Leadership Styles in Multicultural Groups

Abstract

The global economy has created new realities for businesses, and the need for understanding differing communication practices and cultural values is greater than ever, particularly with regard to the surging economies in the East. Working in multicultural work groups is a new workplace reality that has created a greater need to understand how to lead these groups to maximize the quality and effectiveness of multicultural group work. Cultural differences exist regarding the importance and value of leadership. Still, much remains to be understood as to the way in which culture influences leadership and organizational processes. To what extent do cultural forces influence the expectations that individuals have for leaders and their behavior, for instance? What principles of leadership and organizational processes transcend cultures? This article is primarily directed to an American audience and uses a discursive leadership approach to provide a better understanding of how different leadership styles affect group member interaction in multicultural groups involving participants from American and East Asian cultures. Our results demonstrate that differing discursive leadership styles can affect the participation and contribution of members and may affect their feelings of inclusion and satisfaction within the group. Our results also provide evidence that particular styles of and approaches to leadership may not be as successful with all cultural groups.

Keywords

turn-taking leadership communication intercultural business communication multicultural groups

Introduction and Literature Review

Today’s global economy has increased the occurrence of multicultural work groups, and consequently, the focus on maximizing the quality of multicultural group work has increased as well. Studies have shown that moderately heterogeneous groups experience significant communication problems and do not reach their performance potential (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Earley & Mosakoski, 2000; Franklin, 2007; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Ravlin, Thomas, & Ilsev, 2000). Previous research on culturally diverse groups found that different interaction patterns exist across group members with different cultural backgrounds. Previous studies have shown that cultural preferences for length of turns, pauses between turns, simultaneous talk, or discrete turns specifically affect group performance and lead to communicative difficulties (Clyne, 1994; Du-Babcock, 1999, 2005, 2006; FitzGerald, 2003; Graham, 1985; Scollon & Scollon, 1995; West & Graham, 2004; Yamada, 1992).

While multicultural groups and different communication patterns have received significant attention in previous studies, there has been little research to understand cultural influences on leadership practices, particularly regarding Asian leadership practices and expectations. Hui and Tan (1996) reported results of a small body of research on Chinese leadership, which rather randomly mixed supervisory and leadership processes. They found that Chinese employees want their leaders to be considerate and benevolent, adhere to the Confucian parental role, and exercise sound moral judgment, such as being self-restrained, honest toward fellow colleagues and subordinates, trustworthy, and impartial. Sarros and Santora (2001) surveyed 181 executives of Australia, Japan, China, and Russia to explore the linkage between their value orientations and leadership behaviors. They found that Chinese executives emphasized values such as benevolence, harmony with others, and self-restraint. They also noted that compared with executives from the other three countries, Chinese executives did not identify independent thinking as a key value dimension.

It is not surprising that business communication research on leadership across cultures is in its infancy since the study of leadership has traditionally been undertaken by management studies, whose upsurge has been attributed to the political, technological, and economic superiority of the United States in the postwar years (Collard, 2007; Foster, 1962; Hofstede, 1980). As a result, it is laden with theories, practices, and modes of operation that reflect U.S. cultural assumptions characterized by consumerism, individualism and self-sufficiency, competitiveness, toughness, and rationality, while being exemplified in some non-Western countries as new, modern, scientific, and results-oriented (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, & Tipton, 1985; Lam, Lau, Chiu, Hong, & Peng, 1999; Pilkington & Johnson, 2003). Therefore, intercultural leadership studies often take an etic approach, when a theory or a measure developed within one social group is validated in another. Moreover, when validating their theories on other groups or in other countries, their interest has not been to understand how the theories worked but only in seeing that they worked. Leadership researchers rarely have done cross-cultural studies to learn the limitations of their theories (Ayman & Korabik, 2010).

The emerging communication scholarship on intercultural dialogue has adopted a working definition of the term as promoting “an open and respectful exchange or interaction between individuals, groups, and organizations” (Ganesh & Holmes, 2011, p. 81). The goal of such exchange is to develop a deeper understanding of diverse practices and to increase participation in making choices and decisions. Bargiela-Chiappini (2004) identifies contrasting cultural discourses and the “cultural other” as the future research agenda in the field of organizational discourse. The goal of such inquiry is to recognize the existing differences and find ways to effectively manage them, and at the same time, facilitate the process of intercultural dialogue. Oftentimes, the “Other” is defined in negative terms and is viewed as inferior, especially in cases where the Western paradigm is pervasive, such as in the socialization process of managers modeled after U.S.-centered MBA programs (Westwood, 2001). In order for Western leaders to interact successfully and effectively on a global scale, it is imperative to learn more about cultural “Others” and to include this knowledge in their intercultural interactions in order to move toward to more equal and collaborative partnerships.

An increasing body of research is studying leadership by looking at language and approaching the phenomenon as an act of social constructionism (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000; Fairhurst, 2007, 2009). From this perspective, leadership is viewed in the context of what leaders do and is thus discursive in nature. According to Robinson (2001), “Leadership is exercised when ideas expressed in talk or actions are recognized by others as capable of progressing tasks or problems which are important to them” (p. 93). According to Fairhurst (2008), this definition enables us to understand leadership as a process of influence and meaning management that advances a talk or goal, an attribution made by followers or observers, and a process, in which influence may shift and distribute itself among several organizational members.

