FEELING ENERGIZED IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD: HOW
PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AND STATUS DISTANCE EXPLAIN THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL DISTANCE AND
RELATIONAL ENERGY
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
FEELING ENERGIZED IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD: HOW
PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AND STATUS DISTANCE EXPLAIN THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL DISTANCE AND
RELATIONAL ENERGY
ABSTRACT
Energy can be considered the main source enabling employees to do their work. One of the origins of energy is interaction with other individuals, called relational energy. Due to globalization, cross-cultural interactions at work tend to increase. Therefore, establishing how intercultural interactions influence relational energy is important. Theory highlights the influence of intergroup threat and threat-rigidity responses in establishing this relationship. I propose that cultural distance negatively influences relational energy via two pathways: status distance and psychological safety. Moreover, empathic abilities are proposed to influence the relationship between cultural distance and psychological safety. To test the hypotheses, I conducted a two-wave field study, surveying employees with intercultural experience at work. Results suggest that cultural distance does not directly influence relational energy. However, results do suggest that when someone is not predisposed to feelings of personal distress, cultural distance has a negative influence on relational energy via lowered psychological safety. The reverse is also supported: When someone is prone to feelings of personal distress, cultural distance seems to have a positive influence on relational energy via higher psychological safety. Implications of these results are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
As employees are experiencing more than ever work stress and job demands in the globalized world, the interest in employees’ energy at work has been growing. Energy at work can be seen as an organizational resource which enables employees to do their job and reach their goals (Quinn et al., 2012). Depletion of this energy has been related to burn-out (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2009), stress (Sonnentag et al., 2010), disengagement (Schaufeli et al., 2009) and turnover (Ducharme et al., 2008). Therefore, it is important to understand what gives people energy at work.
One of the main sources of energy at work comes from interactions with other people, which is being referred to as relational energy (Baker et al., 2019). Nowadays, social interactions at work become increasingly intercultural. Cultural distance, indicating the extent to which cultures are similar or different from each other (Hofstede, 1980; Kogut & Singh, 1988; Shenkar, 2001), influences interpersonal relations by dividing individuals into ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ (Tajfel et al., 1971). This social categorization generally leads to preference for in-group members and more negative attitudes towards out-group members (Tajfel et al., 1971). Following this, cultural distance would be expected to have a negative influence on relational energy. Yet the link between cultural distance and employee relational energy remains unexplored. Therefore, the goal of this article is to clarify the relationship between cultural distance and relational energy.
processing and a shift towards well-learned or predominant responses (Staw et al., 1981). Individuals in this state are less likely to be open to a transfer of energizing psychological resources needed for relational energy to occur.
Building on these theories, status distance and psychological safety are expected to explain the relationship between cultural distance and relational energy. Cultural distance influences status distance as status is, among others, determined by demographic characteristics like race and country of origin (Philips et al., 2009). The perceived threat theorized to result from status distance (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) causes an individual to act more rigid and to become more closed (Staw et al., 1981). Cultural distance is also argued to lower psychological safety, as anxiety about intercultural interactions (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) imposes a threat upon an individual. Lower psychological safety implies rigid responses, including fewer personal interactions (Leroy et al., 2012; Peltokorpi, 2004) and less knowledge sharing (Siemsen et al., 2009). The rigid responses caused by both higher status distance and lower psychological safety decrease the possibility of energizing psychological resources, needed for relational energy, to be transferred. Further, as empathy has been negatively correlated with anxiety caused by intergroup interactions (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Vezzali et al., 2010), I propose that an individual’s level of empathy – the ability to understand or feel (from) the other’s perspective (Davis, 1983) – moderates the indirect effect of cultural distance on employee relational energy through psychological safety.
individual traits relating to relational energy (i.e., extraversion), by showing that a subdimension of empathy, personal distress, has an influence on relational energy. It also contributes to practice, by showing managers how culturally diverse teams can have both a positive and a negative impact on employees’ energy, depending on individual traits (i.e., personal distress) of the team members.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Relational Energy and Cultural DistanceOne source of which individuals can receive energy at work are human interactions (Baker et al., 2019). The energy received from these interactions is called ‘relational energy’ (Baker et al., 2003). The concept is defined as ‘a heightened level of psychological
resourcefulness generated from interpersonal interactions that enhances one’s capacity to do work’ (Owens et al., 2016: 37). So, relational energy implies that in a dyadic interaction, an
individual receives energizing psychological resources from the other. These psychological resources include, amongst others, feeling stimulated, being more cognitively engaged in and an increased attention to dialogue with others within energizing relationships, and increased motivation (Baker et al., 2003).
out-group members: Categorization tends to negatively influence the attitudes towards the other and this subsequently influences the individuals’ behavior in social situations (Hogg & Terry, 2000), sometimes with a more favorable treatment of in-group members over out-group members as a result (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel et al., 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Indeed, cultural distance has been linked to several negative inter- and intrapersonal outcomes at the workplace. For instance, Redmond (2000) has shown that higher cultural distance triggers stress and hinders intercultural communication. He theorized that higher cultural distance restrains the accuracy in predicting and explaining the behavior of one’s communication partner, which increases stress and has a negative influence on developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). Along the same lines, Chen et al. (2010) have shown that cultural distance is negatively related to expatriate’s work adjustments. They argued that expatriates in culturally distant work environments are less likely to have the appropriate cultural knowledge and skills and therefore, are less likely to be able to behave in a culturally appropriate way.
Negative attitudes, following social categorization, and communication problems will prohibit the development and transfer of psychological resources in intercultural interactions (Dutton, 2003; Baker & Dutton, 2007; Baker et al., 2019). Therefore, I propose:
Hypothesis 1. Cultural distance has a negative relationship with employee relational energy.
Intergroup Threat Theory
Intergroup threat theory points out that processes and outcomes of social categorization are initiated by perceived threats resulting from members of an outgroup (Miller et al., 2010, Stephan & Stephan, 2017). An intergroup threat is experienced when an individual perceives the threat of harm from (a member of) an outgroup (Stephan & Stephan, 2017). This threat can be realistic or symbolic. The most relevant individual realistic threats at the workplace are economic loss, the taking away of valued resources, and risks to personal health or security (Stephan & Stephan, 2017). Symbolic threats are ‘concerns about the loss of face or honor and
the undermining of an individual’s self-identity or self-esteem’, caused by, for example, the
cultural values of out-group members or individual difference variables (Stephan & Stephan, 2017: 4).
