effect on psychological empowerment and empowerment’s effect on thriving. By viewing the RD literature in the light of COR theory, we demonstrate the usefulness of personal and psychological resources for managing RD for understanding employee thriving.

Hypotheses Development

Relational Demography and Psychological Empowerment

Relational demography (RD) literature proposes that individuals compare their demographic characteristics relative to those of others in their work unit to determine their level of (dis)similarity to the unit composition (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). These characteristics have been classified in different ways in extant literature. For instance, surface-level which is defined as ‘differences among team members in overt demographic characteristics (Harrison et al., 2002, p. 1030), and deep-level, which is defined as ‘differences among team member’s psychological characteristics, including personalities, values, and attitudes’ (p. 1031). Most RD research has focused on surface-level attributes, examining how demographic (dis)similarities, such as age, gender, and race, influence individual outcomes (David et al., 2015). For example, Hoppe and colleagues (2014) examine the effect of workplace racial/ethnic similarity on employee’s job satisfaction and well-being.

A few empirical studies also considered deep-level attributes, including job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Harrison et al., 1998), values and task meaningfulness (Harrison et al., 2002), and personality (Liao et al., 2008). For example, a study explored how similarity in person-group fit of cultural values impacts outcomes like performance and tenure intentions (Elfenbein & O’Reilly, 2007). The authors grounded their arguments in similarity-attraction and social categorization theories, which are cognitive theories of perception. In this study, we use race as a surface-level dissimilarity attribute and goal commitment (the extent of one’s determination to reach a goal; Locke & Latham, 1990) as a deep-level dissimilarity characteristic.

Relational demography research is rooted in the theoretical framework of social categorization theories, which propose that individuals derive their identity mainly from the social categories to which they belong (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Based on this classification, individuals may develop favorable attitudes toward in-group members and stereotypical approaches toward out-group members. This process has been investigated to negatively impact outcomes such as employee withdrawal (David et al., 2015) and job satisfaction, affective commitment, and in-role and extra-role performance (Bakar & McCann, 2014). More recently, Tuk and colleagues (2019) examined the effect of dissimilarity on choices. The authors posit that even when we consider people different from us, their preferences and opinions impact our choices. They conducted five studies supporting their proposition that dissimilarity perceptions trigger a more general dissimilarity hypothesis, leading to the emergence of preference and choice contrast. These examples indicate the negative influence of heterogeneity and categorizations in the workplace.

Psychological Empowerment (PE) is defined as ‘a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact’ (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1444). Conger and Kanungo (1988) initially defined empowerment as a process. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) presented a cognitive model of empowerment. They suggested four cognitions, which were further refined by Spreitzer (1995) – meaning (an individual’s extent of caring about a task), competence (also referred to as self-efficacy, is an individual’s belief regarding the capability to complete a task skillfully), self-determination (autonomy in initiating and regulating work behaviors and processes), and impact (the extent to which individual’s influence strategic, administrative, and operating outcomes).

Scholars have found several antecedents affecting PE. For instance, Maynard and colleagues (2012) conducted a multi-level review of PE research and found structural empowerment, individual/team characteristics, work design, leadership, and organizational support as antecedents. Also, Seibert and colleagues (2011) used several antecedents in their meta-analytical framework, which they classified into individual characteristics and contextual antecedents.

The RD characteristics vary from each other, leading to sub-group formation based on social categorization theory. When dissimilarity exists, it may lead to a perceived loss of resources such as helping behavior (Liang et al., 2015), shared understanding and communication effectiveness (Stewart & Garcia-Prieto, 2008), or social support within a group (Bodla et al., 2018). This resource loss can, in turn, reduce psychological empowerment as dissimilar individuals may feel less supported or understood, leading to a decrease in their sense of meaningfulness, self-efficacy, control, and impact within the group or organization (Tuuli et al., 2015). Extant literature suggests the effect of these dissimilarity-driven variables on team (Kirkman et al., 2004) and individual empowerment (Malik et al., 2021).

Further, research provides evidence that when teams have socio-political support (such as communication) and can coordinate with other teams, they experience greater empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Liden and colleagues (2000) suggest that team members’ communication plays a vital role in the study of empowerment. The authors argue that relations with co-workers, also termed team-member exchange (TMX; Seers, 1989), may have an ardent effect on empowerment perceptions. The rationale is that team members with good-quality TMX are more likely to exchange information and expertise with their peers (Seers, 1989). Access to such knowledge can allow individuals to feel more impactful (Schermuly & Meyer, 2016), perceive their work to be more meaningful (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), and facilitate effective decision-making (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Team members also enhance their perceptions of self-determination when they share power and authority in the task-completion process (Liden et al., 2000). Thus, as previously mentioned, dissimilarity hampers processes such as communication and increases conflict (Graham et al., 2018), suggesting that it will have a detrimental effect on TMX. Therefore, a lack of cordial and hearty relationships will negatively influence an individual’s PE.

Additionally, each of the four PE dimensions is affected by heterogeneity. To elucidate, competence, also referred to as self-efficacy, will potentially decrease when dissimilar individuals work together. The underlying rationale is that differences lead to out-group formation, as explained by social categorization theory. This would lower an individual’s belief in themselves and their abilities. For instance, scholars have examined workplace ostracism to lower self-esteem, which mediates the relationship with extra-role customer service (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2019).

Further, researchers have shown that heterogeneity negatively influences desirable group processes, including commitment (Riordan & Shore, 1997). Kirkman and colleagues (2004) suggest that these processes affect the development of empowerment dimensions, such as meaning and impact. This is because when a cohort does not cooperate or communicate with each other, or when individuals are not committed to each other because of differences, they will be less likely to feel passionate about their work or comprehend the relevance of their daily tasks. This also ties into self-determination, as individuals will be constrained by sub-group segregation, limiting their work behavior and processes. Based on these rationales, it can be hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1

An individual’s dissimilarity with other team members will be negatively related to the individual’s psychological empowerment.