More and more researchers are treating language as a methodological question and a window into cultural meanings. A linguistic focus is also enabling scholars to rethink traditional approaches to international business issues and, in doing so, to reveal more nuanced details about how issues such as leadership are “brought off” in intercultural settings (Fairhurst, 1993, 2007). Our study uses linguistic approaches to identify three styles of leadership communication and to assess their effectiveness in managing intercultural decision-making in groups, specifically among participants from the United States and East Asia.

This study uses some foundational assumptions of interaction analysis (IA), thought broadly, to look at how leadership emerges in groups. From an interactional perspective, relational patterns are always codefined. This is because individuals in leadership relations do not relate and then communicate; instead, they relate through communication (McDermott & Roth, 1978). IA is the study of interaction process. McDermott and Roth (1978) defined IA as when “a person’s behavior is best described in terms of the behavior of those immediately about the person, those with whom the person is doing interactional work in the construction of recognizable social scenes or events” (p. 321).

This study is an attempt to more fully understand leadership if it is understood as primarily discursive in nature and co-constructed by those involved in interactions in which influence emerges. More specifically, it provides three cases that illustrate three common processes by which leadership emerges in groups. In addition, this article argues that understanding of the construct of leadership in multicultural groups is central in accomplishing the goal of fostering mutual respect, advancing dialogue, and including different perspectives. More specifically, we analyze how particular leadership communication styles may either exacerbate or resolve some of the problems associated with working in intercultural groups in diverse organizational settings (Earley & Gibson, 2002; Earley & Mosakoski, 2000; Jehn et al., 1999; Ravlin et al., 2000).

Participants and Data Collection

Two types of data were collected in this study. The first set consisted of survey data. We asked participants to also complete a survey instrument in which they were asked to identify the leader of their group after the simulation was completed and to identify the characteristics they observed to make that determination. We used this information to identify the leader in each of the transcripts used in this study. In addition to identifying the leader of their group, the participants were asked to respond to a 12-question survey (see Appendix A) intended to measure their attitudes about the group experience in two areas: their satisfaction with the group decision-making process (an outward measure—orientation toward other group members) and their perceived sense of inclusion and value in the process (an inward measure—orientation toward “self”). Participants were used to rate their experiences in these areas, using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree.” The attitude survey was administered to a total of 146 participants that included five additional multicultural groups that participated in the same activity but were not included in the transcription analysis to ensure a higher number of respondents for purposes of statistical analysis. Of 146 participants, 59 participants were from East Asian cultures, predominantly from China, Japan, and Korea, and 87 participants were from the United States, all native English speakers. All participants were business professionals enrolled in an MBA program at a private university in Southern California with at least 2 years of work experience in their home country.

In addition, we developed a communication style-oriented measure of leadership attribute preference using six global leader behaviors identified by the GLOBE Research Program: Charismatic/Value-based leadership, Team-Oriented leadership, Participative leadership, Autonomous leadership, Humane-Oriented leadership, and Self-Protective leadership (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Based on the definition of these six global leader behaviors (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004), we derived five communication styles that we used to measure leadership. We collapsed two separate GLOBE categories, Team Oriented and Participative leadership, into one category, “Involved other in decision-making process,” based on the communicative moves that the leadership style would exhibit. The five communication styles then included (a) decisive and task oriented; (b) involved others in decision-making process; (c) modest, compassionate, and supportive; (d) independent and self-reliant; and (e) status-conscious and procedural. Twenty-six participants from five different countries, the United States, Korean, China, Japan, and Taiwan, completed this measure after participating in a simulated decision-making activity.

The results of these surveys led us to analyze our third set of data, which consisted of a total of 25 groups of business professionals (N = 120) involved in decision-making meetings. All 25 meetings were transcribed and analyzed. Of 25 groups, 20 multicultural groups consisted of members from East Asian and American cultures while 5 were homogenous groups consisting of American participants only. We chose to include an additional set of five homogenous groups because it generated a third leadership style that was not replicated in any of the multicultural teams we observed. We felt that it is important to address all three styles observed to provide a more accurate picture of the available linguistic repertoire that was used to construct leadership communication by participants from the West. Based on this set of data, three representative transcripts were chosen as the focus of this study based on their exemplary nature in representing styles of leadership that were observed.

We followed Schiffrin (1994) and used her transcription conventions (Schiffrin, 1987) based on an earlier version of transcript notations by Jefferson (1979) to transcribe our data. Since we did not focus on gaze or vocal qualities in our analysis, we felt that Schiffrin’s conventions better served our needs.

The simulation used in the study, Subarctic Survival, asked each group to take the role of airplane crash survivors. Groups were then asked to discuss and ultimately agree on the ranking of items salvaged from the aircraft in terms of their critical function for survival. The meetings were 20 minutes in length and were held and videotaped in an experiential learning laboratory equipped with professional facilities and technicians. The meetings were held in English, and the videotapes were then transcribed.