Threat-rigidity Theory
Status Distance as a Mediator
Perceived threats may be based upon the relative status of the two groups individuals belong to (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Philips et al. (2009: 713) define status distance as ‘an
interpersonal dyadic construct that is determined by the perceived differences in status between a focal person and another individual’. Status distance has been categorized into ascribed
status and achieved status (Merton, 1968; Parsons, 1951). Ascribed status is one’s social position based upon demographic characteristics like gender, race, country of origin, and/or ethnicity (Philips et al., 2009). Achieved status is based on what someone has achieved in life him- or herself, for example, education or employment.
Cultural distance directly relates to status distance via ascribed status. As cultural distance reflects the extent to which cultural norms and values in one country differ from those in another country (Kogut & Singh, 1988), cultural distance is largely determined by the country of origin of an individual and an individual’s country of origin influences one’s ascribed status (Philips et al., 2009). For example, someone born in Japan grew up with Japanese norms and values. Being of a Japanese background and acting according to Japanese norms and values influences the perceptions of one’s status when interacting with non-Japanese colleagues. In a Germany-based company, native employees might perceive a Japanese expatriate (lower cultural distance) to be of higher status than, for example, an expatriate from Latin-America (higher cultural distance), solely based on their country of origin and, accordingly, their cultural background.
believe that (s)he will be appreciated less, based on high status distance, whereas when joining a Latin-American team for the same company, this is less of an issue. Status distance following from cultural distance can also be a realistic threat, in the sense that one might perceive a threat to one’s own position in a company (i.e., fear of being competed out of one’s own position in the organization by the other, higher status individual, or decreased chance of job promotion opportunities because of the higher status individual) (Stephan & Stephan, 2017). For example, when a Japanese expatriate joins the company, an employee might be afraid to lose his or her chances of promotion, as (s)he believes that Japanese are working incredibly hard and thus, will be of a higher status and will be appreciated more. The higher the degree of status inequality, the more explicit the threats of this status distance become (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Eventually, the perceived threat caused by status distance leads an individual to act more rigid and to become more closed (Staw et al. 1981), which lowers the possibility of receiving psychological resources needed to be energized within a relationship. Following this argumentation, it is predicted that cultural distance has a negative influence on relational energy via status distance:
Hypothesis 2. The negative relationship between cultural distance and relational energy is mediated by status distance.
Psychological Safety as a Mediator
Perceived threats caused by cultural distance may lower the feeling of psychological safety within an interaction. Team psychological safety was first introduced by Edmondson (1999) and defined as ‘a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking’. A psychologically safe team encompasses ‘a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust
and mutual respect in which people are comfortable with being themselves’ (Edmondson,
are the level of prior interaction, the amount of contact, and familiarity on an interpersonal basis, (Carmeli & Gittel, 2009; Carmeli et al., 2009; May et al., 2004; Roberto, 2002) and the quality of the relationship, indicated by trust (Schulte et al., 2012).
Following intergroup threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2017), outgroup members may impose threats upon an individual. One of the situations most likely to create perceptions of threat is a situation in which an individual is uncertain about how to behave (Stephan & Stephan, 2017). The threat follows from the anticipation that interpersonal communication with someone from an outgroup will be a negative experience because of negative psychological consequences for the self, called intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Under feared psychological consequences fall feeling uncomfortable or embarrassed (due to one’s own or the other’s behavior), incompetent, confused, and/or unsafe due to awkward interactions, communications and misunderstandings (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). These feared negative psychological consequences have been theorized to lead to interpersonal avoidance and/or shortened interaction, and lower levels of interpersonal trust (Stephan & Stephan, 1985), whereas psychological safety is based on prior interactions, familiarity, and trust (Carmeli & Gittel, 2009; Carmeli et al., 2009; May et al., 2004; Roberto, 2002; Schulte et al., 2012). Moreover, threats decrease the feelings of safety to bring up problems or ask the other for help. Thus, feared psychological consequences from interaction with out-group members (i.e. culturally distant interaction partners) are predicted to lower the feeling of psychological safety within a relationship.
it is proposed that cultural distance has a negative influence on relational energy by means of lowered psychological safety. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 3. The negative relationship between cultural distance and relational energy is mediated by psychological safety.
Empathy as a Moderator
Certain personality traits can influence an individual’s sense of capability to successfully communicate with others, making them expect intergroup interactions to be either easy or more difficult or even frightening (Stephan, 2014). Empathy is considered to be one of these traits (Stephan, 2014). In the most general sense, empathy refers to the responses of an individual to the observed experiences of another individual (Davis, 1983). Usually, these reactions are divided into affective and non-affective (cognitive) responses. Affective responses include both an individual’s actual reproduction of the other’s feelings, as well as affective reactions to the feelings of others which are different from the observed affect (Davis, 2018). One of the primary cognitive outcomes of empathy is interpersonal accuracy, which is the ‘successful estimation of other people’s thoughts, feelings, and characteristics’ (Davis, 2018). Thus, the concept of empathy includes someone’s ability to understand and/or feel what another person experiences, from this other person’s point of view (Davis, 1983), and one’s ability to take perspective of the other.
mitigates the negative consequences of cultural distance on employees’ relational energy. Thus, I propose:
Hypothesis 4. The indirect effect of cultural distance on employee relational energy via psychological safety is moderated by empathy. The higher the empathy, the less negative the relationship between cultural distance and psychological safety. The lower the empathy, the more negative the relationship between cultural distance and psychological safety.
METHOD
Sample and Procedurepurpose of control. The second wave of data collection took place around three weeks after the first wave, which is a common time frame in longitudinal two-wave studies of interpersonal relationships (Berscheid et al., 2016). This second wave measured the mediators and the dependent variable. From wave two, 309 complete responses were received. The surveys are included in Appendices A – C.
The data-cleaning process excluded 13 participants from analysis due to two reasons. In six cases, the colleagues’ country of origin was not included in the Hofstede cultural data set. In seven cases, the cultural distance scores equaled zero, meaning that the participant’s country of origin was the same as the country of origin of his or her colleague. Respondents made a distinction between, for example, England and Scotland. However, in Hofstede’s data set, these countries are coded as United Kingdom and have the same scores on all cultural dimensions.
