Abstract
Global virtual teams (GVTs) are a prevalent work structure that enable people to accomplish tasks across time, space, and cultural boundaries and perform cross-culturally. However, few studies have highlighted what exact behaviors enable GVTs to share knowledge effectively. Based on a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 22 respondents from various multinational corporations (MNCs) in Malaysia, we answer the following overarching research question: Why do high context members switch their communicative behaviors amongst foreign team members within global virtual teams? Our study provides detailed narratives of high-context team members becoming the behavioral “switchers” to collaborate and share knowledge with their foreign team members effectively. Our study defines and clarifies the concept of cross-cultural code-switching as a key behavior reflecting effective cross-cultural performance when accommodating foreign team members’ communicative behaviours by adopting (1) directness in speech, (2) openness during knowledge sharing, and (3) task-oriented aims. This study addresses several gaps in the field of cross-cultural management by extending Hall’s (1976) theoretical lens on high-context and low-context cultures, Molinsky’s (2007) cross-cultural code-switching concept in the context of the virtual work structure, and the criterion space surrounding cross cultural performance.
Introduction
Change is inevitable in multinational corporations (MNCs) as competition becomes more stringent and volatile in the global market. The work structure changes; hence teams need to adjust their behaviors for global collaboration to ensure effective teaming. Working via global virtual teams (GVTs) has become an everyday phenomenon in MNCs to the point that, as Derven (2016) noted, the GVT work structure is becoming the new norm and reality of the future of work. As businesses expand across borders, it is becoming more common for employees to find themselves exchanging emails or participating in audio/video conference calls with team members worldwide without concerns for time orientation and cultural diversity. Likewise, with the current situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalent norms of working from home and a distance have become inevitable (Garro-Abarca et al., 2021; Gilli et al., 2022; Sookman, 2020). GVTs are teams working remotely across time, space, and culture (Alsharo et al., 2017; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Zakaria, 2017). Although the members of a GVT are dispersed organizationally and are often from diverse cultural backgrounds, they work together toward a common goal (Ebrahim et al., 2009; Horvath and Tobin, 2008; Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1998; Lilian, 2014; Pazos, 2012).
In GVT work environments, one indispensable way to achieve effective cross cultural performance is to switch one’s communicative behavior to accommodate other individuals who are culturally different (Anawati and Craig, 2006; Molinsky, 2007; Wang et al., 2019). Cross-cultural code-switching behavior is defined as “the act of purposefully modifying one’s behaviour, in a specific interaction in a foreign setting, to accommodate different cultural norms for appropriate behavior.” (Molinsky, 2007: p.623). Several studies have demonstrated how adaptation and behavioural switching can enable people to overcome communication issues in the virtual setting (Ahmad and Barner-Basmussen, 2019; Ahmad and Widen, 2018; Anawati and Craig, 2006; Molinsky, 2007; Qiu et al., 2013; Zakaria, 2017). Yet, none of this past research has investigated why individuals attempt to switch, the factors that influence the switching process, or how switching behaviors function for individuals from particular cultural backgrounds.
In the field of cross-cultural management, studies have examined culture as the prominent factor that impacts how GVTs work (e.g. Jimenez et al., 2017; Presbitero, 2021; Wang et al., 2019; Wu, 2021; Zakaria and Mohd Yusof, 2020; Zellmer-Bruhn and Maloney, 2020). Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, there is a dearth of research considering cross-cultural code-switching as a key component of effective cross cultural performance within GVTs, in which teams must be flexible and accommodate different communicative patterns, approaches, and mannerisms (Zakaria, 2017). Therefore, the current research focuses on the concept of cross-cultural code-switching and further explores why and how it occurs in order to more clearly define and describe a core component of cross cultural performance in GVT settings.
More specifically, the present qualitative study attempts to explore the following overarching research question: Why do high-context GVT members switch their communicative behaviors amongst foreign team members? We apply Hall’s (1976) high-context and low-context theoretical lens and Molinsky’s (2007) cross-cultural code-switching concept to understand the phenomenon of switching behaviors during knowledge sharing by focusing on a sample of Malaysian GVT workers who were, at the time of the study, either active in or had experience working on virtual projects for MNCs. To be clear, this study is not a cross-cultural comparison study (i.e. looking at the comparison between high-context and low-context teams). Instead, this is interpretative research aimed at understanding one unique cultural context (Malaysians) representing the high context culture to offer meanings that people ascribe to processes, events, or actions that illustrate the cultural code-switching phenomenon.
Therefore, the arguments made about high context cultures do not necessarily imply the opposite arguments being made about low context cultures. Our study aims to uncover the factors that may influence the cross-cultural code-switching process, which will, in turn, help develop clear guidelines for training GVT members to communicate optimally during cross-cultural performance. Another key purpose of this paper is to bring particular attention to the criterion space surrounding cross cultural performance by more clearly defining and describing what we propose as one core element of that performance: cross-cultural code switching. This aspect of cross cultural performance has not been examined in previous studies in the field of cross-cultural management and GVTs. Our study contributes to the literature by extending the research on cross-cultural code-switching behaviors, which affect culturally attuned communicative patterns and enrich the processes and procedures of virtual teaming, contributing to more effective cross-cultural performance in GVTs. The following section reviews the concepts and theoretical lenses that we applied in the context of the GVT work environment.
Theoretical background and literature review
Global virtual teams and knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing refers to the mutual formal or informal exchange of ideas between individuals or groups (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003; Van den Hooff and Ridder, 2004). We further define it as the process of voluntarily passing on or disseminating knowledge from one person or group within an organization to another (Fernie et al., 2003; Zakaria, et al., 2004). Similarly, knowledge sharing is a communication activity between two individuals who possess tacit and explicit knowledge both gain from transferring this knowledge (Hendriks, 1999). Several studies have further described knowledge sharing as a dynamic and complex communication process involving the exchange of knowledge between people of diverse cultural backgrounds (Gibbs et al., 2021; Gibson et al., 2022). Knowledge sharing is the most critical and complex process in knowledge management, to three key areas: the individual, organizational, and technological. Knowledge is intellectual capital and is the organization’s most valuable asset since it confers a competitive advantage (Brčić and Mihelič, 2015). Knowledge sharing in an organization is the active process of exchanging information, skills, and expertise among employees. Knowledge sharing has a positive impact on organization performance (Fernie et al., 2003; Zakaria et al., 2004), accelerates client–partner relationships (Hendriks, 1999), and drives the organization toward its goals (Fernie et al., 2003).