Methodology for Transcript Analysis

Two methods of analysis were used to interpret the transcript data, turn-taking patterns and interaction analysis. Both methods focus on a turn as the main unit of analysis to observe how contribution changes when multicultural groups involved in decision making are subject to different leadership styles. Turn-taking is defined as the ordering of moves that involves the interchange of talking by speakers (Johnstone, 2002). Numerous studies demonstrate that turn-taking styles are culture-specific and the potential source of many communication problems. Cultural preferences for length of turns, pauses between turns, simultaneous talk, or discrete turns specifically lead to these difficulties (Du-Babcock, 2006; FitzGerald, 2003). The analysis of Southeast Asians’ conversational style revealed that they are not successful in turn maintenance when competing with Europeans (Clyne, 1994). Du-Babcock (1999) found that meetings of multinational groups conducted in English were characterized by linear patterns of communication (distinct phases and predetermined sequence of turns) while meetings conducted in Cantonese were characterized by circular patterns (nondistinct phases and random turns). Additionally, a comparison between Japanese and Mandarin Chinese conversational styles revealed some cultural differences among East Asian groups. Japanese speakers used a high-context communication style consistently, while Hong Kong Chinese switched between a high-context and low-context communication style, depending on whether they used Cantonese or English (Du-Babcock & Tanaka, 2013).

First, we used turn-taking to analyze conversational interaction and to examine different leadership styles and group dynamics. Our specific method of analysis of turn-taking is based on a model developed by Coates (1993) to analyze the management of naturally occurring interactions in which she describes cooperative and competitive conversation styles in gendered talk. Coates’s (1993) method was selected to provide a finer grained analysis of our data and to describe competitive and cooperative styles that emerge in multicultural groups and the effects it has on group dynamics.

Coates’s (1993) model of analysis focuses on the following areas: (a) The meaning of questions—are they direct in purpose or used indirectly to facilitate conversation? (b) Links between speaker turns—does the speaker acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker or talk on the topic without acknowledging that contribution? (c) Topic shifts—are they abrupt or do speakers build on each other’s contributions? (d) Listening—is the speaker using backchannels or latching? (e) Simultaneous speech—do the speakers overlap by elaborating on the previous contribution or does the contribution of the second speaker contradict or disrupt that of the first speaker?

These interactional elements are used to analyze how their combination affects the emergence of leadership within groups of business professionals. We did not include nonverbal clues, such as gaze and gestures, in our analysis because our focus was on language and the unit of analysis was limited to a turn as a vehicle to construct leadership in talk. Nonverbal elements may provide interesting insights into our understanding of leadership, but they fell beyond the scope of this study.

Second, we used an IA approach, which involves the categorization of discourse units according to a predefined set of codes (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986). It is a quantitative approach to discourse analysis that draws from message functions and language structures to assess the frequency and types of verbal interaction. Particular emphasis is given to the sequences and stages of interaction, their redundancy and predictability, and the links between interactional structures and the organizational context (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001). IA itself is not a unitary field but also uses different theoretical foundations, units of analysis, observational modes, and study designs. But generally speaking, IA has been used to examine organizational constructs such as leadership, strategies and tactics of negotiation, and faithful or unfaithful appropriations of technology as they evolve from communication systems (Fairhurst & Cooren, 2004).

We tracked member contribution by looking at three variables, the number of turns taken, number of words spoken, and the average turn length. We calculated the number of turns taken by looking at how many times a participant spoke in any given meeting. We chose to use number of words spoken rather than the amount of time spoken used by other studies, because we believe that it is a better indicator of contribution, since many of our participants were not using their native language. Therefore, they might take longer to formulate sentences, skewing the data gathered. In addition, speaking time may vary across those who are comparably fast talkers and those who speak more slowly, even when using their native language.

Turn length was used as another variable to measure member contribution. Previous studies have noted cultural differences in turn length. Clyne (1994) found a strong correlation between turn length and cultural groups. We measured an average turn length by dividing the total number of words spoken by each speaker by the number of turns they took. We selected a quantitative approach as a secondary method so as to better illuminate the findings from our qualitative analysis.

Analysis and Findings

The findings from our group satisfaction and inclusion survey indicated that U.S.-born native English speakers and East Asians did not produce statistically significant responses to questions designed to measure their overall satisfaction with the group decision-making process (an outward-measure—orientation toward other group members).

However, in response to questions designed to measure their perceived sense of inclusion and value in the process (an inward measure—orientation toward “self”), East Asian language speakers reported that they did not feel as included, valued, or supported as their American counterparts. Their responses to the following three questions were significantly lower on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree,” than those of U.S.-born native English speakers: “I was included in the group discussion and decision making” (p = .0001); “I was valued for my contributions to the group discussion and decision making” (p = .0001); and “My group members supported me and my ideas” (p = .0001).

The question as to why the participants from East Asian countries felt less included in the group-decision-making process led us to look at the style of leadership that was emerging in our data set. The analysis of the communication-based measure to identify leadership styles using the survey mechanism revealed the following results (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Cross-Cultural Comparison of Communication-Based Leadership Styles.

	First choice	Second choice	Third choice
United States	Decisive and task oriented	Involved others in decision-making process	Modest, compassionate, and supportive
China	Status-conscious and procedural	Involved others in decision-making process	Decisive and task oriented
Korea	Involved others in decision-making process	Decisive and task oriented	Status-conscious and procedural
Japan	Status-conscious and procedural	Involved others in decision-making process and Modest, compassionate, and supportive (tie)	Decisive and task oriented

Of the five styles, being “decisive and task oriented” and “involving others in decision-making process” were displayed across all cultural groups; however, the differences emerged across cultures in the predominant features of “doing leadership.” Whereas the U.S. team members identified “decisive and task oriented” as the most important characteristic of a leader, the other cultures listed it as second or third in importance. Japanese and Chinese valued status-conscious and procedural style over being decisive and task oriented followed by involving others in decision-making process (listed as second by both groups) and modesty, compassion, and support (in the case of Japanese). Koreans identified “involving others in decision-making process” feature as the most important attribute of a leader.