Eventually, 296 responses were valid. On average, the participants were 39.26 years old (SD = 10.98) and 49% of the respondents were male. Of the respondents, 31.5% had a master’s degree or higher, 41.6% a bachelor’s degree, 26.7% finished high school, and .3% did not finish high school. On average, they had worked at their current organization for 88.60 months (SD = 86.65). 51.7% of the respondents held managerial positions. On average, they worked together with their colleague for 25.64 months (SD = 26.89). 43.9% of the participants indicated that they were in equal position in the organizational hierarchy with their colleague, 15.9% indicated that their colleague was higher in the organizational hierarchy, and 40.2% indicated that they occupied a higher position in the organizational hierarchy than their colleague. In total, the respondents and their colleagues represented 62 different nationalities.
Measures
Dependent Variable
Relational Energy. Relational energy was measured using Owens, Baker, Sumpter &
Cameron’s Relational Energy Scale (2016) of 5 items (a = .94). Examples of this scale are ‘After interacting with this person, I feel more energy to do my work’ and ‘I feel increased vitality when I interact with this person’.
Independent Variables
Cultural Distance. As the measurement of cultural distance is continuously debated
(Shenkar, 2001), I followed several practical recommendations by Beugelsdijk et al. (2018) for achieving convergence in research practice concerning this measurement.
This research considers cultural distance in general (i.e., not a specific dimension of culture). Therefore, I used the composite index of Kogut and Singh (Cultural Distance Index: Kogut & Singh, 1988) for calculating cultural distance, with Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. The advantage of this index (over more simple distance metrics) is that it includes the variance of the individual variables (Berry et al., 2010; Beugelsdijk et al., 2018). As for a composite index, it is advised to take all available information into account (Beugelsdijk et al., 2018; Shenkar, 2001), the six-dimensional framework of Hofstede is preferred over the four-dimensional one (Beugelsdijk et al., 2018). Therefore, I calculated the index using all six cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980): power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity/femininity, individualism, long term/short term orientation, and
indulgence/restraint.
Status Distance. No scale for measuring perceived status distance was readily
measure in this study. Therefore, I chose to measure status distance using an eight-item scale (a = .88) validated by Anderson et al. (2012), which focuses on one’s personal sense of power. Personal sense of power is highly affected by social structural factors like social position and status (Anderson et al., 2012), and therefore, for the greater part, captures status distance. Respondents were asked to answer the items with respect to the interactions with their focal colleague. Examples of the scale, adapted to a dyadic relationship, are ‘I can get him/her to listen to what I say’ and ‘Even when I try, I am not able to get my way’ (reversed).
Psychological Safety. Psychological safety was measured using Edmondson’s Team
Psychological Safety Scale (1999) of 7 items (a = .84), which was adapted to make it suitable for measuring psychological safety in a dyadic relationship. Examples of the adapted scale are ‘I’m able to bring up problems and tough issues with my colleague’ and ‘It is safe to take a risk when interacting with my colleague’ (reversed).
Empathy. Empathy was measured with Davis’ Empathy Scale (1980) of 28 items (a = .85). Empathy is a 4-dimensional construct, existing of Perspective Taking (a = .82), Empathic Concern (a = .89), Fantasy Empathy (a = .84), and Personal Distress (a = .87). Each of these subconstructs is measured with 7 items. An example of the Perspective Taking scale is ‘I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ‘other guy’s’ point of view.’ (reversed). An example of the Empathic Concern scale is ‘I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.’. An example of the Fantasy Empathy scale is ‘I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel.’. An example of the Personal Distress scale is ‘I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation.’.
Control variables. Several control variables were tested to eliminate the possibility of
I controlled for age to exclude the possibility that age influences relational energy, as age has been related to vitality at work (Baruch et al., 2014). I controlled for gender, as female employees tend to be, in general, more relation oriented (Eagly, 2009). I controlled for the personality traits extraversion and openness, as extraversion has been shown to be related to the number of energizing relationships individuals form with their teammates (Cullen-Lester et al., 2016), whereas openness to experience relates to a higher receptiveness of psychological resources (McCrae & Costa, 1997), and especially motivation (Tan et al., 2019). The duration of the relationship and the task interdependence of the colleagues were controlled for, as the amount of contact affects intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Studies have shown that intergroup contact which lasts longer in time is related to less of this anxiety (Paolini et al., 2004; Voci & Hewstone, 2003), and more positive views of the outgroup (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Task interdependence is measured with the first factor of Pearce and Gregersen’s Task Interdependence scale (1991), which reflects reciprocal interdependence (a = .76). The tenure of the individual working for the organization was also controlled for, as new employees might simply still receive more energy from their (new) job (the honeymoon effect; Zhou et al., 2017). Lastly, I controlled for the position of the focal individual in the organization, and the position of the focal individual in comparison with the position of his/her colleague, as position might influence status distance. Moreover, employees in a higher position might receive more energy in general from their job due to more responsibility (Valentine, 2001).
Analytic Strategies
initial regression analyses, all control variables were included. Only gender and position in the organization significantly influenced the results and were included as control variables in the final regression analyses (plus the control variables of wave 1). I used bootstrapping techniques (bootstrap samples = 5000) for all parameter estimates. All outcomes are described in the results section.
RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)Given relational energy, status distance, psychological safety, and empathy were reported by the same source, I ran CFA models to test the discriminant validity of these constructs (see Table 1). Based on Jackson et al. (2009), I chose to report Chi-square, Df, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). Besides, the Empathy scale of Davis (1980) includes 28 items, whereas relational energy, status distance, and psychological safety are measured with scales of five, eight, and seven items respectively. To account for this inequality, a parceling strategy was used (Little et al., 2002), creating parcels by averaging the scores of Perspective Taking, Emphatic Concern, Fantasy Empathy and Personal Distress, respectively.
