National status has been found to influence how people are perceived in multinational teams. Team members from an international background are often perceived as less competent than those from the local context. Studies mainly focus on language differences to explain this phenomenon, but in this study, we offer a different theoretical explanation. We propose that national status can affect psychological safety and its development within teams, which in turn affects verbal behavior and competence ratings. To test this notion, we examine differences in psychological safety growth, verbal behavior and competence ratings among home country nationals based in the United Kingdom (UK) and international members of newly formed multinational teams. In a sample of 519 team members (101 teams), results showed that internationals, compared to home country nationals, have lower initial psychological safety, as well as slower development in psychological safety over time. Furthermore, the relationship between national status and competence ratings was partially mediated by psychological safety growth and verbal behavior. These results were fully replicated on a separate sample of 538 team members (90 teams) in a second study using an identical research design. However, exploratory analyses indicated that the pattern of findings were not consistent across team members from Africa, Asia, and Europe. The psychological safety of home nationals only started and grew more quickly than that of Asians, while only African and Asian team members spoke less and were rated as less competent. Together these results have implications for managers of newly formed multinational teams.
In this article we reflect on the ‘Interconnections between Culture and Behaviour: Interdisciplinary Perspectives’ conference. The event brought together renowned scholars from the fields of psychology and sociology to applied linguistics, who presented the conceptualisations made and methodological approaches taken to explore culture and behaviour in their respective disciplines. In table discussions the participants debated the commonalities and differences between their respective disciplines and reflected on their own approaches. In a final plenum discussion speakers and participants questioned the compatibility of approaches in order to explore opportunities for interdisciplinary research. No discipline denied that links between culture and behaviour exist, but that other constructs are needed to explore them further, such as norms. The contexts in which behaviours are observed were also highlighted as crucial by all speakers, although they operationalised it quite differently. All sides acknowledged the value of multi- or interdisciplinary approaches when researching the links between culture and behaviour. However, philosophical differences affecting practical issues, such as data collection methods and analytical tools, were also identified as impacting compatibility. Following the discussions at the event, speakers and organisers decided to further explore these ideas in a special issue, which is currently in preparation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.