Based on this analysis, although the sample was small, we felt that differences in leadership style preference might affect group satisfaction and feelings of inclusion. As mentioned, this led to our discourse analysis of transcripts to identify the styles that were exhibited in our data set. Three common styles emerged as shown in the following case analysis.

Table 2 provides a summary of the differences that were exhibited in discourse styles by the three groups in terms of leadership practices. The discussion of each leadership style as illustrated by three different case studies follows the table.

Table 2.

A Summary of the Differences That Were Exhibited in Discourse Styles by the Three Groups in Terms of Leadership Practices.

Discourse elements	Case Study 1	Case Study 2	Case Study 3
Leadership Style	Directive	Cooperative	Collaborative
Meaning of Questions	To direct members	To solicit participation	To frame the interaction and check for agreement
Links between Turns	Few	To acknowledge contribution	Some acknowledgment of contribution
Topic Shifts	Abrupt	Smooth	Smooth
Listening	Minimal	Active	Minimal
Simultaneous Speech	Interruptions	Few overlaps	Frequent cooperative overlaps

Directive Style: Case Study 1

Analysis of Questions

Lines 1 to 35 show Speaker 1 (S1) emerging as a group leader in Case Study 1. In line 1, S1 is the first to announce his choice of the most vital item for survival—matches, “I figure you can use fire, otherwise you’re screwed.” In what follows, S1 uses questions in a competitive way to defend his decision. When his choice of the most important item for survival gets questioned in line 3, he interrupts S4 in line 6 and uses a tag question to challenge an alternative choice, “[well] at least you can start a fire, though, don’t you think?”

1. S1: I figure you can use fire, otherwise you’re screwed.

2. S4: Okay, so let’s

3. S3: z but if you, but if you just have matches what are you going to do with [them?]

5. S4: [Yea] at least with the [xxxx]

6. S1: [well] at least you can start a fire though, don’t you think?

7. . . . I mean it could be one or two, it doesn’t matter.

In line 22, S1 uses an indirect question to reassert his point, “You know what I am saying?” In line 31, S1 asserts himself again and has his first choice of matches recorded as the group decision. Speaker 1 does not use questioning as a way to facilitate conversation or solicit information from other group members but instead uses questions to direct them to select his preferred option.

Interestingly, the only group members questioning S1’s choice are other native speakers of English. For example, in line 3, S3 makes an attempt to question the choice of matches as the number one item: “but if you, but if you just have matches what are you going to do with them?” When S4 offers an alternative ranking in line 16, “Okay, so, are we doing sleeping bag first and the matches second?” They are not successful at introducing an alternative ranking as S1 takes the group back to his number one choice in line 17 by saying, “um . . . I think that just not having fire is like . . .”

Analysis of Links Between Speaker Turns

Speaker 1 does not make a link with the previous speaker’s contribution but rather concentrates on making his own point as demonstrated by his turns in line 9.

8. S4: Okay, so, are we doing sleeping bag first and the matches second? Or the other way around?

9. S1: um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like XXXX.

The only acknowledgments of others that S1 makes is when the previous speaker supports S1’s point, as illustrated in line 6 above and line 21 below:

19. S3: That’s true because it’s light and

20. [it’s heat]

21. S1: [it’s suicide] z Yea, it’s light and its heat and ‘cuz either way if you start a fire and all of a sudden no matter better than any sleeping bag. You know what I’m saying?

Analysis of Topic Shifts

Speaker 1 does not show an attempt to create smooth transitions between topics. In line 16, S4 asks a question that invites a discussion; however, in line 17, S1 shifts the topic back to his agenda and forgoes the possibility to open the discussion to consider additional items, “um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like . . .”

16. S4: Okay, so, are we doing sleeping bag first and the matches second? Or the other way around?

17. S1: um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like . . .

There is little elaboration and continuity of the topics introduced into the conversation; instead, Speaker 1 shifts abruptly to his agenda, to record matches as the most important item for the groups’ survival.

Analysis of Listening

Speaker 1 does not use minimal responses in the form of yeah and mhm to signal listening. In this case, the gender of the speaker might be an issue, because it has been found that for men, minimal responses signal agreement rather than listening and support as they do for women (Coates, 1993, 1996; Tannen, 1990). Their main conversational strategy—to seize the turn—places little value on listening and thus minimal responses rarely occur in their speech. The only minimal response by S1 is offered in line 33, yeah where in fact it does mean agreement with S4, who endorses S1’s idea of putting matches as the most important item on the survival list.

Analysis of Simultaneous Speech

Speaker 1 uses overlaps that interrupt the previous speaker numerous times rather than cooperative overlaps that support the previous speaker’s contribution, as seen in line 6 (above), and lines 21, 23, and 26 (below). This, again, may be an issue of gender, since it has been shown that male speakers value speakership and therefore grab the floor by interrupting and violating the current speaker’s right to complete the turn. In addition, men then tend to respond to interruptions by continuing to speak and keeping the floor, as S1 does in line 21.

17. S1: um . . . XXX I think that just not having fire is like . . . [XXX]

18. S2: [XXX]

19. S3: [That’s ] true because it’s light

20. and [it’s heat]

21. S1: [it’s suicide] Yea, it’s light and its heat and ‘cuz either way if you start a fire and all of a sudden no matter-better than any sleeping bag. You know what I’m saying?