Psychological Empowerment and Thriving

Thriving at work is a psychological state indicated by the joint experience of two dimensions – vitality (the sense that one is energized and feels alive at work) and learning (growing through new knowledge and skills; Spreitzer et al., 2012). Spreitzer and colleagues (2012) suggest individual and organizational strategies to enable thriving at work, such as decision-making discretion, providing information on the organization and its strategy, giving performance feedback, and promoting diversity. Another study (Ren et al., 2015) found that perceptions of job deprivation concerning cultural instruction competence reduce the sense of thriving; however, this negative effect is mitigated when individuals experience emotional stability. A recent meta-analysis (Kleine et al., 2019) explores thriving’s various predictors (individual characteristics and relational resources) and outcomes (health, attitudes, and performance). The study indicates empowering leadership as an antecedent, which is distinctly different from psychological empowerment. The former is defined as “leader behaviors directed at individuals or entire teams and consisting of delegating authority to employees, promoting their self-directed and autonomous decision-making, coaching, sharing information, and asking for input” (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015, p. 194). In contrast, psychological empowerment is intrinsic to the individual.

Psychological Empowerment has been widely accepted as a source for organizations to compete in today’s dynamic environment. The notion has been demonstrated to positively relate to several attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, including job performance (e.g., Avolio et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2007). As the four dimensions of PE suggest, meaning helps realize the value of a work goal or the purpose that will keep empowered individuals focused on efficiently completing the task. Competence is the individual’s belief in their capability to perform activities skillfully, which helps them believe in their efficacy to influence their job and achieve goals. Self-determination reflects autonomy in initiating and continuing work behaviors (Spreitzer, 1995); this self-driven approach facilitates task execution and completion. Impact refers to the degree of influence on operating outcomes, and this ability to influence tasks further motivates individuals to perform better. Overall, the research considers empowerment a predictor of performance (Maynard et al., 2012).

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory posits that individuals naturally tend to protect, maintain, foster, and further acquire resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Resources refer to anything individuals value to improve their effective functioning and support their performance (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Resources could be categorized based on their effect, external or internal, psychological, among others. Previous scholars have examined different kinds of resources, such as job security (Selenko et al., 2013), resilience (Shin et al., 2012), and emotional intelligence (Winkel et al., 2011). COR theory posits that as individuals gain resources, they are likely to invest and gain more resources, resulting in a gain spiral (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Thus, grounding our arguments in the COR theory, we propose that psychological empowerment and thriving at work will be positively related because PE is also a psychological resource. Employees with a higher level of empowerment will re-invest it at work to gain additional resources, creating a spiral effect. That is why empowered individuals are more likely to thrive since resources reinforce each other (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000).

Further, Spreitzer and colleagues (2005) suggest that thriving positively relates to agentic behaviors such as task focus and heedful relating. Also, the four dimensions of PE enable individuals to be agentic, active, and purposeful at work, leading to thriving. For instance, a higher sense of competence and self-determination will lead to vitality, and doing meaningful and impactful work can facilitate learning. Thus, these four dimensions energize individuals to perform tasks and facilitate learning at work by initiating and completing new tasks with dexterity and a feeling of prosperity. A previous study examined the effect of PE on thriving at work in the context of procedural justice and found it to be significantly positively related (Kim & Beehr, 2020). Another recent study (Shahid et al., 2021) explored the antecedents and consequences of thriving at work and proposed psychological empowerment as a mediator for the effect of organizational virtuousness on thriving. Based on self-determination theory, the authors argue that employees with high psychological empowerment are more likely to thrive. Thus, we propose that:

Hypothesis 2

Psychological empowerment will be positively related to thriving at work.

Moderating Effect of Motivational Cultural Intelligence

RD has been excessively investigated, primarily indicating its detrimental effect on outcomes (e.g., David et al., 2015). One suggested way to manage the resultant adverse effects is by tapping into personal resources. As mentioned earlier, COR theory explains how resources can help mitigate resource loss and facilitate resource gain. Scholars have suggested examples of psychological resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Empirical studies indicate that individuals use personal resources, such as cultural intelligence (CQ), to handle workplace demands and improve performance (Malek & Budhwar, 2013). A more recent study (Ren et al., 2021) examines the effect of cultural intelligence on thriving at work, with a moderating effect of organizational embeddedness. The rationale is drawn from the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, which argues that people are motivated to gain resources (physical, psychological, social, or situational).

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) refers to a person’s capability to adapt successfully to new cultural settings. It is a multidimensional construct comprising four dimensions – metacognitive, cognitive, behavioral, and motivational (Earley & Ang, 2003). Metacognitive and cognitive CQ reflect mental and cognitive capacity in acquiring cultural knowledge, and behavioral CQ demonstrates the capability to exhibit culturally appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions. Motivational CQ (M-CQ) refers to an individual’s mental capacity to direct and sustain energy toward learning about cultural differences and functioning in related situations (Ang et al., 2007). Further, M-CQ’s concept is developed based on work motivation theories and captures both cross-cultural self-efficacy (belief in the ability to be effective in culturally diverse environments) and cross-cultural intrinsic motivation (intrinsic interest in other cultures; Chen et al., 2010).

All four CQ dimensions are relevant; however, some hold greater applicability in specific contexts than others. For this study, we investigate motivational CQ (M-CQ) for several reasons – first, existing literature indicates that motivation provides ‘agentic control of affect, cognition, and behavior, that facilitate goal accomplishment’ (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997, p. 39). Research also supports that M-CQ is relatively more important and that ‘motivational CQ, as one specific aspect of CQ, has the potential to advance our understanding of CQ and serves as a model of future research on CQ’ (Templer et al., 2006, p. 155). Second, few studies that have examined the effect of CQ on cross-cultural adjustment and task performance relations have found evidence that M-CQ is a significant predictor across various tasks and settings, whereas the other dimensions did not show consistent results (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2010).

In addition, Rockstuhl and Van Dyne (2018) examine how the impact of different CQ factors varies by outcome. The authors suggest that M-CQ and behavioral CQ are more critical for adaptation outcomes, whereas metacognitive and cognitive CQ tend to be more important for judgment and decision-making (Ang et al., 2007). Further, adaptation is closely related to thriving as the latter is a subjective experience based on which individuals gauge whether, what, and how they are doing helps them develop in a positive direction (Spreitzer et al., 2005). We do not consider behavioral CQ as it relates to the ability to exhibit (non)verbal behaviors in diverse settings, whereas thriving is more of a cognitive process.

Overall, M-CQ is relevant in the case of heterogeneity because it comprises intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy beliefs, which will help offset the negative outcomes. However, virtually none of the studies examine its effect in the context of relational dissimilarity. Thus, we need a better understanding of the effect of M-CQ on different constructs.