Like traditional face-to-face teams, knowledge sharing in global virtual teams also face critical factor such as swift trust to develop effective and efficient cross-cultural performance (Zakaria and Mohd Yusof, 2020; Muton et al., 2022). Global virtual teams can also facilitate knowledge sharing by efficiently organizing workers with diverse backgrounds and increasing access to information and knowledge using information communication technology (Jackowska and Lauring, 2021; Gibson et al., 2022). In our research context, knowledge sharing refers to the mutual formal or informal exchange of ideas between individuals or groups from diverse cultures within an organization voluntarily to accomplish cross-cultural performance in GVTs.
Challenges of miscommunication in GVTs
GVTs share knowledge across geographical distances using communication technology, which allows organizations to speed up the project cycle time, reduce costs and redundancies across organizational units, decrease travel and transportation costs (Clark, 2020; Li, 2010), and maximize expertise without having to physically relocate workers (Kayworth and Leidner, 2002; Lauring et al., 2021). When COVID-19 struck the world, GVTs became imperative and innovative to the work structure. This prevalent structure was developed based on information and communications technology support, which allows team members to conduct almost all their interactions, knowledge sharing, and decision making remotely. However, GVTs are often challenged by diverse cultural values and clashing communication styles and patterns (Waizenegger et al., 2020; Zakaria and Mohd Yusof, 2020).
Some of the challenges associated with expatriation, adaptation, and acculturation can be alleviated with the use of communication technology. The GVT work structure, however, is not without drawbacks (Cagiltay et al., 2015; Gilli et al., 2022). The fact that GVT members do not share the same physical location and time zone makes it especially important that they know how to communicate effectively via information technology; this can be problematic when this technology does not allow individuals to access non-verbal cues, such as tone of voice, which they need to help them accurately interpret others’ meaning (Martin and Nakayama, 2010). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that team members may come from different continents, each with their own cultural values, beliefs, norms, and unique patterns of interaction, including different communication styles (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Holtbrügge and Rogers, 2012). As Cagiltay et al. (2015) expressed, language is both the main instrument of intercultural communication and the fundamental source of miscommunication.
Examining the impact of cultural diversity on team effectiveness in GVTs, Shachaf (2008) observed that this diversity can lead to miscommunication, particularly between team members from Asian and Western countries, as these countries have different communication styles. This misalignment of communication styles and the lack of understanding of different cultures can cause conflicts within GVTs. Context and content also play a role in understanding the source of miscommunication when team members engage in cross-cultural performance. While context presents the basis of knowing what, why, when, who and how information is delivered to another party, the content of the message is equally important to be understood. According to Zakaria and Cogburn (2010), a renown theoretical framework by Hall (1976) explained the role of content-dependent and context-dependent for effective intercultural communication during knowledge sharing activities among GVTs.
Edward hall’s high-context and low-context theory
Hall’s (1976) theoretical framework introduced the concept of context—a spectrum running from high context to low context—to understand the effect of culture on communication and communication styles. In his book Beyond Culture, Hall affirms that context is a critical communication component, yet it received insufficient attention. He proposed that context acted as a medium to carry the meaning of the message: “This brings us to the point where it is possible to discuss context concerning meaning because what one pays attention to or does not attend is largely a matter of context” (Hall, 1976, p. 90). Furthermore, according to Victor (1992), context is defined as “how one communicates and especially the circumstances surrounding that communication” (p. 137).
Accordingly, a high-context culture adapts to different communication styles to maintain good relations, avoid conflicts, and prevent misunderstandings (Nishimura et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2009). Adair and Brett (2005) reported that with cultural intelligence, high-context people seemed to adjust their verbal and non-verbal behavior to mimic or observe the culturally normative behavior of those from other cultures and are more willing to interact and work with people from other cultures. Adair and team also elaborated those individuals with accommodative and convergent learning styles tended to be among those with high context cultural values. In contrast, those with divergent and assimilative learning styles tended to be among those with low-context cultural values. In addition, past studies by Wang et al. (2009), Pekerti and Thomas (2003), and Wei (2007) recorded similar findings that high-context people are more accommodating to cultural and communication differences. They are also a relationship-oriented society; thus, with such cultural values, people allegedly take care of others’ feelings and thus try not to offend others and become flexible, especially when interacting with them. With this argument, we want to deepen our study by examining how and why people within high-context cultures engage in cultural code-switching behaviors. Past studies also looked at cultural agility as crucial when people must engage in cross-cultural performance, as adaptability is critical to forming cultural competencies among GVTs (Anawati and Craig, 2006). Studies like Caliguiri and Capra (2022), Gilli et al. (2022), and Shachaf (2008) found that cultural agility and behavioral adaptability are challenging. Without such traits, teams often face crisis and conflict, resulting in non-cohesive and unreliable during the cross-cultural performance.
In high-context cultures, communication assumes a shared context, and information resides in the context. As a result, some pieces of the message are unuttered, body language is significant, and people can read between the lines. Low-context cultures, in contrast, tend to prefer a more direct approach to conveying information. In their study, Croucher et al. (2012) found that individuals from the high-context cultures of India and Thailand were likelier to use an indirect, non-confrontational style in a conflict situation than those from the low-context cultures of Ireland and the United States. They tended to prefer a more straightforward approach. Barkai (2008), Cardon (2008), Croucher et al. (2012), and Kim et al. (1998) all asserted that Americans fall into Hall’s low-context category. When working, Americans are less interested in interpersonal relationships and are more task-oriented than individuals from high-context cultures (Cardon, 2008). However, they may use a more tactical-oriented, confrontational approach and intuitive thinking when dealing with conflicts (Norenzayan et al., 2002). Generally, however, their approach to conflict tends to be rational rather than emotional and is primarily geared toward problem-solving (Barkai, 2008; Cardon, 2008).
Salleh (2005) noted that communication is the best illustrator of differences between high-context and low-context cultures. Asian countries, such as Malaysia, China, Thailand, and Japan, are generally categorized as high-context cultures, whereas European countries, such as Austria and Switzerland, are categorized as low-context cultures. Western cultures, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, generally rely more heavily on low-context communication (Hooker, 2008). On the other hand, the rest of the world tends toward high-context communication. Western influences and the desire to accommodate travelers and expatriates have made low-context communication increasingly common in high-context cultures.
Researchers such as Barkai (2008), Cardon (2008), and Croucher et al. (2012) have proven that socio-historical context profoundly shapes cultural values and that these values influence the initial orientation of both high-context and low-context GVT members. Besides miscommunication arising from social, situational, and personal factors, such problems are rooted in cultural differences among team members. The following theory presents a lens through which communication and code-switching behaviors consider cultural stance.