22. S3: Th[at’s true, that’s true.]

23. S1: [you can also xxxxxx]

24. S2: [xxx]

25. S4: [es]pecially if you find shelter and it’s going to rain

26. S1 and if z

and you and you’re wet, you know.

Speaker 2, an Asian male, latches once in line 8 validating S1’s “Okay” and tries to take the floor in line 18 and again in line 24 but is not successful. He and a second Asian male, Speaker 5, are relatively silent compared with native speakers of English. In fact, as Tables 3 and 4 indicate, the directive leadership style exhibited by Speaker 1 resulted in a greater imbalance in member contribution by cultural group.

Table 3.

Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Cultural Group, Case Study 1.

Cultural group	Average number of turns	Average number of words	Average words per turn
Asian speakers	39	127.5	3.2
American speakers	151	1,170	7.7

Table 4.

Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Speaker, Case Study 1.

Speaker	Total turns taken	Total words spoken	Average words per turn
S1: Male, English	200	1,962	9.81
S2: Male, Asian	70	217	3.10
S3: Female, English	113	678	6.00
S4: Female, English	140	870	6.21
S5: Male, Asian	8	38	4.75

As shown in Table 3, on average, Americans took five times as many turns as East Asian participants (151 compared with 39) and produced 1,170 words compared with 127 in Case Study 1. The difference in average turn length was also significantly longer: 7.7 words for Americans compared with 3.2 words for Asians. The highest number of turns taken by a native speaker of English was 200 compared with the highest number of turns taken by an East Asian participant, which was 40. Similarly, the lowest number of turns taken by an American participant was 70 compared with 8 for an East Asian participant. Table 4 displays the breakdown of the results by each speaker with reference to their cultural group and gender.

Cooperative Style: Case Study 2

Analysis of Questions

Lines 1 to 73 show the process of leadership emergence in the second intercultural group. At the beginning of the meeting, it looks as if Speaker 6, an older Asian male, may take the leadership role. In line 2, he opens the discussion by asking, “Okay, which of you chose, the uh, most important one?” S6 is quite active taking three significant turns in the beginning of discussion.

It is through the use of her questions that Speaker 1 emerges as a group leader a couple of minutes into the discussion. Instead of using questions to assert her own position or challenge others, S1 asks yes/no and open-ended questions to solicit information about other group members’ choices, “Did everyone choose the compass?” In line 36, she directs the question to two Asian females who have not yet spoken, giving them a chance to join the group, “What did you guys put as the number one?” In lines 72 and 73, she recaps the group discussion by summarizing and listing the items in order, “I think that, I think that the compass is good and then should we do the canvas as second?” which elicits an affirmative confirmation by other speakers. By then this more inclusive style establishes Speaker 1 as a leader. She takes on a more vocal leadership role in the remaining part of the transcript.

Analysis of Links Between Speaker Turns

In contrast to the group leader in Case Study 1 who did not link his comments to those of the previous speaker, Speaker 1 acknowledges the contribution of the previous speaker on several occasions. In line 46, for example, she acknowledges S6’s contribution and elaborates on the topic that he introduced, “oh really? To stay warm.” Similarly, in lines 62 and 65, she continues on a topic that had been previously introduced by latching and overlapping with S5:

61. S5: Have you ever stayed in the middle of snow? You have no idea where you are.

62. S1: you don’t

63. even know w[hat’s] up or down.

64. S5: [with] z pu[re snow, complete snow] you have no

65. S1: [everything looks the same]

Analysis of Topic Shifts

Speaker 1 uses elaboration and continuity as opposed to the sudden topic shift demonstrated by S1 in Case Study 1. Even when she changes the topic in line 73, her talk is linked to the previous speaker’s contribution, creating a smooth transition that guides the group in its discussion:

72. S5: I’m I’m I’m just saying that we agree on [the com]pass

73. S1: [yeahhhh] z I think that, I think that the compass is good and then should we do the canvass as second?

Analysis of Listening

Although Speaker 1 uses just a few minimal responses (line 72) in this excerpt, her participation is marked by active listening techniques. She actively participates in the conversation by using repetition (line 41) and validating and elaborating on the previous speaker’s turn (line 46):

36. S1: z what did you guys put as the number one?

38. S4: z what’d you get?

39. S3: z I put, I put canvas [not xxxxx]

40. S5: [oh canvas] is uh tent, the tent

41. S1: z oh canvas

43. S4: z oh canvas

44. S6: uh canvas, I put sleeping bag

45. S5: z ye[ah]

46. S1: [oh ]really? To stay warm.

She also uses frequent latching and speaks without waiting for a pause in a way that validates and supports the previous speaker’s contribution (lines 41 and 46).

Analysis of Simultaneous Speech

Speaker 1 overlaps rarely, and when she does, her overlaps are cooperative, as shown in lines 46 and 65. She does not use simultaneous speech to interrupt a previous speaker as was the case with S1 in Case Study 1. On one occasion, she uses backchanneling—yeahhh—to show solidarity with S5.

In this particular interaction, the participation rates are comparable between Asian speakers and American speakers working in a mixed group (see Tables 5 and 6).

Table 5.

Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Cultural Group, Case Study 2.

Cultural group	Average number of turns	Average number of words	Average words per turn
Asian speakers	105.7	843.7	4.6
American speakers	152.5	870.5	5.7

Table 6.