Motivational CQ refers to an individual’s capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in circumstances characterized by cultural differences (Ang et al., 2007). Further, it is not restricted to cross-border effects because companies also have distinctive cultures. When individuals interact with other employees from the same company but in a different department or geographical region, high M-CQ will aid in the awareness and adjustment process. Thus, M-CQ will be relevant for surface- and deep-level traits. Tapping into this personal resource will assist in accommodating situations and adopting differences, which will help individuals manage heterogeneity-related challenges and counteract any adverse effects.

Further, scholars propose that individuals with high M-CQ may look for opportunities to interact with out-group members as they would value these interactions and are more likely to overcome obstacles and misunderstandings. Therefore, high motivational cultural intelligence can reduce the likelihood of emerging social categorization processes (Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). These cooperative motives will help overcome perceived difference-related issues and improve communication and cohesion between unit members, attenuating the negative effect of dissimilarity on psychological empowerment.

Hypothesis 3a

Motivational CQ will moderate the effect of dissimilarity such that when motivational CQ is high, the negative effect of dissimilarity on psychological empowerment will be attenuated.

In addition, continuing our arguments for the positive effect of psychological empowerment on thriving at work, it is important to note that employees who feel empowered at the workplace tend to be more confident and engaged, contributing to their overall sense of well-being and thriving. High M-CQ will further strengthen this effect because employees with high M-CQ can direct attention and energy to learn about and work in diverse situations (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). When employees feel empowered, having high M-CQ may amplify its effect by providing them with the cultural skills and motivation to utilize their empowerment effectively in diverse work environments. This can also be understood based on the COR theory, which suggests that people with a greater pool of resources are more capable of resource gain, and different types of resources are likely to reinforce each other (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000).

Therefore, we argue that M-CQ will act as a personal resource for the employees, reinforcing employees’ sense of empowerment and facilitating workplace thriving. To exemplify, an employee has a sense of autonomy in their operational processes, believe their work to be meaningful, are high on self-efficacy, and have the network to influence workplace outcomes. If these beliefs and values are supplemented with the mental ability to direct and stay persistent on a particular task (M-CQ; Ang et al., 2007), the employee is certain to feel energized and acquire and apply knowledge. Existing literature also indicates that overall cultural intelligence and psychological empowerment are important factors that enhance team outcomes (Curran et al., 2021). Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3b

Motivational CQ will moderate the effect of psychological empowerment on thriving at work such that when motivational CQ is high, the positive effect of psychological empowerment on thriving at work will be strengthened.

Method

Research Setting and Data Collection

The research was conducted using teams comprising undergraduate students at two large public universities in the Midwestern and Western regions of the United States. The students were enrolled in upper-division business administration courses and worked on projects during a 16-week semester. Although students were enrolled in different courses and worked on distinct projects, the relevance of assignments was consistent as semester-end work with similar course grading. This would result in the same level of expected commitment and effort teams would have toward the goal. University-based research teams provide a good data collection source to test our proposed model, as it assures a high level of diversity in cultural beliefs, functional backgrounds, and gender. Data were collected in three phases during 16 weeks using surveys.

Surveys

Electronic surveys were distributed to potential participants in three phases. We structured our data collection phases to align with the different stages of our theoretical model, which also helps reduce common method variances. Phase I was preceded by a cover letter describing and explaining the research’s purpose and scope, and survey measures include surface-level and deep-level diversity attributes and motivational CQ. Phase II data collection comprised questions for PE. The last wave of data collection comprised responses for thriving at work. Surveys for the first two waves were distributed 7 weeks apart, and the last survey was distributed at the semester’s end.

Although cultural intelligence is proposed to be a malleable construct (Earley & Ang, 2003), there are factors that drive the change, such as cultural exposure, training, and mentoring. Previous studies (Ang et al., 2007) examined the generalizability of the cultural intelligence scale over time and found that the four-factor model was held across the time periods investigated. Another study (Van Dyne et al., 2015), with a similar test, reported that cognitive and behavioral CQ changed across the two time periods. This was because the respondents studied cultural values and engaged in experiential role-playing exercises during the study. Metacognitive and motivational CQ results indicate that they did not change over time. There was likely no change for this study, as we examined only M-CQ. Also, the students were not subjected to any training or generalized experiences. Additionally, CQ has been examined in studies where data has been collected longitudinally (e.g., Chen & Lin, 2013). Therefore, we measured M-CQ at time 1, considering it to be a relatively stable personal resource among the students in our sample.

Sample

Surveys were distributed to 1373 participants, and 721 valid responses were obtained, resulting in a 52.51% response rate. We checked the correlations between the first-wave independent variables and whether or not the respondents participated in the second-wave survey. No significant correlations were found. Therefore, we believe there was little evidence of non-response bias.

Although RD is to be measured at the individual level, the differences are in the work unit’s context, teams in this case. Therefore, only those teams with more than 50% with-in-team response rates were included in this study. Thus, our final data comprised 481 individuals, constituting 139 teams. Team size ranged from 3 to 7, with an average of 3.5 members. There were 16.55% of teams with a 100% intra-team response rate, 11.55% with ≥80%, 48.92% with ≥70%, 12.95% with ≥60%, and 10.07% with ≥50% intra-team response rate. The participant’s composition based on ethnicity is as follows: Caucasian Americans (43.87%), African Americans (3.33%), Hispanics (18.92%), Asians (24.32%), and the remaining 9.56% were from ethnicities such as Native American and Middle Eastern. The team member’s age range was 19–55 (median = 22). 52.18% of the team members were females. The majority of the team members were from the following disciplinary backgrounds: Business Management/Administration (18.92%), Finance (10.19%), Accounting (13.93%), Marketing (21.83%), Human Resource Management (11.85%), Information Technology Management (3.33%), 9.98% of the students had double majors, and the remaining 9.98% were from seven other disciplines such as Supply Chain Operations Management and Entertainment and Tourism Management.