The goodness-of-fit of the four-factor model is slightly below standards but satisfactory
(c2/Df [296] = 2.99; RMSEA = .08; CFI = .88; TLI = .86), based on the following indices:
c2/Df ratio is recommended to be less than 3, the values of CFI and TLI are recommended to
be greater than .90, and RMSEA is recommended to be up to .05, and acceptable up to .08 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Kline, 1998). This model fits the data significantly better than all other models (c2/Df [296] = 2.99; RMSEA = .08; CFI = .88; TLI = .86), including the
three-factor model with status distance and psychological safety combined (c2/Df [296] = 3.68;
RMSEA = .10; CFI = .83; TLI = .81), or the one-factor model (c2/Df [296] = 9.92; RMSEA =
model and all other models respectively with an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), showing that these differences are all significant at a 99.9% confidence interval (p < .001).
As empathy is a multi-dimensional construct, I also tested, in another CFA model, if the empathy measure reflects one or more factors in this sample (see Table 2). Results showed that a four-dimensional model is superior over one-, two-, or three-factor models (c2/Df [296]
= 2.79; RMSEA = .08; CFI = .84; TLI = .83), including the two-factor model which separates personal distress (c2/Df [296] = 5.28; RMSEA = .12; CFI = .62; TLI = .59), and the one-factor
model (c2/Df [296] = 7.51; RMSEA = .15; CFI = .42; TLI = .38). I tested the significance of
difference between the four-dimensional model and all other models with ANOVA, showing that these differences are significant at a 99.9% confidence interval (p < .001).
Despite the superiority of the four-dimensional model, I tested my hypotheses as planned. However, I include an additional analysis, testing the separate empathy dimensions as moderators.
X2 Df X2/Df RMSEA CFI TLI
4-factor modelb 734.354 246 2.99 .082 90%[.075-.089] .876 .860 4-factor modelc 4018.997 1074 3.74 .096 90%[.093-.099] .628 .609 *** 3-factor modeld 916.380 249 3.68 .095 90%[.089-.102] .830 .812 *** 3-factor modele 1263.726 249 5.08 .117 90%[.111-.124] .741 .713 *** 3-factor modelf 1693.411 249 6.80 .140 90%[.134-.146] .632 .592 *** 2-factor modelg 1922.478 251 7.66 .150 90%[.144-.156] .574 .532 *** 1-factor model 3214.665 324 9.92 .174 90%[.168-.179] .423 .375 ***
Notes. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. Significance of difference compared to 4-factor modelb. c = without parcelling strategy
d = status distance and psychological safety combined, internal-consistency approach for empathy e = psychological safety and relational energy combined
f = status distance and relational energy combined
g = status distance, psychological safety and relational energy combined TABLE 1
Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Conceptual Model Index
b
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
In Table 3, the means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and reliability coefficients of the measures are presented.
Hypotheses Testing
To test my hypotheses, I conducted a series of multiple regression analyses. Table 4 and 5 summarize the results of the regression analyses for Hypothesis 2-4.
I first tested whether cultural distance negatively relates to relational energy (Hypothesis 1) by running a regression analysis of cultural distance on relational energy. In contradiction to Hypothesis 1, I did not find a significant effect of cultural distance on relational energy (b = .02, SE = .05, t(295) = .31, p = .76).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the negative relationship between cultural distance and relational energy is mediated by status distance. As shown in Table 4, the indirect effect of cultural distance (X) on relational energy (Y) via status distance (M) was non-significant (b = -.02, SE = .02, LLCI = -.05, ULCI = .01).
X2 Df X2/Df RMSEA CFI TLI
4-factor model 960.798 344 2.79 .078 90%[.072-.084] .844 .828 3-factor modela 1280.957 347 3.69 .095 90%[.090-.101] .763 .742 ***
2-factor modelb 1842.123 349 5.28 .120 90%[.115-.126] .622 .590 ***
2-factor modelc 2317.443 349 6.64 .138 90%[.133-.143] .501 .460 ***
1-factor model 2627.763 350 7.51 .148 90% [.143-.154] .423 .377 *** a Perspective taking + Empathic concern; Fantasy empathy; Personal distress
b Personal distress; Fantasy empathy + Perspective taking + Empathic concern c Fantasy empathy + Perspective taking; Empathic concern + Personal distress
Notes. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. Significance of difference compared to 4-dimension model
of Empathy.
Index
More specifically, the direct effect of cultural distance on relational energy was non-significant (b = .04, SE = .05, t(290) = .77, p = .44, LLCI = -.06, ULCI = .13). Also the total
effect of cultural distance (X) on relational energy (Y), controlling for the mediator, was non-significant (b = .01, SE = .05, t(290) = .31, p = .76, LLCI = -.08, ULCI = .11). The regression of cultural distance on the mediator, status distance, was also non-significant (b = .06, SE = .04, t(290) = 1.49, p = .14, LLCI = -.02, ULCI = .13) (Model 2, R2 = .58). Testing for the effect
of status distance on relational energy, controlling for cultural distance, showed that this effect was significant (b = -.36, SE = .07, t(287) = -5.11, p = .000, LLCI = -.50, ULCI = -.22) (Model 4, R2 = .57). Thus, no evidence was found in this sample to support Hypothesis 2. These results
also hold in the no-control condition.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the negative relationship between cultural distance and relational energy is mediated by psychological safety. As shown in Table 5, the indirect effect of cultural distance on relational energy via psychological safety showed a negative pattern but was non-significant (b = -.01, SE = .02, LLCI = -.05, ULCI = .02). Specifically, the direct effect of cultural distance (X) on relational energy (Y) was non-significant (b = .03, SE = .05,
t(290) = .58, p = .56, LLCI = -.06, ULCI = .12). The results revealed that the regression of
cultural distance on the mediator, psychological safety, was also non-significant (b = -.04, SE = .04, t(289) = -1.12, p = .27, LLCI = -.12, ULCI = .03). The mediator psychological safety had a significant influence on relational energy, while controlling for cultural distance (b = .42,