Contribution to Decision-Making Meetings by Cultural Group, Case Study 2.

Speaker	Total turns taken	Total words spoken	Average words per turn
S1: Female, English	171	1,010	5.91
S2: Female, Asian	61	202	3.31
S3: Female, Asian	100	554	5.54
S4: Male, English	134	731	5.46
S5: Male, Asian	219	954	4.36
S6: Male, Asian	43	225	5.23

The results in Table 5 show a much more balanced interaction between the two cultural groups in Case Study 2. The leadership style demonstrated by a female American participant that included overt invitations of contribution resulted in a more inclusive leadership style that ensured a more collaborative decision-making process. The invitation to speak was expressed by frequent use of yes/no and open-ended questions to help ensure that all members of the group had a chance to express their opinion before reaching a group decision. Consensus was thus this group’s preferred decision-making schema. In this setting, the average contribution by American participants was more similar to the average contribution of Asian participants when compared with the results in Case Study 1. American speakers took 152 turns compared with 105 turns by Asian speakers. The average number of words spoken by American and Asian speakers was similar, 870 and 843, respectively. American speakers’ turn length was longer than Asian speakers—5.7 compared with 4.6—but not nearly as different as in Case Study 1. This finding is consistent with Clyne (1994), who observed cultural differences in turn length, with East Asians producing shorter turns. Overall, member contribution was more balanced and more comparable across cultural groups. Table 6 displays the breakdown of the results by each speaker with reference to their cultural group and gender.

Collaborative Style: Case Study 3

Analysis of Questions

In this group, the questions in the very beginning are used to establish the collaborative nature of interaction in the group. The first couple of questions used by several members in the group are used to frame the type of discussion that will follow. It frames the type of discussion as collaborative as all the group members are more actively engaged in co-constructing the rules and the process for discussion.

10. S2: Do we wanna go around and just give like [our top 5?]

11. S1: [ What’s the] best, what’s the [least]=

12. S5: [Sure.]

Links Between Turns

Because of the collaborative nature of this group, the recognition of previous contributions is minimal but is present and positive. This can be seen in the “Okay” in line 90 and the “Yeah” of agreement by Speaker 4 in lines 87 and 93 in this example:

87. S4: Yeah, and I figure if you can’t drink the streams, you can use the mirror to help.

88. you melt the water and then [you] just drink the snow.

89. S2: [ Or ]

90. S1: Okay.

91. S2: Or I was gonna say, you can, you can melt the snow in the metal can

92. [from the matches =

93. S4: [Yeah, that’s

Topic Shifts

Speakers in this group tend to acknowledge and build on the previous speaker’s contribution and topic shifts are not abrupt but rather constructive. For example, in the same excerpt, in line 91 S2 elaborates on S1’s idea and proposes a different variation that is introduced as an option by using a connector “or” that does not sound like an abrupt topic shift but more like a productive exploration of different alternatives.

87. S4: Yeah, and I figure if you can’t drink the streams, you can use the mirror to help.

88. you melt the water and then [you] just drink the snow.

89. S2: [ Or ]

90. S1: Okay.

91. S2: Or I was gonna say, you can, you can melt the snow in the metal can

92. [from the matches =

93. S4: [Yeah, that’s

Listening

The collaborative nature of the meeting can be seen in multiple backchannels that signal listening and agreement. S3 and S2 use minimal positive acknowledgments of others’ contribution in the form of “Yeah” in lines 110 and 113. S2 and S5 signal their agreement by using minimal responses, “true” in line 118 and then “right” in line 120. Lines 122 and 123 show multiple minimal responses, “right right” and then “okay,” that support the previous speaker and validate that the group is moving in the preferred direction in its decision-making process.

108. S5: Well I put [as] my, my highest, uh the umm, the matches cause like

109. you’re, you’re wet =

110. S3: [Ya].

111. S5: = [to the] waist, you’re heavily perspiring. You’re going to

112. freeze to death because it’s =

113. S2: [Yeah. ]

114. S5: = it’s almost certainly below freezing at that point and so you need

115. to first, before anything else get warm and dry.

116. S1: I had [that,] I had that originally as matches. Actually I had, uh,

117. matches and Bacardi =

118. S2: [True].

119. S1: = because you can use Bacardi as fuel.

120. S5: Right.

121. S1: As lighter fluid.

122. S5: Right. Right.

123. S2: Okay.

Simultaneous Speech

In this group, there are frequent overlaps, but they are cooperative in the sense that they build on, expand, or productively question the previous speaker’s contribution. For example, S4 and S5 overlap in lines 281 and 282 when they both elaborate on the same point that there must be wood if they choose to keep matches among their top priority items. S1 and S2 overlap immediately following S4 and S5 in lines 283 and 284, reinforcing the need to validate the assumption that there will be branches for them to use, “There’s gotta be . . .” S4 uses an overlap in line 285 to question this assumption but not as an abrupt interruption. Rather, he productively builds on the previous speakers’ contributions and introduces an element of doubt that is put out there for the group to discuss as they move forward with their decision-making, “But will there be?”