Measures

A thorough literature review was undertaken to identify scales used in past research for our model’s constructs to design and validate an appropriate survey instrument. Responses for all the items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

As noted earlier, dissimilarity was measured using a surface (race) and a deep-level (goal commitment) construct. Race has been extensively examined (e.g., Hoppe et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2019) as a predictor in RD literature. Further, we chose goal commitment as the deep-level attribute because it is salient in the context of student teams. Goal commitment influences how team members prioritize tasks and contribute to the team’s overall success (Klein et al., 2001). Previous diversity research has indicated that goal commitment is an essential deep-level attribute (Zhang & Chen, 2023). It has a strong comparative fit (i.e., it reflects the actual difference among team members), normative fit (i.e., it makes sense and the extent of involvement of team members is important and meaningful to team members), and cognitive fit (i.e., team members realize the differences and it is easy to notice if some members are less involved in team projects) (Turner et al., 1994; van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

The race was self-reported by participants during the first wave of data collection. As proposed and used by previous scholars (Chattopadhyay, 2003; Tsui et al., 1992), an individual’s dissimilarity level was assessed using Euclidean distance. It is the root mean squared distance between each i (one member) and j (all other members) pairs for each attribute. Total Euclidean distance is the sum of Euclidean distances for all n unit members and is assessed using the following formula:

{[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j = 1}^{n} {(s_{i} - s_{j})}^{2}]}^{\frac{1}{2}}

To illustrate, a relational score on race was computed by examining the differences among all racial groups in a team. In a team with one African-American, one Asian, and two Hispanics, the relational score for the African-American and Asian, respectively, would be 3 (1 for being different from each other and 2 for being different from each of the two Hispanics), 2 for each of the two Hispanics (1 for being different from African-American, 1 for being different from Asian, and 0 for no difference from each other). The dissimilarity score was computed such that a larger score means that the participant is more different from their peers (scores range: 0–.99; Tsui et al., 1992).

Goal commitment (the extent to which individuals are committed to their goal) was assessed using five items adopted from Klein and colleagues (2001). A sample item is ‘I am strongly committed to pursuing this goal’ (α = .71). The dissimilarity score was computed using Tsui and colleagues’ (1992) formula. Previous scholars (Van der Vegt, 2002) have used this to measure the dissimilarity of respondents’ deep-level traits to that of other respondents in a workgroup.

Psychological Empowerment ratings were captured using Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale, with three items each for meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Sample items include ‘I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job’ (self-determination); ‘The work that I do is very important to me’ (meaning); ‘I am confident about my ability to do my job’ (competence); and ‘My impact on what happens in my group is large’ (impact). Collectively, the 12 items exhibited α = .85 (e.g., Maynard et al., 2014).

The motivational-CQ of individuals was assessed using a five-item scale from Ang et al. (2007). A sample item is ‘I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me’ (α = .85).

The outcome was assessed based on the participant’s perspective on whether they feel they are thriving at work, assessed using a ten-item scale developed by Porath et al. (2012). This measure includes five items each for learning and vitality and is prefixed with ‘At work…”. A sample item for learning is ‘I continue to learn more and more as time goes by,’ and for vitality is ‘I feel alive and vital.’ We aggregated the two subscales (α = .90).

Team size can influence various processes, outcomes, and diversity measures (e.g., Harrison et al., 2002). Therefore, we used it as a control variable.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To further examine the validity of the measures, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We used SPSS AMOS 27 to conduct the CFA. First, we did CFA for variables from the first wave of data collection: goal commitment and M-CQ. The CFA results show that an acceptable fit was achieved (χ² = 187.47, df = 26, p < .00). The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR = .08), comparative fit index (CFI = .91), incremental fit index (IFI = .92), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = .08), and p-close were 0, which suggested an acceptable fit. Likewise, we did CFA from the second wave of data collection (four sub-dimensions of PE), for which the results are: χ² = 147.81, df = 48, p < .00, SRMR = .05, CFI = .97, IFI = .97, RMSEA = .072 and p-close = 0. CFA from the third wave of data collection comprised thriving at work (two sub-dimensions); the results are χ² = 303.41, df = 34, p < .00, SRMR = .08, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .08 and p-close = 0.02.

We also examined the composite model with all the variables. The results show an acceptable fit (χ² = 1146.57, df = 394, p < .00, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .07, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, and p-close = 0). These values suggest that the four subdimensions of PE load on the overall PE construct. The overall PE model has been used in previous research (e.g., Pieterse et al., 2010). Further, although thriving has two dimensions, it is not appropriate to analyze individual thriving dimensions as thriving is not fully captured by either a sense of vitality or learning. The two dimensions together form a thriving status (e.g., Jiang et al., 2020; Porath et al., 2012).

Common Method Variance

To further check common method variance, we used several approaches. First, we ran Harman’s Single Factor Test by conducting a Principal Factor Analysis with all items included (goal commitment, motivational-cultural intelligence, psychological empowerment, and thriving at work) and restricting the number of extracted factors to one. The analysis revealed that the first factor accounted for 24.72% of the total variance. This suggests that common method bias is unlikely to be an issue in the data, as no single factor explains the majority of the variance. Second, we conducted the Unmeasured Latent Method Construct (ULMC) since CFA techniques are widely accepted and used for CMV concerns (Williams & McGonagle, 2016). A comparison between regression weights for the baseline model and model with the unmeasured common latent factor revealed differences of less than 0.09, falling below the commonly used threshold of 0.2 (Chin et al., 2012; Simon & Tossan, 2018). Finally, we conducted the marker model (Williams & McGonagle, 2016). We included the substantive factors for confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS and added an uncorrelated method factor. Then, we constrained the factor correlations to the values obtained in the prior CFA that did not include the method factor. We analyzed the modified model and compared the fit of the two models (χ² = 1101.59, df = 399, p < .00, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .08, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, and p-close = 0; values for the composite model are above). Since the fit of these two CFAs is not significantly different from each other, we can conclude that CMV does not pose a problem.

Hypotheses Testing

Although Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) is a more appropriate analytical tool for nested data because of its ability to simultaneously account for different level variances (Lai et al., 2013), we analyzed the data using regression. This is because the Inter Class Correlation (ICC) for psychological empowerment is near zero, suggesting that all the variability is at the individual level. Because mixed models do not converge when the between-team variance is near zero, regression models without the random effect are fit whenever the numeric optimization fails for the mixed models. Thus, we tested the hypotheses using regression in SPSS 29.0 and with PROCESS macro v4.2, Model 1 for the moderation hypotheses (3a and 3b). Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and correlations.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables.