A study by Zakaria (2017) applied Hall’s (1976) cultural dimensions to investigate communication patterns, characteristics, and styles when teams make decisions in a distributed environment—GVTs. She found that global team members differed significantly in communication styles, language, and cultural practices, which all needed to be understood by high-performing teams. These differences affect cross-cultural performance, a condition that is illustrative of the emergent workplace and new norms. In a specific GVT context, Zakaria also reported that GVT members from high-context cultures showed indirect communication styles, used non-verbal approaches, and used silence and polite gestures in certain situations. In contrast, low-context GVT members tended to use more straightforward communication styles with many verbal responses in online team discussions. Therefore, in this study, we apply Hall’s theoretical lens to understand the communicative behaviors that stem from high-context culture and provide detailed descriptions of the cross-cultural performance during the knowledge-sharing process between high-context and foreign team members.
Cross-cultural code-switching behaviors
Molinsky (2007) introduced the term “cross-cultural code-switching” to describe the shift in behavior that often occurs when people communicate in a foreign setting due to the need to meet the behavioral expectations of others. In developing the concept of cross-cultural code-switching, Molinsky borrowed from sociolinguistics; he considered cross-cultural code-switching to be like linguistic code-switching but involving the modification of behavior and emotions rather than simply being dependent on language. These shifts occur during interactions (which he defined as specific business communication activities, such as giving feedback or negotiating) within a cross-cultural setting. Molinsky’s primary assumption was that people switch to accommodate different cultural norms and create the desired social impression. He formulated a framework to show the communicative behavior switching that occurs in a single interaction in a cross-cultural setting. Molinsky’s (2013) framework points out two modifications—self-licensing and personalization—that occur in cross-cultural code-switching behaviors in the communication context. During self-licensing, people embrace the new cultural perspective, while personalization is when a person attempts to make slight behavioral adjustments to accommodate their new cultural environment.
A similar concept to cross-cultural code-switching—cultural frame switching—was introduced by Benet-Martinez et al. (2002). They were interested in how bicultural individuals alter their cultural frame of reference. A bicultural individual has two principal cultures and can switch their cultural roles on or off depending on the environment. Studies in this field have focused on how cultural priming influences switching between cultural frames for bicultural people (Hong et al., 2003). Some critical aspects in the literature are: ways to shift bicultural people as influenced by their degree of bicultural identity integration (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002), the effect of individual personality on cross-cultural code-switching (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2006), the acculturation and frame switching of immigrants (Van Oudenhoven and Benet-Martinez, 2015), and switching behavior in an online context (Qiu et al., 2013). Hong et al. (2003) revealed how cultural priming, such as symbols, icons, context, and language, influences the switching process of bicultural individuals.
For example, when a Korean American is at home with family members, they are likely to speak Korean because the home language is Korean. At the workplace, however, they are surrounded by Western friends and cultural practices, so they are likelier to speak English and act like Americans without losing their Korean cultural values. Studies have shown that bicultural individuals accommodate both cultural practices and can control two cultures, depending on the cultural cues or situation (e.g. Hong et al., 2003; Qiu et al., 2013).
Adair et al. (2015) reported that individuals with high context and cultural intelligence tend to adjust their own verbal and non-verbal behavior to mimic or observe the culturally normative behavior of those from other cultures and are more willing to interact and work with them people from other cultures. They also elaborated that individual with accommodative and convergent learning styles tended to be among those with high-context cultural values. In contrast, those with divergent and assimilative learning styles tended to be among those with low-context cultural values. In addition, past studies by Wang et al. (2009), Pekerti and Thomas (2003), and Wei (2007) recorded similar findings that high-context individuals are more accommodating to cultural and communication differences. As a summary, Gasiorek et al. (2015) explained, “We use communication to manage our social relationships; we affiliate and disaffiliate with others not only through what we say but also how we say it” (p. 2).
Methodology
Research background and motivation of study
The present research adopts an interpretivist approach using a qualitative study by conducting semi-structured online interviews. The critical question is: Why do high-context GVT members switch their communicative behaviors during knowledge-sharing processes with foreign team members, and how do the high-context members make such behavioral changes? The semi-structured approach allowed the respondents to freely express their thoughts and feelings and fully explain their experiences so that the cross-cultural code-switching behaviors from the knowledge-sharing activities could be well-narrated. The data were content analyzed by identifying and interpreting the reasons influencing the respondents’ communicative switching behaviors and their cultural practices and perceptions.
Participants
Respondents’ demographic profile.
Out of the 22 respondents, 72% of participants came from the IT sector, while 28% worked in the engineering sector. Regarding location, 54% of respondents worked in Malaysia’s central region, while the remaining 46% worked in Malaysia’s northern region. Regarding the type of work, 40.9% of participants were engaged in a routine task based on a GVT, while the remaining 59.1% were working (or had worked) on a specific project – with the shortest project lasting 6 months' weeks and the most extended 2 years. Regarding the respondent’s roles and responsibilities, 32% are engineers with various responsibilities, such as software test engineer, system engineer, and research and development engineer. Meanwhile, 50% of them work as IT specialists ranging from application support specialists to IT specialists. The remaining 18% of the respondents were involved in the GVT project or ongoing tasks as project managers or project consultants to foreign and local team members.
Data collection procedures
The recruitment process was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, we sent 40 emails to six MNCs. Each of the 40 identified respondents received an official invitation email requesting their participation, followed by a message via the mobile social media application WhatsApp. In the email, we also briefly introduced the study, explained the procedure for the online interview, and allowed the respondents to indicate a preferred date and time for the interview session. 50% responded and expressed interest in participating, yet near the appointment time, five declined because of a hectic schedule, time constraints, and unforeseeable circumstances, leaving 15 respondents. They requested online interviews via WhatsApp and the Google Hangouts application using text-based interviews. Before the scheduled date, all signed and returned the consent form via email.
In the second phase, after all the respondents had completed their interviews, we asked them to suggest referrals to utilize a snowball approach for consequent recruitment. The data collection process continued, and we obtained another seven respondents before reaching saturation. Thus, we succeeded in eliciting rich information from a total of 22 respondents. Several benefits of the snowball method are ideal for accessing hard-to-reach populations (Handcock and Gile, 2011), much of the target population was either currently active in GVT projects but preoccupied with busy work schedules and had previous experience working in GVT projects but were in hard-to-access locations outside the target region.
The interview protocol (see appendix) of this research consisted of three main sections: demographic information, cross-cultural code-switching, and the influence of cultural factors on attempts to code-switch. We developed the questions from the research questions and the literature review. The section on demographics briefly addressed personal information and work experience in the GVT environment. The section on cross-cultural code-switching included questions about the respondents’ intercultural communication styles, the communication platforms they used to communicate with team members, and thorough inquiries into their process of communication adjustment when interacting with foreign team members. These questions also sought to discover the reasons respondents switched their behaviors. In the final section of the interview, we asked the respondents to share any other factors that influenced their attempts at cross-cultural code-switching during knowledge-sharing activities.