277. S1: You need . . .

278. S4: z You need fuel. But, [what ] are we gonna do? Are we

279. gonna burn a tree =

280. S1: [XXX].

281. S4: down? [Are we gonna hope that there’s branches, right, right . . .]

282. S5: [There’s XXX dead wood on the ground ] [XXX XXX]

283. S1: [We’re gonna XXX but there’s gotta be]

284. S2: [There’s gotta be . . .]

285. S4: [But will there ] be?

No IA was completed for this third case study since this particular interaction style was observed only in homogeneous American groups, that is, no mixed group composed of participants from both the U.S. or East Asian cultures demonstrated this particular leadership style. We have included it here, however, to exemplify a particular leadership style that may not work well in mixed groups composed of members from East Asian cultures and the West.

Discussion

These findings of our surveys and IA may be explained if we consider the effects that leadership style has on group members. Case Study 1 with a more directive leadership style that resulted in greater imbalance among group members represented the most commonly exhibited leadership style in mixed groups. As a rule, all leaders demonstrating this particular style were U.S.-born males. Case Study 2, on the other hand, with a more cooperative and inclusive leadership style that resulted in more balanced member contribution was observed only in a couple of instances. The article illustrates two styles of leadership—directive and cooperative—and their effects on other members in the group, particularly in terms of whether they come from individualist or collectivist cultures. As shown, a more cooperative leadership style leads to more balanced contribution and participation of all members in intercultural groups consisting of East Asian and U.S. participants. The most commonly observed directive leadership style representative of mixed groups showed a less balanced contribution and participation rate among all participants and may be to some degree responsible for the lower degree of satisfaction among Asian participants of being included, valued, or supported within their groups.

The article also discusses a third leadership style, collaborative, which did not emerge in any mixed groups. Business professionals from the United States may benefit from knowing that they may not encounter the same level of participation and self-selection to speak and contribute in multicultural groups as one may find in all-American groups. Such active communicative behavior may be hindered by multiple factors, including language proficiency, communication apprehension, level of comfort, and familiarity. The third cooperative leadership style that showed distributed leadership among group members also requires a more aggressive and direct communication style that may not be appropriate in cultures that value benevolence, harmony with others, and self-restraint. Additionally, it may require time to build relationships and trust before engaging in this particular communicative style.

Our study indicates that differing styles of leadership can affect the participation and contribution of members and may affect their feelings of inclusion within the group. It also provides some evidence that particular styles of and approaches to leadership may not be as successful with all cultural groups. For example, the notion of the strong, charismatic leader that emerges from some traditional approaches to leadership, that is, trait, transformational, and neocharismatic theories, may not be as successful in terms of participation and feelings of inclusion by group members of particular cultural backgrounds. Similarly, a postmodern view that moves away from heroic notions of the leader to a more distributed leadership model, such as that exemplified by the collaborative style, also may not hold much cachet for some cultural groups.

These findings may explain why the cooperative style of leadership generated more balanced participation and contribution among East Asian participants, since it might better reflect the values of being considerate and respectful of others. In contrast, the directive style might be seen as too aggressive, and given the fact that language proficiency may be another obstacle to equal participation in decision making, this style prevents Asian participants from being equal partners in decision making. The collaborative leadership approach similarly requires a more assertive style of communication to self-nominate to take the floor. Power distance may partially explain why Asian participants who come from high-power-distant cultures may not engage in the distributed leadership approach because of an expectation of a designated leader or, possibly, a longer period of type needed to establish relationships. Furthermore, Du-Babcock and Tanaka (2013) list language proficiency as a potential reason for such differences. They found that all Japanese speakers initiated interaction and responded to each other while speaking in Japanese but not when they were speaking English. Interestingly enough, Japanese participated at a higher rate when they were put in a reactive role responding to interactions initiated by Hong Kong Cantonese speakers speaking English. This finding would confirm our results when a more cooperative style in Case Study 2 generated higher participation rates among our East Asian speakers.

Identifying particular discourse practices can provide a more concrete way of looking at the enactment of leadership and enabling potential leaders to more consciously approach the task with their audience in mind. For example, the specific discursive strategies as exhibited by Speaker 1 in Case Study 2 may create a more inclusive discussion space that can potentially produce more collaborative solutions and decisions while at the same time better engage participants from collectivist cultures in decision-making processes. Similarly, a more directive leadership style may not be the best approach when working with people from collectivist cultures if the goal is to encourage participation in and satisfaction with the group process among East Asian speakers.

The key focus for instructors and trainers is to teach potential (or future) global leaders the value of a cooperative leadership style in supporting greater contribution and participation from members of collectivist cultures. The awareness of leadership as a dialogic skill can empower any group not only to deepen trust and understanding of the cultural “Other” (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2004; Witteborn, 2011) but also to enable better joint decision making.

Limitations and Implications

While the purpose of this study was to isolate the effects of language in the emergence of leadership within a group, it ignored other important variables that would be at play in most organizational settings. These include structural elements, such as designated roles as leader, manager, or supervisor; cultural elements of the organization; established relations between actors; historical knowledge regarding other actors’ level of expertise, competence, and skill; and the role of nonverbal communication. In addition, this was a simulation, and as such may not replicate the stakes that might be involved in actual decision-making meetings and thus the interactions involved in them.

Furthermore, our study treated Chinese, Japanese, and Korean participants as representative of East Asian cultures. Ideally, one would look at these cultural groups separately and analyze their interactions with Americans by cultural group. However, because of small numbers of participants from each individual country, we had to combine them into a larger category that shares similar cultural values, such as high-context collectivist cultures, that are quite distinct from the American, low-context individualistic culture.