		Means	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1	Difference in race	0.60	0.28
2	Difference in goal commitment	1.03	0.69	.10*
3	Motivational cultural intelligence	2.48	0.94	−.11*	−.01
4	Psychological empowerment	2.60	0.74	.02	0	.22**
5	Thriving at work	2.36	0.91	−.08	−.05	.34**	.41**
6	Team size	3.6	0.77	.24**	.09	−.02	−.02	.02

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. N = 481.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that an individual’s dissimilarity with other team members is negatively related to the individual’s empowerment. To test this hypothesis, we regressed psychological empowerment on race and goal commitment dissimilarity and the control variable team size. Consistent with the non-significance in the correlation table, no significant associations are found (refer to Table 2a, step 1). Hypothesis 1 is not supported.

Table 2a.

Regression Results for Interaction Effect of Relational Demography With Motivational-Cultural Intelligence on Psychological Empowerment.

	Psychological Empowerment
Variable	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Intercept	2.65***	2.17***
Team size	−.02	−.02
Race dissimilarity	.04	.05
Goal commitment dissimilarity	−.01	−.01
Motivational-cultural intelligence (M-CQ)		0.17***
Race dissimilarity x M-CQ			−.04
Goal commitment dissimilarity x M-CQ			.08**
Overall R²	.00	.04	.05
Adjusted R²	−.01	.05	.05
Overall F	.12	6.52***	5.06***

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. (n = 481).

Hypothesis 2 posited that psychological empowerment will positively affect thriving at work. We conducted a linear regression to test this hypothesis, and the results indicate that the effect is positive and significant (β = .44, p < .001; refer to Table 2b step 2). Thus, hypothesis 2 is supported.

Table 2b.

Regression Results for Interaction Effect of Psychological Empowerment With Motivational-Cultural Intelligence on Thriving at Work.

	Thriving at Work
Variable	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Intercept	.93***	.47*	1.67***
Team size	.03	.04	.05
Psychological empowerment	.51***	.44***	.40***
Motivational-cultural intelligence (M-CQ)		.25***	.22***
Psychological empowerment x M-CQ			.10*
Overall R²	.17	.24	.26
Adjusted R²	.17	.23	.23
Overall F	49.47***	49.07***	33.49***

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. (n = 481).

Hypothesis 3(a) proposed that M-CQ will positively moderate the effect of dissimilarity on empowerment (refer to Table 2a, step 3 for results). To test this hypothesis, we first added Motivational CQ to the regression equation above. As shown in Table 2a (step 2), M-CQ is positively related to psychological empowerment (β = .17, p < .001). Then, we did the moderation test using the PROCESS macro (model 1). The variables were centered before running the analysis. Results indicate a significant, positive interaction between goal commitment dissimilarity and M-CQ (β = .08, p < .001). This means that goal commitment dissimilarity, whose effect is (non-significant) −.01 when M-CQ is at its mean, becomes positive as M-CQ increases (refer to Figure 2). We also conducted a simple slopes test (Aiken & West, 1991). Our results confirmed that the relationship between goal commitment dissimilarity and psychological empowerment was negative and significant (β = −.20, p < .005) when M-CQ was low but positive and significant (β = .18, p < .005) when M-CQ was high. This is consistent with the hypothesis. Further, race dissimilarity had a negative, non-significant interaction with M-CQ. Thus, it can be concluded that hypothesis 3(a) is partially supported.

Figure 2.

Interaction of goal commitment dissimilarity and motivational cultural intelligence with psychological empowerment as dependent variable.

Hypothesis 3(b) stated that M-CQ will moderate the effect of psychological empowerment on thriving at work. Results for this moderation effect based on PROCESS macro (model 1) indicate that the effect is positive and significant (β = 0.10, p < .05), suggesting that as the level of M-CQ increases, the effect of empowerment on thriving strengthens (refer to Table 2b, step 3 for results). The simple slope analysis (Figure 3) indicates that the relationship between empowerment and thriving is positively and significantly moderated at different levels of M-CQ (β = 0.31 and 0.49, p < .001 at low and high levels, respectively). Thus, hypothesis 3(b) is supported.

Figure 3.

Interaction of psychological empowerment and motivational cultural intelligence with thriving at work as dependent variable.

Discussion

We integrate the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1998) with relational demography literature and examine the dissimilarity antecedents and workplace thriving outcome. Based on our sample of 139 student teams with 481 members, we found that the effect of dissimilarity on an individual’s psychological empowerment can be managed by leveraging their M-CQ. Further, psychological empowerment directly influences a person’s sense of thriving. Additionally, the personal resource of motivational cultural intelligence (M-CQ) served as a boundary condition to regulate the effect of dissimilarity on psychological empowerment and augmented the impact of the psychological resource of empowerment on workplace thriving.

Analysis of the interaction effects offers interesting results. The moderating effect of motivational-CQ (M-CQ) with perceived goal commitment dissimilarity was found to have a significant and positive effect on PE. That is, when the M-CQ level is low, the perceived difference in goal commitment has a significant negative effect on PE, and when M-CQ is high, it has a significant positive effect. Thus, we can conclude that when individuals have higher M-CQ, the negative effect of goal commitment variation on PE decreases significantly. M-CQ brought up the positive effect of dissimilarity; if employees exhibit high goal commitment dissimilarity but possess high levels of M-CQ, they are likely to feel more empowered.

On the other hand, if employees are dissimilar but not culturally intelligent, they feel less empowered. Therefore, being dissimilar is not harmful in and of itself. The adverse effects arise only when the individual lacks the necessary personal resources, in our case, M-CQ. On the other hand, we did not find significant interactions for race dissimilarity with M-CQ. As Harrison and colleagues (2002) noted, surface-level attributes lose effect over time. Most of the students in our sample had prior familiarity with each other, so surface-level characteristics such as race may not play an essential role in their interactions. However, deep-level attributes such as goal commitment can be critical as they all worked in the course project teams. Our results suggest that although being different in goal commitment is not harmful, dissimilar team members will feel less empowered without M-CQ.

Besides the dissimilarity and PE relationship, our study also highlights the critical role of the psychological resource of empowerment and individual resource of M-CQ as important inputs to thriving in a diverse team. In doing so, we make several contributions to the relational demography, empowerment, and thriving literature.