The recruitment process for high-context team members undertook two verification phases to ensure we met the criteria. The initial level began with the literature review, where we first identified studies that show the overall index score for countries that fall under high context cultures. Then we investigated specific studies conducted on the Malaysian population to understand the multi-ethnic societies and their contextual characteristics. We confirmed that our recruited respondents (i.e. Malay ethnicity) fell under high-context culture. The second level of verification was based on the interviews we conducted, for example, we first asked the respondents to describe their communication styles, followed by their process of knowledge sharing in GVTs and code-switching behaviors. Through the in-depth analysis, we identified that all respondents described high context styles.
Data analysis
As this study aims to explain the motivations for GVT members to engage in cross-cultural code-switching in knowledge-sharing conditions, we find that the inductive approach was most effective for discovering accommodative communication styles and exploring other emergent behaviors. The qualitative data analysis occurred in four stages (Figure 1). Hierarchical stage of content data analytic framework.
Stage 1: Preparation
During preparation, we uploaded 22 interview transcripts in PDF format to the Atlas. ti software package. Then, we immersed ourselves in the data by reading and re-reading the transcripts. To help with the process, we wrote an interview summary to better understand the data after finishing the interviews. Within the same phase, we compiled all digital transcripts and summaries, relabeled, and sorted data based on respondent demographics, and created a database for archival purposes.
Stage 2: Organization and coding
We generated the initial codes via open coding, a process of reading through all data several times to create initial codes that summarize our initial data observations. We began the coding with words to obtain as much as we could on the background understanding, then we moved to the sentence level to make broader sense of the communication patterns. We also immersed ourselves in the data by coding at the paragraph level to get an overall or bigger picture of the phenomenon of cultural switching behaviour. We went through the process back and forth from word to paragraph until solid patterns of cultural communicative behaviors emerge.
Codebook for cultural code-switching behaviour.
They provided many illustrative stories and examples. For example, they expressed the need to change their communication styles from indirect to direct to conform to how their foreign team members share knowledge. Some mentioned that their email messages need to be trimmed down from elongated messages to short ones. From the statements, we build our initial codes based on the explicit and latent words, such as direct, indirect, straightforward, frank, long messages, short words, details, polite, ambiguous, and others. These loose codes were analyzed again to make sense of the patterns and consequently draw upon the commonalities that form a theme labeled as directness in speech.
For the second part of the analysis, we began to code the data and immerse in it to find more profound interpretations of code-switching behaviors. We developed the codes and chose the stories to provide a rich understanding of such behaviors. Since this is a qualitative study, we do not measure the behaviors or assess the degree of changes and adaptations made. Instead, we provided informative verbatims that illustrate such behaviors to give meaning and richness to such experiences of cross-cultural performance during GVTs. We also did not elicit information or explicitly ask them about the degree of effectiveness of code-switching. However, we found evidence in the narration, i.e. they did discuss the outcomes of their project given their modified ways of communication. We coded the data as quick deliverables, lack of crisis among team members, cohesive teamwork, clear understanding of the task, smooth implementation of a project, and labeled under the agenda-oriented aim.
The coding process involved several iterations between two coders, and they were independently conducted. After categorizing all data into sub-themes, generic themes, and main themes, we reviewed the themes and sub-themes to ensure that all data were classified correctly. Miles and Huberman (1994) stressed that the data reduction process is ongoing throughout the data analysis phase. Following categorization, formulating a general description of the research topics based on the generated themes is known as an abstraction (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). All sub-themes, generic themes, and central themes were renamed appropriately during this step – resulted in three specific cultural factors motivating cross-cultural code-switching behaviors.
Stage 3: Report preparation and codebook development
For this final step of the qualitative data analysis, we began to develop the codebook. We developed the final codebook that depicts the entire list of codes, including code definitions, sub-codes (if applicable), the purpose of the code, and verbatim examples. The code represents the inductive codes discovered during the data analysis process, whereas the code definition provides the code’s general meaning. The sub-code denotes the breakdown of the principal codes, and the purpose/meaning of the code illuminates a specific definition of each code and its sub-codes. We included the verbatim examples to supplement the codes and aid reader comprehension (Table 2) and to facilitate the process that we arrive at from reading, making sense, coding, and refinement of coding up till to the development of a codebook as an outcome. The final codebook did not contain definite themes representing the research questions derived from the generic categories and subcategories.
Stage 4: Data validation
Elo et al. (2014) asserted that data trustworthiness in qualitative research is essential as it assists readers in following the analysis and resulting conclusions. We used a data saturation point and intercoder reliability to validate the research findings. We ensured that we reached the data saturation point during data collection when no new additional data or codes emerged during the analysis process. Finally, the intercoder reliability process was achieved with both independent coders reviewing the codebook’s components (e.g. the primary code, definition, and verbatim sample) and when an agreement level of 85% was reached based on Miles and Huberman’s (1994) standard of 80% agreement on 95% of the codes.
Results
This section discusses the cultural factors that are discernable in the high-context cultural code-switching behaviors during the knowledge-sharing process with foreign team members. Firstly, we briefly describe the knowledge-sharing activities that encompass several aspects. Different activities of knowledge sharing give rise to different communication patterns integral to high-context team members when engaging in cross-cultural performance virtually. Based on the respondent’s detailed description of the activities, we also developed a model of cultural code-switching as high-context team members continue to engage in such behavior iteratively, given their cultural encounters. Secondly, our study provides detailed narratives of high-context team members switching their behaviors to collaborate and share knowledge with their foreign team members effectively. Specifically, we attempted to address a working trend that illustrates a prevalent work structure for cross-cultural teams collaborating with diverse communication styles at a distance. Our study also confirms that adjustment and accommodative behavior are evident during the knowledge-sharing process when team members switch communication behaviors to achieve effective cross-cultural performance.
Knowledge sharing activities
The respondents described knowledge-sharing activities comprising eight different aspects. For example, a technical discussion could involve providing back-end support, and the knowledge shared would be programming knowledge to develop accurate technical reports. Others who worked as project managers shared technical problems, primarily information such as equipment specifications, and the communication platform used was email, with occasional teleconferences. One respondent emphasized that the technical information provided may aid decision-making, such as preventive action, in the event of a breakdown. Another respondent who worked as a systems engineer also stated that the knowledge shared included technical knowledge on the test system they were working. For the rest of the respondents, knowledge sharing in the workplace consisted of progress updates, job rotation information, ticket/case information, system maintenance, system requirement, and progress updates. They used common communication platforms such as Skype or teleconference programs to share knowledge. They also used share points for offline information, keeping all the documents for others to access. Because the team members came from countries in different time zones, they extensively used online tools like Lync and Skype for desktop sharing and email. If the team members are located in different countries, the knowledge-sharing activities will be conducted via telephone conference, and they will hold a separate telephone conference with colleagues from different countries due to time zone differences.