t(290) = 6.11, p = .000, LLCI = .29, ULCI = .56), shown in Model 5 (R2 = .59). Thus, no
Hypothesis 4 predicted a moderated mediation relationship, where psychological safety mediates the negative relationship between cultural distance and relational energy, and empathy moderates the relationship between cultural distance and psychological safety. Table 5 shows the results. I first assessed the impact of the independent variable (cultural distance), the moderator variable (empathy), and their interaction on the mediator variable (psychological safety). The interaction effect of cultural distance and the moderator empathy on the mediator psychological safety was significant (b = .10, SE = .04, t(289) = 2.45, p = .02, LLCI = .02,
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Intercept 1.32 (.30)*** -1.89 (.31)*** 1.69 (.38)*** 1.01 (.39)*
Controls
Gender .09 (.08) .08 (.08) -.26 (.10)** -.24 (.09)*
Position organization -.16 (.05)** -.16 (.05)** .03 (.07) -.03 (.07)
Status distance (wave 1) .70 (.05)*** .73 (.05)*** .02 (.06) .28 (.08)***
Relational energy (wave 1) -.04 (.03) -.04 (.03) .70 (.04)*** .69 (.04)***
Predictors Cultural distance .06 (.04) .04 (.05) Mediators Status distance -.36 (.07)*** R2 0.57 0.58 .53 .57 deltaR2 .01 .04 B SE t p Total effect of X on Y .0149 .0483 .3078 .7584 Direct effect of X on Y .0356 .0465 .7661 .4442
Indirect effect of X on Y LLCI ULCI
Status Distance -.0208 .0164 -.0547 .0097
Notes. N=296. Standard Errors between parentheses. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. Regression results moderated mediation
TABLE 4
Regression Analyses: Status Distance as Mediator
ULCI = .18), shown in Model 3 (R2 = .59). Next, I looked at the significance of the conditional
indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The index of moderated mediation (b = .04) was significant (SE = .02, LLCI = .01, ULCI = .08), supporting the existence of a moderated mediation relationship. This indirect effect at one standard deviation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Intercept 1.39 (.23)*** 1.21 (.33)*** -4.19 (.26)*** 1.79 (.31)*** 3.59 (.41)***
Controls
Gender -.06 (.07) -.08 (.08) -.07 (.08) -.27 (.10)** -.24 (.09)**
Psychological safety (wave 1) .68 (.04)*** .68 (.04)*** .72 (.05)*** -.01 (.06) -.30 (.07)***
Relational energy (wave 1) .09 (.03)** .09 (.04)* .10 (.04)** .70 (.05)*** .66 (.04)***
Predictors
Cultural distance -.03 (.04) -.04 (.04) .03 (.05)
Moderator
Empathy .06 (.07) .04 (.04)
Cultural distance x Empathy .10 (.04)**
Mediators Psychological safety .42 (.07)*** R2 0.58 .58 .59 .53 .59 deltaR2 .00 .01 .06 B SE t p Direct effect of X on Y .0264 .0455 .5812 .5616 LLCI ULCI Indirect effect of X on Y -.0117 .0183 -.0498 .0227
Index of moderated mediation
Empathy .0416 .0170 .0117 .0773
Effect SE BootLLCI BootULCI
-1 SD -.0559 .0257 -.1130 -.0130
Mean -.0183 .0182 -.0571 .0140
+1 SD .0219 .0224 -.0243 .0665
Notes. N=296. Standard Errors between parentheses. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. Regression results moderated mediation
Conditional indirect effects at Empathy = mean and +- 1 SD TABLE 5
Regression Analyses: Psychological safety as mediator
below the mean of the moderator (empathy) was negative and significant (b = -.06, SE = .03, LLCI = -.11, ULCI = -.01), providing evidence for a conditional indirect effect for respondents with lower levels of empathy. These results also hold in the no-control condition. Thus, the confidence interval test provides support for the moderated mediation model and Hypothesis 4.
Additional Analyses
In this section, an analysis of the results using the separate dimensions of empathy as moderators is provided. Also, to corroborate my operationalization of cultural distance based on six rather than four cultural dimensions, I ran additional analysis with an alternative operationalization based on four cultural dimensions of Hofstede instead.
Personal Distress as Moderator
Alternative Measurement of Cultural Distance
A drawback of using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions is that not all dimensions are available for all countries. In the initial analysis, all available data was used, meaning that for some countries, one or more dimensions were lacking. For example, the culture ‘index’ of Thailand was only based upon the initial four dimensions, as data on long term vs. short term and indulgence vs. restraint was not available. To account for this limitation and to see whether
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Intercept 1.39 (.23)*** 1.40 (.28)*** -4.25 (.25)*** 1.79 (.31)*** 3.59 (.41)*** Controls
Gender -.06 (.07) -.06 (.07) -.04 (.08) -.27 (.10)** -.24 (.09)** Psychological safety (wave 1) .68 (.04)*** .68 (.05)*** .70 (.05)*** -.01 (.06) -.30 (.07)*** Relational energy (wave 1) .09 (.03)** .09 (.04)+ .11 (.04)** .70 (.05)*** .66 (.04)*** Predictors Cultural distance -.03 (.04) -.04 (.04) .03 (.05) Moderator Personal distress (PD) .01 (.04) -.00 (.04) Cultural distance x PD .13 (.04)** Mediators Psychological safety .42 (.07)*** R2 .58 .58 .59 .53 .59 deltaR2 .00 .01 .06 B SE t p Direct effect of X on Y .0264 .0455 .5812 .5616
Index of moderated mediation LLCI ULCI
Personal Distress .0539 .0290 .0065 .1179
Effect SE BootLLCI BootULCI
-1 SD -.0703 .0402 -.1598 -.0023
Mean -.0123 .0181 -.0505 .0221
+1 SD .0385 .0283 -.0092 .0999
Notes. N=296. Standard Errors between parentheses. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. Regression results moderated mediation
Conditional indirect effects at PD = mean and +- 1 SD
TABLE 6
Regression Analyses: Psychological Safety as Mediator, Personal Distress as Moderator
results hold with alternative calculations, I calculated two different sets of CD scores: One set using only countries with complete data on the four initial dimensions (CD-4), and one using only countries with data available on the complete set of six cultural dimensions (CD-6). This reduced the data set for the four respectively six dimensions to 283 respectively 279 cases. As personal distress turned out to be the dimension of empathy influencing the results, this construct is used in these additional analyses. The same procedures as described above are followed.
Status distance as mediator. For status distance, both CD-6 and CD-4 again did not
lead to significant moderation results.