First, we explore the RD-outcome relationship concurrent with an individual’s innate resources and examine how they overcome heterogeneity-related issues. Research on the subject has predominantly focused on external contingency and mediating factors that eventually decrease performance because of the dissimilarity effect. This is a deviation from the traditional approach, indicating that personal resources can be used to manage the effect of dissimilarity and that differences in themselves are not detrimental.

Second, we extend the thriving literature by examining it with other positive resources by grounding our arguments in the conservation of resources theory. Recent studies have explored the relationship of thriving with antecedents such as servant leadership and personality traits (Walumbwa et al., 2018) and cultural intelligence and expatriate retention (Ren et al., 2021). However, virtually none of the studies focus on heterogeneity as a construct, and research on the effect of psychological empowerment and thriving is limited. We pinpoint M-CQ as a personal resource that interacts with the psychological resource of empowerment to foster employee thriving. In doing so, we identify the boundary conditions that connect psychological empowerment to thriving and demonstrate the usefulness of using COR theory as a lens to study the thriving of dissimilar employees.

Third, this investigation contributes to the psychological empowerment theory by analyzing its role in heterogeneity literature. In particular, by identifying M-CQ as an essential personal resource that helps weaken the effect of dissimilarity, we can look at dissimilarity from a positive perspective. Although based on a student group sample, our study provides hope that dissimilarity in terms of goal commitment can foster psychological empowerment in the presence of high M-CQ.

Overall, by employing the Conservation of Resource (COR) theory, we enhance dissimilarity’s theoretical comprehension by integrating it with empowerment and thriving literature and using M-CQ as a boundary condition. Traditionally, social categorization theories have explained the detrimental effects of dissimilarity. However, the joint contribution of personal and psychological resources can be used to manage dissimilarity better.

Practical Implications

Our study offers essential guidance for practitioners. To start with, it suggests that workforce differences are not necessarily detrimental to organizational outcomes. Organizations and managers can administer dissimilarities better by focusing on the employee’s inner resources, such as motivational cultural intelligence. In particular, companies can amend their selection process to include an assessment of employees’ cultural intelligence or build a training program to enhance their motivational cultural intelligence. For instance, a study proposed an intercultural contact framework for cultural intelligence development (Chao et al., 2017). The authors highlight the role and relevance of intercultural rejection sensitivity and cross-cultural adjustment in the process. Likewise, Raver and Van Dyne (2017) explore the cultural intelligence concept and examine its development with approaches such as training or development and intercultural experience. Managers can also focus on interventions and strategies that aim to understand and manage goal commitment-related differences. This can benefit organizations and teams by creating an environment that will support their empowerment levels.

Besides M-CQ, our study also indicates that psychological empowerment plays a crucial role in fostering employee thriving within a diverse environment. To further enhance employee psychological empowerment, managers can foster open and transparent communication, promote a sense of autonomy among dissimilar employees, and encourage participative decision-making. To exemplify, Conger and Kanungo (1988) identify antecedents for powerlessness and suggest a five-stage process model to improve empowerment based on management and psychology literature.

As the results of this study indicate, an individual’s positive capacities can mitigate the adverse effects and strengthen positive outcomes. An understanding that the effects of positive traits can help combat dissimilarity challenges provides assurance. Organizations can further capitalize on this by aligning rewards to such outcomes. Managers can also recognize individuals and teams that demonstrate high levels of their capacities or use them as resources over time and demonstrate growth.

Specifically, companies with a diverse workforce with employees working collaboratively can take advantage of the findings from our study. If employees can pay more attention to the positive aspects that they can manage rather than engage in external differences that are beyond their control, they will be able to work better and have a sense of thriving. This can lead to other beneficial outcomes for the employee and organization.

Limitations and Future Research

There are limitations of this study, and it offers avenues for future research. First, the hypotheses are tested in an academic setting. Although the participants are from diverse backgrounds and have work experience, the student sample lacks generalizability. Thus, a possible area for future exploration will be to test the relationships in an alternative setting (e.g., organizations). Another limitation of our study is that we use one variable each for surface- and deep-level dissimilarity. It will be useful for future studies to explore more relational demography variables beyond race and goal commitment, such as gender, tenure, personality, and cultural values. Also, how do the perceptions of differences or dissimilarities operate differently in traditional teams versus virtual teams? During the COVID-19 pandemic, many teams were forced to work virtually. In this case, what mechanisms can influence RD’s effects in virtual teams?

In addition, we used single-source data to examine the antecedents of thriving. The potential common method variances have inhibited our ability to assess psychological empowerment’s ability to predict thriving. However, Harman’s single-factor, ULMC, and marker method tests demonstrated that common method variance was not a significant biasing source in our data. We also employed a three-wave data collection and proposed and found evidence for moderated relationships between dissimilarity and psychological empowerment and psychological empowerment and workplace thriving, which should be less influenced by common method variance (Evans, 1985). Nevertheless, our model’s more rigorous test would be to collect data from multiple sources and assess other individual outcomes, such as leader-rated member performance and creativity.

Further, this study was conducted over a 16-week period; however, the measures were collected in specific phases. It will be interesting to find out if the effect of constructs varies over time. So, we encourage scholars to conduct longitudinal studies with repeated measures at multiple times to assess if their effects change significantly. Also, substantial heterogeneity-related research suggests that the adverse effects of dissimilarity deplete over time (Harrison et al., 2003; Schippers et al., 2003). In our study, the teams collaborated for approximately four months, so it will be valuable to explore whether the results would differ for teams working together over a longer period. In addition, the current study examines the moderating effect of M-CQ on the dissimilarity-psychological empowerment and psychological empowerment-thriving relation. Although we emphasized M-CQ as an essential personal resource that helps buffer the negative effect dissimilarity, future research is needed to investigate other personal/contextual resources or positive psychological resources such as emotional intelligence and psychological capital as potential moderators. We also call for research to test mediation models on the relationship between dissimilarity and thriving, using different resources.

Further, we included teams with 50% within team response rate and up for our analysis. This resulted in missing members from a team who may be unable to provide a broader perspective, and potential biases. Thus, in the future, it is encouraged to examine the model in teams with a 100% intra-team response rate for more robustness.