Cross-cultural code switching
Our study also clearly defines and clarifies the concept of cross-cultural code-switching as a component of effective cross-cultural performance. Based on our findings, we identified three specific culturally-attuned motivation factors that drive high-context team members to modify their communicative behaviors when working in GVTs. Such behaviors are: directness in speech, openness during knowledge sharing, and task-oriented aims—to achieve communication purposes. The following section discusses those cultural factors and establishes how our findings contribute significantly to the nascent area of GVTs, cultural effects, and switching behaviors in cross-cultural management. Subsequently, we provide evidence of how our study supports other relevant research to address the existing gaps in the literature.
Directness in speech with upfront communication
The tendency for foreign GVT members to be straightforward and precise when communicating via email influenced high-context GVT members to adapt their interaction patterns with both foreign and local team members. One respondent, for example, described her experience of working with team members from Germany, who were habitually direct in their communication. Describing her early days working with these team members, she explained that since she was not able to communicate well with her German colleagues, she could only observe their communication style. As she puts it: As for the communication style, I maintain the same [direct] style because I am a direct person… throughout working with this company, as I mostly communicate with the Germans, and I realize that the Germans, during the first meeting, they would be very direct and task-oriented… [they] did not ask about other things. (Nadia)
Sharing a similar situation, Iliani stated that her experience led her to adjust her communication style to suit her foreign team members from the United States and Germany. Additionally, communicating with team members with different seniority levels required her to swiftly adjust her communication style to be direct.
Nazmi was able to give a thorough account of the differences in work practices between his teammates in China, Vietnam, and Israel and to explain how these differences influenced his communicative behavior. Having to manage two projects concurrently between the three countries led him to adopt a low-context communication style: he communicated directly with team members, ensuring that the communication was task oriented and emphasizing adherence to deadlines. He described how Chinese team members had been slow with project updates because they were burdened with other work, while the Vietnamese team had progressed slowly because they did not understand the project. In contrast, working with Israeli teammates had been more convenient because they were well-versed in the project, but the time difference and different working week made it difficult for him to get project updates on time. It was, therefore, vital to fully utilize virtual meetings to discuss any problems and make necessary decisions. In both projects, he has changed, and thus had become more direct in his communication, focus simply on work-related issues, and refuse to compromise on deadlines. Likewise, he emphasized that he has adopted communication style with straightforwardness, and it should not be confused with brusqueness or impatience: That is exactly how I communicate when I handle projects… direct [and] to the point, even with different cultures, because MNC companies are international…. In terms of my communication style, my answer is consistent… direct [and] to the point and no flowery words… being direct and delivering direct communication for me is quite different… being direct is like you directly get angry if mistakes are made, but for direct communication, it means that you don’t wander around in your communication. (Nazmi)
Hanani and Usha, consistent with others, also mentioned that their U.S. team members’ communication style had an impact on their communicative behaviors. According to Usha, although their different communication practices had made her initially nervous about communicating with international team members, she slowly adjusted her communication style based on her observations of her teammates, imitating their precision, sending direct messages, and employing fewer commas and full stops in written communications. Like Nadia, Usha also felt the experience had a positive impact on her communication with her team members and feel less intimidated about responding in a straightforward manner. Hanani and Usha also explained that although technical conversations must be direct, it was also important to be polite. Similarly, Zharif further illustrated on the ‘direct speech’ situation as follows: Yes, with more knowledge I have become more confident in voicing out opinions or ideas. As mentioned earlier, in technical discussions all communication will be direct or straightforward. But we voice it in a proper manner. Politely we say our ideas or opinions, with respect. (Zharif) Interestingly, besides adjusting their communication verbally, some of the respondents, such as Khadija, used a non-verbal approach—the use of emojis—to express their feelings and reduce misinterpretation: Usually, I’ll use a lot of emojis like) (smiles) to express my emotions because text potentially can make them misinterpret what we are trying to say. (Khadija)
Most respondents had learned how to understand and react to different communication styles through their previous experiences working with diverse team members on various projects. These experiences helped them communicate effectively and minimize misunderstanding. Zuraida’s wide experience working alongside team members from other continents had given her insight into the communication styles of different cultures. This gave her an advantage when dealing with new team members. As she gained more experience in working with individuals from different cultures, she began to become more like them, focusing her communication more on task assigned (not relationship), but still retaining the polite manner expected of high-context cultures.
Azam and Adam also confirmed that their communication styles were influenced by their purpose/agenda and the people concerned. They explained that in certain interactions, they needed to express their thoughts directly to ensure that information was successfully transferred to the other party and that the project or task could be completed as Adam related: It just happens naturally. I don’t know how to explain this one… Since day 1, I can tell the difference and know with people from India [that] I must communicate differently compared with other Subject Matter Expert (SMEs) in the US or Ireland.... At first, I thought this will be difficult. However, I know that I must adapt so that I can finish my task and complete my review. I must be like a chameleon! (Adam)
According to Wardah, although being frank is important, when giving feedback to her teammates, how she delivered the message was important. She asserted that her delivery had to be polite and perceptive based on whom she was engaged with. At times, she would also send a straightforward email to suit the foreign teams: I could ask whatever question I have in mind without the need to build rapport. In contrast, when communicating with a customer, she could not be as straightforward: for example, if they [the customers] make mistakes, you have to educate them, explain to them with the best of the best manners because they are from a high-context culture, which normally employs an indirect and courteous approach to interaction.” (Wardah)
Yasnira repeated the idea that communicating straightforwardly when and as needed helps team members proceed smoothly with the decision-making process. She argued that doing so ensured that knowledge-sharing sessions fully benefitted both the team and its projects. Yasnira’s job required her to communicate with team members from two different countries (the United States and India), but she emphasized that she adjusted her style only to accommodate the purpose of the communication and ensure that crucial information about the project was delivered correctly: [I go] straight to the problem…But sometimes, security administrator from India chooses to personal Lync us maybe [because] our worktime is almost the same. [It’s] different with [the] US. When we log out, [the] team from [the] US will continue [system] support [for their project]. Keep it professional. It is straight to the problem. The communication is the same [for both team members]. Very straightforward to the problem…. I think the most important [thing] to us is [to] provide solutions to the problem raised. (Yasnira)
Openness during knowledge sharing
Some of the high-context participants in our study claimed that their foreign team members’ openness and friendliness had influenced them to adjust their methods of expression and be more explicit to create a good level of trustworthiness among colleagues. For instance, Ariani described how one of her Malaysian teammates requested that a conference call during Ramadan not be conducted at night because she wanted to attend night prayers. The U.S. team members received the request openly and then began to ask more questions about the rituals. Due to their openness to learning about her religious rituals, others also felt encouraged to share about their values and identities. Because of sharing knowledge on Ramadan, the U.S. teams deferred conference calls throughout the holy month. The decision also led to shorter conference call. Unless urgent, conference calls would be scheduled for the morning in Malaysia.