Psychological safety as mediator. Results for CD-6 and CD-4 are shown in Table 7
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Intercept 1.36 (.24)*** 1.38 (.28)*** -4.23 (.25)*** 1.72 (.32)*** 3.65 (.43)***
Controls
Gender -.07 (.07) -.07 (.08) -.06 (.08) -.26 (.10)* -.23 (.09)*
Psychological safety (wave 1) .68 (.05)*** .67 (.05)*** .69 (.05)*** -.01 (.06) -.31 (.08)***
Relational energy (wave 1) .10 (.04)** .10 (.04)** .13 (.04)** .70 (.05)*** .65 (.05)***
Predictors Cultural distance .01 (.04) -.00 (.04) .04 (.05) Moderator Personal distress (PD) -.01 (.04) -.03 (.04) Cultural distance x PD .16 (.04)*** Mediators Psychological safety .45 (.07)*** R2 .59 .59 .61 .52 .58 deltaR2 .00 .02 .06 B SE t p Direct effect of X on Y .0376 .0470 .8014 .4236 LLCI ULCI Indirect effect of X on Y -.0117 .0183 -.0498 .0227
Index of moderated mediation
Personal Distress .0717 .0325 .0189 .1452
Effect SE BootLLCI BootULCI
-1 SD -.0737 .0433 -.1692 .0002
Mean -.0013 .0204 -.0420 .0409
+1 SD .0711 .0333 .0161 .1468
Notes. N=279. Standard Errors between parentheses. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. TABLE 7
Regression Analyses: Psychological Safety as mediator, Personal Distress as moderator, CD-6
M: Psychological safety DV: Relational energy
Regression results moderated mediation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Intercept 1.26 (.24)*** 1.28 (.28)*** -4.35 (.26)*** 1.77 (.32)*** 3.77 (.43)***
Controls
Gender -.05 (.07) -.05 (.07) -.04 (.04) -.25 (.10)* -.23 (.09)*
Psychological safety (wave 1) .70 (.05)*** .70 (.05)*** .72 (.05)*** .00 (.06) -.34 (.07)***
Relational energy (wave 1) .09 (.04)* .09 (.04)* .11 (.04)** .70 (.05)*** .65 (.04)***
Predictors Cultural distance -.00 (.03) -.01 (.04) .04 (.05) Moderator Personal distress (PD) -.00 (.04) -.02 (.04) Cultural distance x PD .14 (.04)** Mediators Psychological safety .45 (.07)*** R2 .59 .59 .60 .53 .59 deltaR2 .00 .01 .06 B SE t p Direct effect of X on Y .0412 .0459 .8966 .3707 LLCI ULCI Indirect effect of X on Y -.0025 .0203 -.0414 .0398
Index of moderated mediation
Personal Distress .0621 .0312 .0064 .1276
Effect SE BootLLCI BootULCI
-1 SD -.0690 .0442 -.1617 .0117
Mean -.0063 .0209 -.0467 .0376
+1 SD .0564 .0300 .0021 .1186
Notes. N=283. Standard Errors between parentheses. + p < .10, * p < 0.05, ** p < .01, *** p < 0.001. Conditional indirect effects at PD = mean and +- 1 SD
TABLE 8
Regression Analyses: Psychological safety as Mediator, Personal Distress as Moderator, CD-4
M: Psychological safety DV: Relational energy
DISCUSSION
Over the years, workplaces have become increasingly intercultural and, at the same time, the interest inemployees’ vitality and energy has been growing. These developments led to the need of exploring the potential influences of an intercultural workplace on employees’ energy. Therefore, in this study, I set out to investigate the relationship between cultural distance and relational energy on the work floor, where relational energy is the energy derived from interpersonal interactions.
Results suggest that cultural distance does not directly influence relational energy. Also, no evidence is found for an indirect effect via status distance, nor via psychological safety. The findings do suggest the existence of a conditional indirect effect, such that cultural distance has a negative influence on relational energy via lowered psychological safety, for low-empathy individuals. Additional analysis shows that empathy needs to be considered as multidimensional. Testing for the effect of the different dimensions suggests that one’s predisposition to feelings of personal distress influences the effect of cultural distance. Specifically, results suggest that when someone is not prone to experiencing feelings of personal distress, cultural distance has a negative influence on relational energy via lowered feelings of psychological safety. Additionally, analyses with different conceptualizations of cultural distance show that, in this data set, cultural distance has a positive influence on relational energy via higher psychological safety for individuals being predisposed to higher feelings of personal distress.
is that the differing social categories become salient (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel et al., 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). At the workplace, however, the individual might be seen less as a member of his or her cultural group, and more as an individual being member of the ingroup, namely the employees of the company or colleagues of the same division. This would underscore the importance of the activation of an outgroup identity for social categorization processes, and thus, intergroup threats, to have an influence on interpersonal relations.
Theoretical Implications
These results contribute to the existing literature on various concepts in the model. I advance the theory on relational energy in the workplace by answering the call to examine antecedents of relational energy, both at the individual level and the dyadic level (Owens et al., 2016: p. 46). Prior research showed the influence of leader humility (Wang et al., 2018) and extraversion (Cullen-Lester et al., 2016) on relational energy. Here, it is suggested that the feeling of psychological safety and status distance are both related to relational energy. Outcomes also suggest that cultural distance does not directly influence relational energy. Moreover, results show that not only personality traits of the ‘sender’ influence relational energy (i.e. extraversion). Also intrapersonal differences of the ‘receiver’, like personal distress, are likely to influence whether this individual perceives a relationship as energizing. Lastly, this study extends the existing empirical literature on relational energy (Owens et al., 2016; Cullen-Lester et al., 2016; Gerbasi et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018).
personality characteristics. Specifically, employees who are prone to feelings of personal distress might be less sensitive to negative influences of cultural distance: Results even suggest a positive influence of cultural distance on their experience of relational energy in dyadic work relationships.
It also contributes to existing work on psychological safety in business settings. Psychological safety has already been shown to be an important concept in businesses, leading to positive outcomes like employee engagement, task performance, satisfaction, commitment, information sharing and learning behavior (Lance Frazier et al., 2017). Here, results suggest that a feeling of interpersonal psychological safety also has a positive influence on relational energy within a relationship, increasing the amount of energy of an employee overall.
Practical Implications
This study suggests that personal differences influence how likely someone is to receive energy from an interpersonal relationship. This might have implications for an employee’s overall level of energy, and thus, one’s job engagement and job and task performance (Owens et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018). The outcomes also suggest that, in itself, cultural distance does not have negative implications for employees’ psychological safety or feelings of relational energy. Thus, from this viewpoint, cultural distance cannot be used as an argument against increasing the cultural diversity at the workplace.