Still, it provides those interested in leadership and how it emerges in interaction a potentially new approach to think about, observe, and practice leadership in intercultural settings. This would include practitioners as well as teachers and scholars of leadership.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

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

This article is in part supported by the USC Marshall School of Business Summer Research Fund.

Author Biographies

Jolanta Aritz is an Associate Professor of Clinical Management Communication at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She teaches business communication courses in the Marshall undergraduate and graduate programs and conducts research on small group communication, cross-cultural issues, leadership and business discourse.

Robyn Walker is an Associate Professor of Clinical Management Communication at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is editor and author of several textbooks, co-editor (with Aritz) Discourse Perspectives on Organizational Communication (2012), and co-author (with Aritz) of Leadership Talk: A Discourse Approach to Leader Emergence (2014).

References

Alvesson

Kärreman

(2000). Varieties of discourse. On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149.

Ayman

Korabik

(2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65, 157-170.

Bakeman

Gottman

J. M.

(1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bargiela-Chiappini

(2004). Introduction: Reflections on a new research paradigm. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2004(166), 1-18.

Bellah

R. N.

Madsen

Sullivan

W. M.

Swindler

Tipton

S. M.

(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clyne

(1994). Intercultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Coates

(1993). Women, men and language (2nd ed.). London, England: Longman.

Coates

(1996, January 22). The chattering sexes. London Times. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/the-chattering-sexes/92097.article

Collard

(2007). Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 740-755.

10.

Dorfman

Hanges

Brodbeck

(2004). Leadership and cultural variation. In House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (Chapter 21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Du-Babcock

(1999). Topic management and turn taking in professional communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 544-574.

12.

Du-Babcock

(2005). Communication behaviors in intra- and inter-cultural decision-making meetings. Journal of Asian-Pacific Communication, 29, 147-170.

13.

Du-Babcock

(2006). An analysis of topic management and turn-taking behavior in the Hong Kong bilingual environment: The impact of culture and language use. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 21-42.

14.

Du-Babcock

Tanaka

(2013). A comparison of the communication behaviors of Hong Kong Chinese and Japanese business professionals in intracultural and intercultural decision-making meetings. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27, 263-287.

15.

Earley

C. P.

Gibson

C. B.

(2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Earley

C. P.

Mosakoski

(2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49.

17.

Fairhurst

(1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.

18.

Fairhurst

(2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Fairhurst

(2008). Discursive leadership. A communication alternative to leadership psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 510-521.

20.

Fairhurst

(2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human Relations, 62, 1-27.

21.

Fairhurst

Cooren

(2004). Organizational language in use: Interaction analysis, conversation analysis and speech act schematics. In Grant

Hardy

Oswick

Putnam

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 131-153). London, England: Sage.

22.

FitzGerald

(2003). How different are we? Spoken discourse in intercultural communication. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

23.

Foster

G. M.

(1962). Traditional cultures and the impact of technological change. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

24.

Franklin

(2007). Differences and difficulties in intercultural management interaction. In Kotthoff

Spencer-Oatey

(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication(pp. 263-285). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

25.

Ganesh

Holmes

(2011). Positioning intercultural dialogue: Theories, pragmatics, and agenda. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 81-86.

26.

Graham

J. L.

(1985). The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations: An exploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies, 16, 81-96.

27.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

28.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Hui

C. H.

Tan

C. K.

(1996). Employee motivation and attitudes in the Chinese workforce. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 364-378). Hong Kong, SAR: Oxford University Press.

30.

Jefferson

(1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In Psathas

(Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79-96). New York, NY: Irvington.

31.

Jehn

K. A.

Northcraft

G. B.

Neale

M. A.

(1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

32.

Johnstone

(2002). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

33.

Lam

Lau

Chiu

Hong

Peng

(1999). Differential emphases on modernity and traditional values in social categorization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 237-256.

34.

McDermott

R. P.

Roth

D. R.

(1978). The social organization of behavior: Interactional approaches. Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 321-345.

35.

Pilkington

Johnson

(2003). Relations of identity and power in global/local context. Cultural Studies, 6, 259-283.

36.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 78-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Ravlin

E. C.

Thomas

D. C.

Ilsev

(2000). Beliefs about values, status, and legitimacy in multicultural groups: Influences on intra-group conflict. In Earley

P. C.

Singh

(Eds.), Innovations in international and cross-cultural management (pp. 58-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Robinson

V. M. J.

(2001). Embedding leadership in task performance. In Wong

Evers

C. W.

(Eds.), Leadership for quality schooling (pp. 90-102). London, England: Routledge/Falmer.

39.

Sarros

J. C.

Santora

J. C.

(2001). Leaders and values: A cross-cultural study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 243-248.

40.

Schiffrin

(1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Schiffrin

(1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, England: Blackwell.

42.

Scollon

S. W.

(1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

43.

Tannen

(1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

44.

West

Graham

J. L.

(2004). A linguistic-based measure of cultural distance and its relationship to managerial values. Management International Review, 44, 239-261.

45.

Westwood

(2001). Appropriating the other in the discourses of comparative management. In Westwood

Linstead

(Eds.), The language of organization (pp. 241-282). London, England: Sage.

46.

Witteborn

(2011). Discursive grouping in a virtual forum: Dialogue, difference, and the “Intercultural.” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 109-126.

47.

Yamada

(1992). American and Japanese business discourse: A comparison of interactional styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.