Zharif, who was similarly concerned with avoiding any forms of misunderstanding, explained that he made it a point to use an explicit communication style in technical discussions and meetings, as this increased the chances of the discussion being successful and facilitated the decision-making process: Because many of the discussion point[s] [are] on technical aspect[s], the communication [has] to be precise and unambiguous so that there is no loss of information… or confusion. Technical discussion will require direct communication…. For example, this happens when there are discussions about a process parameter (temperature, pressure, flow) or equipment specifications (dimensions, specifications, etc.). (Zharif)
He also asserted that the expressiveness and directness of his foreign teammates had influenced his own communicative behavior to become more explicit. Having first observed their communication style, he adopted a similar style, for example, by being directly critical of colleagues when necessary. However, he had retained enough of his high-context style to employ a subtle approach when possible: Asians seldom criticize openly on the work quality of other team members…. But being in an environment with Western work culture, this will happen…. Yes, I’ve been criticized, and I have criticized others as well. When I am criticized, I will accept it openly if it is true. However, if it is not, then I will defend myself. When I am criticizing, usually I will use a soft approach. I will approach the person involved directly and talk to him…. But if this does not work, then I will say it out [loud] during an open meeting. (Zharif)
For Shafrina, she had to be concise and particular in her email communication, taking note of the construction of sentences and grammar structure and making sure that the communication involved everyone on the team. Similarly, Adira had to learn to be more explicit in her communication, specifically in the daily emails that she was required to send to other team members. Everything had to be transparent and clearly expressed in these written communications. She provided a sample of her email communication to illustrate this: Hi Eric, The report failed because the column is divided by 0. For now, I have fixed the report to ignore 0 value to avoid the report from failing. Thank you. Regards, Adira
Another interesting encounter by one of the respondents was with German team member who instilled strong explicitness and conciseness communication values during knowledge sharing process. She said, over time, such values were rubbed on her making her adapted accordingly. Aptly she summarized it as: …actually, the Germans like if we can communicate in their language...but if you can’t, you need to observe and change like their communication styles. I used a direct communication style throughout working within this company because I mostly communicate with the Germans. I realized that the Germans like to be direct, thus I changed to that style. I also don’t’ like when people beat around the bush, as it is hard to understand. If they want to say something, just say it directly, straight to the point. For example, if you like it, express it, that you like it, and if you don’t’ like it, then say you dont like it or if you would like to ask something, just ask! haha...that is why I find easier for me to communicate with the Germans, they are bold and frank. (Syazwani)
Agenda-oriented aim
For individuals from high-context cultures, the relationship between people whom they are dealing with is the necessary precursor of a business deal. However, our analysis revealed that in the context of teamwork, high-context team members tend to follow the lead of foreign members and focus only on work-related issues in their communication. If they have a business deal, that is the sole focus of the interaction, and no importance is attached to creating rapport. The conversation is also likely to be straightforward and bold sometimes. Hariz described how, when communicating with his teammates from with his foreign teammates, he had to be specific, and work focused: For the American team member, I will respond to his emails the same way as he talks to me…. He tends to be more specific and task-oriented, but it depends on the customer…. Some customers communicate straight to the point and only talk about work… so we don’t have to create rapport as they are only concerned about work, and the work has to be done within the timeline. (Hariz)
Adira, Zuraida, and Khadija all pointed out that almost all communications with foreign team members were task related, with only brief exchanges of formalities before the discussion started. Zuraida explained: [If we have a discussion] with the Europeans, we will greet [each other] and get straight to the point. We will discuss: 1) the main issue, 2) problem statement, 3) what solution we have, and 4) what improvement we can achieve. If there is some concern or issue to raise, I will point out the issue without any delay (Zuraida).
Zharif, who described how he had started out as a typical high-context individual within his company and gradually adjusted his communication style based on his observations, stressed that this behavior was learned over time: When I was starting and still fresh, I did a lot of observation. In this example, I observed how my superiors communicated with other foreign team members. You are introduced as a new member. Slowly I started building relationships with them until the time came that they were comfortable communicating with me (Zharif).
Explaining how they adjusted their communication style to suit the purpose at hand, Salman and Iliani revealed that in emails to and teleconferences with their overseas superiors, they used a direct communication style to achieve maximum clarity and avoid misunderstanding so that the task at hand can be delivered quickly and efficiently as well. Salman claimed that he began practicing a direct communication style when he began working in his company and that this was his usual mode of communication. He explained this as follows: I would email direct[ly] the issues or problems straight to the point, as my bosses from the US, Canada, and Australia like it simple…. At first, I was hesitant to explain anything to them, as they are experts and are also very experienced in mining. But somehow, I thought I needed to explain in detail to them, as they can be misled by what I’m trying to say. For my Malaysian boss, I will speak face-to-face openly with them, but for foreigners, I will speak during the teleconference only about the point they ask. (Salman)
The flow and way the communication been steered by the two parties—local and foreign team members largely depend on the aim of the conversations when knowledge sharing period transpired. People naturally don’t have time to engage in long and conversational approach which begin with or lead to a personal agenda. Although the Malaysian teams do appreciate the personal touch, but they realized that mostly, the conversations were driven towards the task at hand when it comes to the foreign team members. For example, as Akmar mentioned: From our local team, I don’t really introduce myself. We just engaged in knowledge transfer, and then immediately began with the deliverables to be submitted. Same goes for the USA Team…no introduction as well. We directly talk about work, using the same communication styles as theirs, i.e., targeted, and objective driven. (Akmar)
Propositions for motivations to engage in code-switching behaviours.
Discussion
Overall, we found evidence that when GVTs engage in knowledge-sharing activities, perceived low-context communication styles often seem to influence how high-context GVT members respond and communicate, which results in them becoming code-switchers in their communicative behavior. This study contributes significantly to several ways to research intercultural communication, cross-cultural management, and GVTs. Notably, our research reinforces several vital studies, such as those of Cohen and Kassis-Henderson (2017); Shah and Barker (2017); Vigier and Spencer-Oatey (2017), which found that language and culture are intertwined and affect a team’s level of communication. Additionally, our study extends the contextual element of a new norm of working across geographical distances, suggesting that while language and culture can obscure effective communication processes, teams can learn to be flexible and achieve effective cross cultural performance by accommodating different communicative behaviors.