Limitations and Future Research
colleagues might have been more top of mind, or just more pleasant to think about. Good relationships are by nature less threatening, and thus, not likely to negatively influence psychological safety. The distribution of scores on psychological safety might underscore this: 92.2% of the respondents scored between 4 and 7 on the 7-point Likert scale of Psychological Safety (Edmondson, 1999).
The second limitation relates to the measurement of cultural distance. Research suggests that cultures have moved, although in the same direction (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018; Fernandez et al., 1997; Inglehart & Baker, 2000). As Hofstede’s data set exists of data collected in different years (from the 1970s onwards, depending on the country), the movement of cultures, even though they seem to move in the same direction, influences the cultural distance comparison scores. For example, The Netherlands scores 80 on individualism, measured in the 1970s. Hungary also scores 80 on individualism, but this has been measured at least 20 years later. As data has not been updated, the cultural distance on individualism between the Netherlands and Hungary nowadays is zero. However, considering that all countries seem to have become more individualistic over the years, the Netherlands would probably scored higher than 80 on individualism in the 1990s. Data measured at the same point in time would have given a more accurate representation of cultural distance between countries and could have led to different results on country comparison scores. This is a drawback that has to be taken into account when interpreting the results.
The third limit lies in the measure of status distance. Status distance was operationalized as personal sense of power, using the Sense of Power Scale developed by Anderson et al. (2012). One of the original arguments for the choice of this scale was that sense of power is highly affected by social structural factors like social position and status (Anderson et al., 2012). Therefore, it was expected to, for the greater part, capture status distance. However, this operationalization might be limited. Personal sense of power has also been shown to be a moderately stable characteristic of a person (Anderson et al., 2012). Personality might have been more influential than expected, implying that the measure reflects more of an individual difference rather than a contextual state as a result of cultural distance. Therefore, in retrospect, it might be questioned whether sense of power was a good representative of perceived status distance after all.
A fourth limitation comprises the construct of empathy. In this study, I chose to consider empathy as a single-factor construct. This decision turned out to be sub-optimal, as statistical analysis showed that for this data set, empathy had to be considered as multidimensional, existing of four separate constructs. This outcome emphasizes the need for future research to explore whether distinctive empathy dimensions are to be treated differently and to not, by definition, consider empathy as a single-factor construct.
Future research might further explore the influence of personal distress in employees’ work relationships. In this research, results suggest that being low respectively high on personal distress leads to a negative respectively positive influence of cultural distance on relational energy via psychological safety. The personal distress scale measures ‘‘self-oriented’ feelings
of personal anxiety and unease in tense personal settings’ (Davis, 1983: 114). Following this
Therefore, one would expect that when someone is low on personal distress, he or she is less prone to feelings of anxiety, and the negative effect of cultural distance on psychological safety should be weakened. On the contrary, when someone is predisposed to higher feelings of personal distress, these effects of anxiety are fortified, leading to a stronger negative effect of cultural distance on psychological safety. An explanation for the counterintuitive effect could be that the more sensitive someone is to feelings of personal distress, the more this person wants to avoid tense interpersonal settings, and thus, the more (s)he invests in understanding the other, leading to less anxiety and threat. This explanation might not hold without predicting a curvilinear relationship, as ‘personal distress scores were strongly associated with lower
self-esteem and poor interpersonal functioning (especially shyness and social anxiety)’ (Davis,
1983: 121). This line of argumentation should be explored in future research.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. 2012. The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of
Personality, 80(2): 313–344.
Baker, W. E. 2019. Emotional Energy, Relational Energy, and Organizational Energy: Toward a Multilevel Model. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 6(1): 373–395.
Baker, W. E., Cross, R., & Wooten, M. 2003. Positive organizational network analysis and energizing relationships. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline: 328–342. San Fransisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Baker, W. E., & Dutton, J. E. 2007. Enabling positive social capital in organizations. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a
theoretical and research foundations: 325–345. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, W., Cross, R., & Wooten, M. 2003. Positive organizational network analysis and energizing relationships. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New
Discipline, 328–342.
Baruch, Y., Grimland, S., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2014. Professional vitality and career success: Mediation, age and outcomes. European Management Journal, 32(3): 518–527. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national
distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.
Berscheid, E. S., & Regan, P. C. 2016. The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Psychology Press.
Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture:
Beugelsdijk, S., Ambos, B., & Nell, P. C. 2018. Conceptualizing and measuring distance in international business research: Recurring questions and best practice guidelines.
Journal of International Business Studies, 49(9): 1113–1137.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. 2002. Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6): 744–753.
Cameron, J. E., Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Lalonde, R. N. 2005. Perceptions of self and group in the context of a threatened national identity: A field study. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 8(1): 73–88.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. 2009. Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 26: 81–98.
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. 2009. High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 709–729.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B., Kim, K., Farh, C., & Tangirala, S. 2010. When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the
moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(5): 1110–1130.
Cullen-Lester, K. L., Leroy, H., Gerbasi, A., & Nishii, L. 2016. Energy’s role in the extraversion (dis)advantage: How energy ties and task conflict help clarify the relationship between extraversion and proactive performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 37: 1003–1022.
Davis, M. H. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1): 113– 126.
Demerouti, E., Nachreiner, F., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2001. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Ducharme, L. J., Knudsen, H. K., & Roman, P. M. 2008. Emotional exhaustion and turnover intention in human service occupations: The protective role of coworker support.
Sociological Spectrum, 28(1): 81–104.
Dutton, J. E. 2003. Energize your workplace: How to build and sustain high-quality
connections at work. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eagly, A. H. 2009. The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8): 644.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350–383.
Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. 1997. Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1): 43–54.
Froese, F. J., & Peltokorpi, V. 2011. Cultural distance and expatriate job satisfaction.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1): 49–60.
Gerbasi, A., Porath, C. L., Parker, A., Spreitzer, G., & Cross, R. 2015. Destructive de-energizing relationships: How thriving buffers their effect on performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100(5): 1423–1433.