Finally, we assess the effect of surface- and deep-level dissimilarity. In contrast, an alternative approach could be to identify the impact of demographic similarity instead, which should intuitively strengthen the influence of psychological empowerment and, eventually, a higher performance. Finally, many other positive psychology variables have been investigated in organizational behavior research and can be integrated with RD to examine the impact. For example, goal congruence has been researched to benefit outcomes (e.g., Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001). Similarly, a higher-level construct could be an active learning climate with a favorable effect (Naveh et al., 2015). The focal point is to bring positive psychological capacities/traits to the forefront and examine benefits reaped from an individual’s intrinsic resource base.

Conclusion

In this study, we endeavor to view a conventional situation from an unconventional perspective. We extend the relational demography literature by integrating positive organizational scholarship variables (psychological empowerment, motivational cultural intelligence, and thriving) within the COR framework. Using three-wave data, we demonstrate the positive effect of motivational cultural intelligence and a better way to manage workplace differences by capitalizing on our inner resources. We also provide recommendations for avenues to be explored further. The study contributes to theory and practice in several ways, and we anticipate that it will act as a stimulus for others to advance the topic and identify new findings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Manpreet Kaur

Author Biographies

Manpreet Kaur is an Assistant Professor of Management at the Whittier College. She received her PhD from The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Her research interests include team diversity, faultlines, positive psychology, culture, and implications of technology in the workplace.

Hong Ren is an Associate Professor of Management at the Sheldon B. Lubar College of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She received her PhD from The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include team diversity and networks, conflict management across cultures, expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment and AI application in human resource management.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Ang

Van Dyne

(2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence. Sharpe.

Ang

Van Dyne

Koh

K. Y.

Templer

K. J.

Tay

Chandrasekar

N. A.

(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

Avery

D. R.

Wang

Volpone

S. D.

Zhou

(2013). Different strokes for different folks: The impact of sex dissimilarity in the empowerment–performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 757–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12032

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

Bhatia

(2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.283

Bakar

H. A.

McCann

R. M.

(2014). Matters of demographic similarity and dissimilarity in supervisor–subordinate relationships and workplace attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.04.004

Bodla

A. A.

Tang

Jiang

Tian

(2018). Diversity and creativity in cross-national teams: The role of team knowledge sharing and inclusive climate. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(5), 711–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.34

Chao

M. M.

Takeuchi

Farh

J. L.

(2017). Enhancing cultural intelligence: The roles of implicit culture beliefs and adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 257–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12142

Chatman

J. A.

Spataro

S. E.

(2005). Using self-categorization theory to understand relational demography–based variations in people’s responsiveness to organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.16928415

10.

Chattopadhyay

(1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.5465/256919

11.

Chattopadhyay

(2003). Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open versus closed minds. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.188

12.

Chen

Kirkman

B. L.

Kanfer

Allen

Rosen

(2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331

13.

Chen

Kirkman

B. L.

Kim

Farh

C. I.

Tangirala

(2010). When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1110–1130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533217

14.

Chen

M. L.

Lin

C. P.

(2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence on team knowledge sharing from a socio‐cognitive perspective. Human Resource Management, 52(5), 675–695. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21558

15.

Chin

W. W.

Thatcher

J. B.

Wright

R. T.

(2012). Assessing common method bias: Problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 1003. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703491

16.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306983

17.

Curran

Arroteia

Blesa

Musteen

Ripollés

(2021). Improving cultural intelligence, psychological empowerment, and task performance in the classroom: Global game challenge. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 32(1), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2021.1906380

18.

David

E. M.

Avery

D. R.

Witt

L. A.

McKay

P. F.

(2015). A time‐lagged investigation of the impact of co-worker behavior on the effects of demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(4), 582–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1999

19.

Earley

P. C.

Ang

(2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.

20.

Elfenbein

H. A.

O'Reilly

C. A.

III (2007). Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and person-culture fit on group process and performance. Group & Organization Management, 32(1), 109–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106286882

21.

Evans

M. G.

(1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0

22.

Gerbasi

Porath

C. L.

Parker

Spreitzer

Cross

(2015). Destructive de-energizing relationships: How thriving buffers their effect on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1423–1433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000015

23.

Goldberg

C. B.

(2005). Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assessments and subsequent offer decisions are we missing something? Group & Organization Management, 30(6), 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104267661

24.

Graham

K. A.

Dust

S. B.

Ziegert

J. C.

(2018). Supervisor-employee power distance incompatibility, gender similarity, and relationship conflict: A test of interpersonal interaction theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000265

25.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Neveu

J. P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130

26.

Harrison

D. A.

Mohammed

McGrath

J. E.

Florey

A. T.

Vanderstoep

S. W.

(2003). Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 633–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00753.x

27.

Harrison

D. A.

Price

K. H.

Bell

M. P.

(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/256901

28.

Harrison

D. A.

Price

K. H.

Gavin

J. H.

Florey

A. T.

(2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069328

29.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1998). Stress, culture and community: The psychology and philosophy of stress. Plenum.

30.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

31.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Shirom

(2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In Golembiewski

R. T.

(Ed.), Handbook of Organization Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 57–81). Marcel Dekker.

32.

Hoppe

Fujishiro

Heaney

C. A.

(2014). Workplace racial/ethnic similarity, job satisfaction, and lumbar back health among warehouse workers: Asymmetric reactions across racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1860

33.

Huertas-Valdivia

Braojos

Lloréns-Montes

F. J.

(2019). Counteracting workplace ostracism in hospitality with psychological empowerment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76(A), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.013

34.

Jiang

Di Milia

Jiang

(2020). Thriving at work: A mentoring-moderated process linking task identity and autonomy to job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118(1), Article 103373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103373

35.

Kanfer

Heggestad

E. D.

(1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1–56.

36.

Kim

Beehr

T. A.

(2020). Making the case for procedural justice: Employees thrive and work hard. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-03-2019-0154

37.

Kirchmeyer

(1995). Demographic similarity to the work group: A longitudinal study of managers at the early career stage. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160109

38.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

(1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/256874

39.

Kirkman

B. L.

Tesluk

P. E.

Rosen

(2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 29(3), 334–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257412

40.

Klein

H. J.

Wesson

M. J.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Wright

P. M.

DeShon

R. P.

(2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2931

41.

Kleine

A. K.

Rudolph

C. W.

Zacher

(2019). Thriving at work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9–10), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2375

42.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Stevens

C. K.

(2001). Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1083

43.