The findings from the in-depth interviews with high-context GVT members from Malaysia demonstrate the effects of culture on communication in virtual collaborations and how it influences high-context GVT members to switch their communicative behavior during knowledge-sharing activities. Our data indicate that high-context GVT members showed flexibility in their communication styles when communicating with foreign GVT members. The factors influencing their code-switching include the communication platform, the communication style of the person they were talking with/writing to, and the purpose of the communication. The findings provide some rich insights into the communication process of high-context GVT members and how their cultural values and styles influence their behaviors when communicating with foreign GVT members.
We found that high-context team members could learn to be like chameleons upon realizing their communication is not well-understood or when knowledge sharing is needed. Sundar (2013) and Shachaf (2008) identified miscommunication as one of the main challenges in the virtual workplace. They suggested that overcoming it is not only a matter of being able to communicate effectively but also accommodating different business practices.
In this study, both parties in a GVT (high-context and foreign team members) were virtually connected via various communication platforms to participate in the cross-cultural performance. Our research findings showed that an email platform allowed high-context GVT members to switch their communicative behavior flexibly. We also found that people use email by adjusting the platform to the people they are communicating with and to the purpose of the communication because they can first observe, then take their time to compose the email to suit and adjust the communication styles of the recipient of the message. Specifically, we found that team members’ performance did not depend on the selection of technologies they used to collaborate; instead, it relied on how they used the technologies (Fristedt, 2021) that suited different goals and purposes, as addressed by Waizenegger et al. (2020).
Vigier and Spencer-Oatey (2017) also described how team members in multinational teams engage in code-switching by modifying how they speak/write if their native language is not fully or clearly understood by other team members. Such attempts to adjust their communicative behavior and overcome language barriers can help reduce frustration among the non-native speakers in the group. However, our research found that sharing the same spoken or written language with other team members alone was not enough to remove language constraints. Team members also had overcome differences in communication styles, such as tone, accent, and word selection mannerisms. Our key finding showed that some high-context GVT members put extra effort into overcoming language barriers using simple English. Members also chose more than one communication platform to deliver crucial information and adapt their communication styles to suit the foreign team members. The participants adapted by changing their behaviors with new norms and practices, which had excellent results when working with others.
We also clearly observed that cultural differences can enhance or diminish communicative effectiveness; expanding one’s understanding of cross-cultural code-switching processes will provide a new perspective on cross-cultural adaptation in communication. The geographically dispersed nature of virtual teams and the fact that nearly all the communication that takes place within these teams is mediated by digital technology arguably increases the risk of misunderstandings and miscommunications compared with face-to-face teams. This cross-cultural code-switching phenomenon warrants those scholars in different areas of study, specifically cross-cultural management, to focus on critical issues to develop culturally attuned behavioral strategies adapted for non-collocated work settings (Killingsworth et al., 2016). All these aspects were not adequately studied in the past.
High-context society is normally accommodative to suit the contextual elements of the situation and the people with whom they interact. Hence, when team members collaborate and share knowledge with others, they prioritize relationships, manifested in how they communicate. Studying a similar context, Zakaria (2017) found evidence that high-context individuals have a more accommodative communication style and pattern than low-context individuals. Nevertheless, this behavior is insufficiently understood in the context of GVTs to understand cross-cultural performance during knowledge-sharing activities.
We assert that doing business on a global scale necessitates the ability to interact with people from various backgrounds. Differences in communication styles may impede interaction (Daim et al., 2012; Gudykunst, 2003; Li, 2010). MNCs are increasingly implementing a common corporate language (i.e. English) to manage language diversity and facilitate internal communication, collaboration, coordination, and control. We regard English as the international business language. However, information could be misunderstood due to differences in the English language (Chaney and Martin, 2010). A study by Aichorn and Puck (2016) found that English was the main barrier and a significant threat to effective communication. The study’s findings showed that people working in an MNC manifested their language anxiety in two ways: communication withdrawal and code-switching. These two methods assisted them in reducing their anxiety and communicating more effectively with others. Trapp (2014) emphasized the significance of leaders and managers accommodating diverse work styles resulting from different cultural perspectives, such as language differences and communication styles. This view is consistent with Parish’s (2018) finding that individuals who work with people from different cultures understand and learn more about that culture. Understanding culture and appreciating different languages helps decrease the chances of miscommunication, which can negatively impact the organization.
We further drew upon a combined theoretical framework of Molinsky’s (2007) switching behaviors, Hall’s (1976) high-contextually driven factors, and Giles’s et al. (1991) communicative accommodative patterns (Figure 2). The contextual and personal variables influencing an individual’s initial orientation are rooted in their interpersonal history, intergroup history, and societal/cultural norms and values. In this study, we assumed that for high-context GVT members, the initial orientation is implicit, non-verbal, and context dependent. They employ a collectivistic approach toward communication that relies on relationships. The initial orientation of high-context GVT members, together with cultural factors, drives their intention to adjust their communication styles when communicating with foreign GVT members. Empirical model of code-switching communicative behaviors for high context GVTs During knowledge sharing experiences.
The study concluded that individuals primarily switched their communicative behaviors to achieve effective cross-cultural performance after establishing a good rapport with team members (Pekerti and Thomas, 2003). Based on Molinsky’s (2007) framework, we establish that communication initiation was still based on high-context cultural norms (e.g. a polite introduction) and formally addressing team members during knowledge-sharing activities. Ultimately, after a period of iterative sessions with foreign team members, the respondents mentioned engaging in switching communicative behaviors upon gaining the confidence to be direct, explicit, and task-oriented in their communication styles and approaches. This switching behavior was driven by the importance of shared information with counterparts and the fear of misunderstood information (see Figure 2).
This finding is in line with that of Presbitero (2021), who found that familiarity and comfortability when communicating with other GVT members facilitated effective information sharing and the development of a friendly virtual work environment. Presbitero further mentioned that this familiarity and comfortability allowed for information sharing, displaying interest in communication, and promoting a friendly and effective virtual work environment. In our study, this was especially applicable to high-context GVT members working on a common type of work. Our participants used the training sessions to develop and maintain rapport throughout the process. Good relationships facilitated information sharing because they were able to create an effective work environment. The sharing behavior was not limited to work-related information; once they created and maintained a good relationship, they shared nonwork-related information, such as hobbies, family, and general topics.
Implications and conclusion
This study contributes significantly to several ways to research intercultural communication, cross-cultural management, and GVTs. Notably, our research reinforces several vital studies, such as those of Cohen and Kassis-Henderson (2017), Shah and Barker (2017), and Vigier and Spencer-Oatey (2017), which found that language and culture are intertwined and affect a team’s level of communication. Our study also extends the contextual element of a new norm of working across geographical distances, suggesting that while language and culture can obscure effective communication processes, teams can learn to be flexible by accommodating different communicative behaviors.