Gladstein, D. L., & Reilly, N. P. 1985. Group Decision Making Under Threat: The Tycoon Game. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3): 613–627.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6): 504–528.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. 1988. The Influence of Social Identity and Intimacy of Interethnic Relationships on Uncertainty Reduction Processes. Human Communication
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values (Volume 5). Sage Publications.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2002. Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121–140. House, J. 1997. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication. Toegepaste
Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 57(1): 11–17.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 19–51.
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. 2009. Reporting Practices in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: An Overview and Some Recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 14(1): 6–23.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
Kline, P. 1998. The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. Psychology Press.
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode.
Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3): 411–432.
Lee, S. A., Guajardo, N. R., Short, S. D., & King, W. 2010. Individual differences in ocular level empathic accuracy ability: The predictive power of fantasy empathy. Personality
and Individual Differences, 49(1): 68–71.
Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J. R. B., et al. 2012. Behavioral integrity for safety, priority of safety, psychological safety, and patient safety: A team-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6): 1273–1281.
Levin, S. 2004. Perceived Group Status Differences and the Effects of Gender, Ethnicity, and Religion on Social Dominance Orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1): 31–48.
Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. 1979. Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relation Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2): 181.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. 2005. To parcel or not to parcel. Structural Equation Modeling.
MacInnis, C. C., & Page-Gould, E. 2015. How Can Intergroup Interaction Be Bad If Intergroup Contact Is Good? Exploring and Reconciling an Apparent Paradox in the Science of Intergroup Relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3): 307– 327.
May, D., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 11–37.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. 1997. Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience.
Handbook of personality psychology: 825–847. Academic Press.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Miller, S. L., Maner, J. K., & Becker, D. V. 2010. Self-Protective Biases in Group
Owens, B. P., Baker, W. E., Sumpter, D. M. D., & Cameron, K. S. 2016. Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(1): 35–49.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. 2004. Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of catholics and protestants in northern ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30(6): 770–786.
Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991. Task Interdependence and Extrarole Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Felt Responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6): 838–844.
Peltokorpi, V. 2004. Transactive memory directories in small work units. Personnel Review, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480410539515.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5): 751–783.
Phillips, K. W., Rothbard, N. P., & Dumas, T. L. 2009. To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 710–732.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., et al. 2007. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses : Theory , Methods , and Prescriptions.
Multivariate Behavioral, 3171(June): 37–41.
Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. 2012. Building a Sustainable Model of Human Energy in Organizations: Exploring the Critical Role of Resources. Academy of
Redmond, M. V. 2000. Cultural distance as a mediating factor between stress and intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 24(1): 151–159.
Roberto, M. A. 2002. Lessons from Everest: The interaction of cognitive bias, psychological safety and system complexity. California Management Review, 45: 136–158.
Rose, A., & Tajfel, H. 1983. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social
Psychology. Contemporary Sociology, vol. 12. Cambridge SE - xiii, 369 p. : table ; 23 cm: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2066820.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & van Rhenen, W. 2009. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(7): 893–917.
Schulte, M., Cohen, N. A., & Klein, K. J. 2012. The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2): 564–581. Schwartz, S. H. 1999. Cultural value differences: Some implications for work. Applied
Psychology International Review, 48(1): 23–47.
Schwartz, S. H. 2006. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and Applications.
Comparative Sociology, 5(2): 137–182.
Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism; new cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism
and collectivism. Theory, method, and applications: 85–119. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 519–535.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., Balasubramanian, S., & Anand, G. 2009. The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing.
Smith-Lovin, L., & Mcpherson, J. M. 1987. Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to- Face Groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3): 370–379.
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. 2010. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 76(3): 355–365.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat Rigidity Effects in
Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. 2017. Intergroup threat theory. The International
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, 1–12.
Stephan, W. G. 2014. Intergroup Anxiety: Theory, Research, and Practice. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 18(3): 239–255.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. 1985. Intergroup Anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3): 157–175.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. 2000. An integrated threat theory of prejudice. Reducing
Prejudice and Discrimination, 23–46.
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. CUP Archive.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2): 149–178. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. 1979. An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56–65.
Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Cairns, E., & Christ, O. 2007. Cross-community contact, perceived status differences, and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland: The mediating roles of individual-level versus group-level threats and the moderating role of social identification. Political Psychology, 28(1): 53–68.
Valentine, S. R. 2001. Men and women supervisors’ job responsibility, job satisfaction, and employee monitoring. Sex Roles, 45(3–4): 179–197.
Vezzali, L., Giovannini, D., & Capozza, D. 2010. Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and
intergroup emotions. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20: 462– 479.
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. 2003. Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Toward Immigrants in Italy: The Mediational Role of Anxiety and the Moderational Role of Group Salience.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1): 37–54.
Wang, L., Owens, B. P., Jason Li, J., & Shi, L. 2018. Exploring the affective impact, boundary conditions, and antecedents of leader humility. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 103(9): 1019–1038.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. 2001. The psychology of culture shock. Sussex: Routledge.
Widaman, K. F., & Kishton, J. M. 1994. Unidimensional Versus Domain Representative Parceling of Questionnaire Items: An Empirical Example. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 54(3): 757–765.
APPENDIX A: SURVEY SCREENING
Please enter your Prolific ID here:
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to this research study!
On the next page, you will be asked to indicate your cultural background and cross-cultural experience at work. It takes about 1 minute.
Risk and Insurance
Because this study entails no health or other risks, there is no special insurance policy.
Data Privacy and Confidentiality
Collected data will only be used for scientific projects. Identification information will be anonymized.
Participation and Reward
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You will receive monetary rewards via Prolific for your valid participation. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason, and without any prejudice. If you would like to contact the Principal Investigator in the study to discuss this research, please email dr. Yingjie Yuan (yingjie.yuan@rug.nl).
By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is voluntary, you are at least 18 years of age, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation in the study at any time and for any reason.
O I consent, begin the study
O I do not consent, I do not wish to participate
As you do not wish to participate in this study, please return your submission on Prolific by selecting the 'Stop without completing' button.
Do you have current cross-cultural experiences at work?
O Yes O No
Please indicate your country of origin (note that it may differ from your nationality) ________________________________________________________________
Which country is this co-worker originally from?
________________________________________________________________ How closely did you work together (i.e. interact at work)?
O None at all O A little
O A moderate amount O A lot
O A great deal
How long did you work together?
O Less than 1 month O 1-2 months O 2-6 months O 6-24 months