Lai

J. Y.

Lam

L. W.

Lam

S. S.

(2013). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A team cultural perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1840

44.

Lee

H. W.

Kim

(2020). Workforce diversity and firm performance: Relational coordination as a mediator and structural empowerment and multisource feedback as moderators. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21970

45.

Liang

H. Y.

Shih

H. A.

Chiang

Y. H.

(2015). Team diversity and team helping behavior: The mediating roles of team cooperation and team cohesion. European Management Journal, 33(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.07.002

46.

Liao

Chuang

Joshi

(2008). Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(2), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.002

47.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407

48.

Lindsey

King

Hebl

Levine

(2015). The impact of method, motivation, and empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9384-3

49.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice Hall.

50.

Malek

M. A.

Budhwar

(2013). Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate adjustment and performance in Malaysia. Journal of World Business, 48(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.006

51.

Malik

Sarwar

Orr

(2021). Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Project Management, 39(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.09.002

52.

Maynard

M. T.

Gilson

L. L.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2012). Empowerment - fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312438773

53.

Maynard

M. T.

Luciano

M. M.

D'Innocenzo

Mathieu

J. E.

Dean

M. D.

(2014). Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment–performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1244–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037623

54.

Miller

C. D.

Richard

O. C.

Ford Jr

D. L.

(2019). Ethno-racial similarity, relationship conflict and trust in supervisor-subordinate dyads. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(2), 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-01-2018-0014

55.

Naveh

Katz‐Navon

Stern

(2015). Active learning climate and employee errors: The moderating effects of personality traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2000

56.

Pieterse

A. N.

Van Knippenberg

Schippers

Stam

(2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.650

57.

Porath

Spreitzer

Gibson

Garnett

F. G.

(2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756

58.

Raver

J. L.

Van Dyne

(2017). 18 developing cultural intelligence. In The cambridge handbook of workplace training and employee development (Vol. 407). Cambridge University Press.

59.

Ren

Yunlu

D. G.

Shaffer

Fodchuk

K. M.

(2015). Expatriate success and thriving: The influence of job deprivation and emotional stability. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.007

60.

Ren

Yunlu

D. G.

Shaffer

M. A.

Fodchuk

K. M.

(2021). Thriving and retention of expatriates: Cultural intelligence and organizational embeddedness inputs. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 21(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958211004655

61.

Riordan

C. M.

Shore

L. M.

(1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.3.342

62.

Rockstuhl

K. Y.

(2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams. In Ang L

V. D. S.

(Ed.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 206–220). M. E. Sharpe.

63.

Rockstuhl

Van Dyne

(2018). A bi-factor theory of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence: Meta-analysis and theoretical extensions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.07.005

64.

Schermuly

C. C.

Meyer

(2016). Good relationships at work: The effects of Leader–Member Exchange and Team–Member Exchange on psychological empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 673–691. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2060

65.

Schippers

M. C.

Den Hartog

D. N.

Koopman

P. L.

Wienk

J. A.

(2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.220

66.

Seers

(1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5

67.

Seibert

S. E.

Wang

Courtright

S. H.

(2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676

68.

Selenko

Mäkikangas

Mauno

Kinnunen

(2013). How does job insecurity relate to self-reported job performance? Analysing curvilinear associations in a longitudinal sample. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12020

69.

Shahid

Muchiri

M. K.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2021). Mapping the antecedents and consequences of thriving at work: A review and proposed research agenda. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-09-2019-1881

70.

Sharma

P. N.

Kirkman

B. L.

(2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 193–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115574906

71.

Shin

Taylor

M. S.

Seo

(2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325

72.

Simon

Tossan

(2018). Does brand-consumer social sharing matter? A relational framework of customer engagement to brand-hosted social media. Journal of Business Research, 85, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.050

73.

Spreitzer

Porath

C. L.

Gibson

C. B.

(2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009

74.

Spreitzer

Sutcliffe

Dutton

Sonenshein

Grant

A. M.

(2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153

75.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865

76.

Stahl

G. K.

Maznevski

M. L.

Voigt

Jonsen

(2010). 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. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85

77.

Stewart

M. M.

Garcia‐Prieto

(2008). A relational demography model of workgroup identification: Testing the effects of race, race dissimilarity, racial identification, and communication behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(5), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.523

78.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In Worchel

Austin

L. W.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall.

79.

Templer

K. J.

Tay

Chandrasekar

N. A.

(2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275293

80.

Thomas

K. W.

Velthouse

B. A.

(1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.2307/258687

81.

Tsui

A. S.

Egan

T. D.

Iii

C. A. O.

(1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–579. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393472

82.

Tsui

A. S.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.2307/256368

83.

Tuk

M. A.

Verlegh

P. W.

Smidts

Wigboldus

D. H.

(2019). You and I have nothing in common: The role of dissimilarity in interpersonal influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.010

84.

Turner

J. C.

Oakes

P. J.

Haslam

S. A.

McGarty

(1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205002

85.

Tuuli

M. M.

Rowlinson

Fellows

Liu

A. M.

(2015). Individual-level antecedents of psychological empowerment. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(2), Article 04014036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000239

86.

Van der Vegt

G. S.

(2002). Effects of attitude dissimilarity and time on social integration: A longitudinal panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119592

87.

Van Dyne

Ang

Koh

(2015). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural intelligence scale. In Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 34–56). Routledge.

88.

Van Knippenberg

De Dreu

C. K.

Homan

A. C.

(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of App4lied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

89.

Van Knippenberg

Nishii

L. H.

Dwertmann

D. J.

(2020). Synergy from diversity: Managing team diversity to enhance performance. Behavioral Science & Policy, 6(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2020.0007

90.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Muchiri

M. K.

Misati

Meiliani

(2018). Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2216

91.

Williams

L. J.

McGonagle

A. K.

(2016). Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9422-9

92.

Winkel

D. E.

Wyland

R. L.

Shaffer

M. A.

Clason

(2011). A new perspective on psychological resources: Unanticipated consequences of impulsivity and emotional intelligence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8325.002001

93.

Zhang

Chen

(2023). How surface-level and deep-level faultlines influence team performance through subgroup formation and team interaction quality: A meta-analytic review. Management and Organization Review, 19(5), 876–909. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2023.13