In our study, we explored one component of effective cross cultural performance—cross-cultural code-switching of a specific culture group. Cross-cultural code-switching is a portrayal of convergence behavior that can be explained by complementary theories introduced by Hall (1976), Giles, et al. (1991) and Molinsky (2007). This study focused mainly on behavioral change, and respondents alluded to communicative patterns and styles closely mimicking the people they were working with (i.e. foreign team members). Moreover, the ongoing struggle associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the competitiveness and volatility of global businesses, which has led to the swift shift to virtual structures in MNCs. Teams and teaming have taken a new path in which organizations must be agile when accommodating changes in business contexts and virtual work structures.
Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the literature on cross-cultural management by shedding light on the culturally attuned motivational factors that influence high-context GVT code switchers to modify their communicative patterns and styles when sharing knowledge with foreign team members. The present study contributes to the field of intercultural management as it provides a better understanding of communication styles for high-context GVT members and explains the agility of high-context GVT members. Our findings also reveal significant contributions to scholarly work on a specific form of communicative behavior called code-switching. High context communication styles likewise will accommodate contradictory communicative behaviors (Ahmad and Waden, 2018; Presbitero, 2021; Zakaria, 2017). Team members work together at a distance by illuminating the critical role of contextual elements and communication adaptability. Our findings enhance the abovementioned pertinent literature by making theoretical contributions based on three relevant implications, which are as follows.
First, our findings extend Molinsky’s (2007) cultural code-switching model using intercultural communication theory focusing on high-context communicative behavior in a virtual workspace. Our results confirmed the dynamic communicative behavior of high-context GVT members and cross-cultural performance with foreign team members. We investigated a single, specific culture, although the teaming effects occurred between cross-cultural groups. High-context members demonstrated the ability to be flexible during knowledge-sharing activities in a virtual workspace. However, behavior switching has not been profoundly and primarily observed in a GVT context (Ahmad and Barner-Rasmussen, 2019; Ahmad and Waden, 2018; Zakaria, 2017). This finding is significant because it shows that communication styles are not inert but flexible. With the right communication tools, contexts, and factors, people can accommodate and assimilate to different communication styles while retaining cultural values. Our study is the first to understand GVTs and their practices for intercultural communicative behavior. Our work provides rich insights into the cross-cultural switching process in a virtual workplace, specifically in knowledge-sharing activities. As knowledge sharing is essential to any organization, all parties involved in the process must be willing and motivated to participate. If the knowledge-sharing process happens in a culturally diversified context, such as a GVT, all team members should accommodate and be more culturally aware of different communicative behaviors.
Second, the findings of this study contribute to the extension of Hall’s (1976) intercultural theory in a virtual workspace that primarily focuses on high-context cultural behavior in GVTs. We concur that Hall’s high-context and low-context cultures serve as the basis of this research. Most past studies on this cultural context were conducted in a face-to-face setting (e.g. Barkai, 2008; Chen et al., 2011; Croucher et al., 2012; Gudkunst et al., 1996; Holtbrugge and Rogers, 2012; Kapoor et al., 2003; Kawar and Jordan, 2012; Kim et al., 1998; Nishimura et al., 2008; Salleh 2005), while very few focused on the virtual context (e.g. Jimenez et al., 2017; Stahl and Maznevski, 2021; Wurtz, 2005; Zakaria and Yusof, 2020). Culture inevitably plays a crucial role in cross-cultural communication. GVT members need to understand various communicative practices and how cultural differences influence the knowledge-sharing process in their work environment.
Third, effective cross-cultural communication is key to successful virtual collaboration and cohesive cross-cultural team performance. Individuals can minimize the potential for misunderstandings during communication if they understand the cultural differences between themselves and their teammates (Bergiel et al., 2008). High-context GVT members, for example, must understand the culture of their low-context colleagues if they are to communicate efficiently. Molinsky (2007) suggested that an individual with a high level of cultural knowledge is likely to experience less difficulty when attempting cross-cultural code-switching in a foreign setting. We discovered that high-context GVT members switched their communicative behaviors to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication during crucial business meetings or discussions. In GVT projects, success depends on the ability of all team members to participate in all communication and to exchange information with accuracy (Bergiel et al., 2008); any errors or miscommunication can lead to project downfall. Our findings support Anawati and Craig (2006) and Lilian (2014) by demonstrating that using cultural code-switching to avoid misunderstandings during virtual collaboration can lead to improved cross cultural performance.
Practical implications
Our findings suggest some practical applications by MNCs, GVT members, expatriates, and intercultural trainers. This study explored why high context GVT members engaged in cross-cultural code switching behaviors. Training developers could use these reasons within simulated training exercises to script trigger events that can be expected to be followed by enactment of this particular behavior. Or, more directly, the results of this study could be used for training of cross cultural performance in that, along with other dimensions or elements of cross cultural performance, trainees can be educated of the concept of cultural code-switching and then taught to recognize the cues that might let them know that it is time to code switch if they want to perform effectively cross-culturally.
Limitations
Two main limitations might impact the results of this study. However, the limitations were justified with carefully developed criteria in the data collection process. First was the use of online written interviews to conduct the study. Despite the convenience and flexibility of online written interviews, they have disadvantages that need to be considered, such as the lack of non-verbal cues (e.g. facial expression, body language, and tone of voice). According to Hall (1976), such cues are essential for high-context communicators, who rely more heavily on non-verbal cues than low-context communicators. To address this limitation, we allowed respondents to use built-in emojis in Google Hangout and WhatsApp whenever they wanted to express their emotions or feelings during the interview. Derks (2007) affirmed that emojis help people to express their emotions via symbols rather than text because words might not be able to interpret all the feelings a person wants to express or convey.
Second, a snowball sampling method was the primary process for recruiting research participants in this study. The snowball method is ideal for reaching out to hard-to-reach populations (Handcock and Gile, 2011). Thus, it was appropriate for this study because much of the target population was either currently active in GVT projects but preoccupied with busy work schedules or had previous experience working in GVT projects but were in hard-to-reach locations outside the target region. However, the recruitment process was limited, which could have led to sampling bias. If that is the case, then understanding the cross-cultural code-switching phenomenon among high-context communicators may not be fully captured. However, we took precautions to screen the snowball sampling respondents. We ensured that the checklist criteria for GVTs members were fulfilled before conducting interviews. Given our insightful findings and their implications and limitations, we suggest that future studies could explore the following questions: (1) Are low-context GVT members flexible in their rules and ways of working compared with high-context members when sharing information? If yes, how do they engage in cross-cultural code-switching behaviors like their high-context counterparts for more effective cross-cultural performance? And (2) Does gender produce cultural disparity for people from high context versus low-context cultures? If yes, in what ways does gender diversity create a modification of culturally rooted behaviors in people’s communication styles when working in GVTs?
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.
