Muehl eld, Ka in; Lode e , Anja; Sem au, Tho s en; Wilken, Robe
A icle — Published Ve sion
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e
Pe o mance o Dyadic Teams
Managemen In e na ional Re iew
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Muehl eld, Ka in; Lode e , Anja; Sem au, Tho s en; Wilken, Robe (2025) :
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o Dyadic Teams, Managemen
In e na ional Re iew, ISSN 1861-8901, Sp inge , Be lin, Heidelbe g, Vol. 65, Iss. 1, pp. 145-173,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11575-024-00557-1
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/323466
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Managemen In e na ional Re iew (2025) 65:145–173
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11575-024-00557-1
Abs ac
Fi ms ely on hei employees’ c ea i i y o d i e inno a ion and secu e compe i-
i e ad an ages. In he mode n wo kplace, eam membe s o en collabo a e in a
non-na i e language and in e ac i ually a he han ace- o- ace. Ye , he e ec s
o o eign language use and i uali y on he c ea i e pe o mance o eams ha e
no been ully explo ed. The p esen s udy add esses his issue using an expe imen
wi h 95 dyadic eams, which we andomly assigned o ei he a o eign o a na i e
language condi ion. In line wi h ou heo e ical easoning, we ind ha o eign
language use is de imen al o eam c ea i e pe o mance, an e ec ha can be al-
le ia ed by eam membe s’ o eign language p o iciency. We u he obse e ha , a
leas in he o eign language condi ion, in e ac ing i ually a he han ace- o- ace
can s imula e eam c ea i e pe o mance. Vi uali y may hus help alle ia e some
globaliza ion-induced challenges o nu u ing c ea i e pe o mance.
Keywo ds Team c ea i i y · Fo eign language use · Fo eign language
p o iciency · Fo eign language anxie y · Vi ual in e ac ion
Recei ed: 13 Ma ch 2023 / Re ised: 13 Oc obe 2024 / Accep ed: 16 Oc obe 2024 /
Published online: 8 Janua y 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2024
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e
Pe o mance o Dyadic Teams
Ka inMuehl eld1· AnjaLode e 1· Tho s enSem au1· Robe Wilken2
Lis ed in alphabe ical o de , Anja Lode e , Tho s en Sem au and Robe Wilken con ibu ed equally o
his wo k.
Ka in Muehl eld
muehl eld@uni- ie .de
Anja Lode e
[email p o ec ed]
Tho s en Sem au
sem au@uni- ie .de
Robe Wilken
[email p o ec ed]
1 Depa men o Business Adminis a ion, T ie Uni e si y, T ie , Ge many
2 ESCP Business School, Be lin, Ge many
1 3
K. Muehl eld e al.
1 In oduc ion
To os e inno a ion and compe i i eness, o ganiza ions depend on hei employees
o be c ea i e (i.e., o gene a e ou comes ha a e no el and use ul; De Vasconcellos
e al., 2019; Lua e al., 2023; Pe y-Smi h & Shalley, 2014; Zhou & Hoe e , 2014).
In con empo a y o ganiza ions, he beha io s and ac i i ies ha may p oduce c e-
a i e ou comes a e o en embedded in eams (Lua e al., 2023; Mesme -Magnus &
DeChu ch, 2009; Rei e -Palmon e al., 2012)—and hese eams inc easingly o en
u ilize a non-na i e language and ely on i ual communica ion echnology o in e -
ac . Howe e , ou unde s anding o how o eign language use, i ual in e ac ion,
and hei in e play a ec he c ea i e pe o mance o eams is s ill se e ely limi ed.
Due o he inc easingly mul ilingual na u e o o ganiza ions–– anging om mul i-
na ional en e p ises (MNEs) o domes ic i ms ha employ skilled mig an and o he
non-na i e language wo ke s (e.g., Angou i & Piekka i, 2018; Chen e al., 2006;
Hokkinen & Ba ne -Rasmussen, 2023; Kassis-Hende son, 2005; Robe s, 2010; Ten-
ze e al., 2014; Tenze e al., 2021)–– eam c ea i i y in con empo a y o ganiza ions
o en in ol es a undamen al decision ega ding he language in which collabo a-
ion akes place. Speci ically, employees o en communica e in a language o he han
hei mo he ongue when join ly engaging in ac i i ies mean o p oduce c ea i e
ou comes (e.g., Tenze e al., 2021). Bu how does o eign language use a ec he
c ea i e pe o mance o eams? S udies on indi idual c ea i i y sugges ha using
a non-na i e language can a ec c ea i e p ocesses and ou comes ad e sely (e.g.,
Geenen e al., in p ess; Haans & an Wi eloos uijn, 2024; Hayakawa & Keysa ,
2018; No hel e , 2020). Howe e , gi en ha simply assuming homology be ween
how an eceden s ela e o c ea i e pe o mance a he indi idual and eam le els may
be p ema u e (Zhou & Hoe e , 2014), sys ema ic esea ch is needed o unde s and
he impac o o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance.
When elabo a ing on he in luence o ( o eign) language (use) on he c ea i e
pe o mance o eams, he ype o wo k se ing—physical o i ual— ep esen s a
complemen a y in luence. Like o eign language use, i s ele ance has eme ged om
globaliza ion. Wi h inc easing equency, eam c ea i i y in con empo a y o ganiza-
ions un olds in i ual se ings (e.g., Caligiu i e al., 2020; Cha lie e al., 2016); ha
is, eam membe s in e ac in a compu e -media ed way a he han ace- o ace (Hahn
& Sem au, 2023; Johnson e al., 2009). Howe e , despi e he undamen al changes
e ec ua ed by i ual in e ac ion (e.g., De Guinea e al., 2012; Eisenbe g e al., 2021;
Kli mølle & Lau ing, 2013; Kli mølle e al., 2015; Mesme -Magnus e al., 2011),
esea ch on how i uali y a ec s he c ea i e pe o mance o eams is s ill ela i ely
spa se ( o excep ions, see B ucks & Le a , 2022; Giamba is a & Bhappu, 2010;
Ke & Mu hy, 2004). Mos impo an ly, basically no s udies ha e sys ema ically
add essed he ques ion o how he c ea i e pe o mance o eams is shaped by he
in e play o communica ing in a o eign ( a he han na i e) language and in e ac ing
i ually ( a he han ace- o- ace).
The p esen s udy add esses his gap. To do so, we d aw on he pe spec i e o
g oups as (mo i a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s (De D eu e al., 2011; Hinsz e al.,
1997) and concep ualize eam c ea i e pe o mance as he ex en o which eams can
gene a e a a ie y o new and aluable ideas in esponse o an open p oblem (Bae ,
1 3
146
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
2014; Paulus, 2000). The g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e
sugges s ha eam c ea i e pe o mance esul s om a epea ed cycling be ween
indi idual and eam in o ma ion p ocessing, in which ideas and esou ces con ib-
u ed by indi idual membe s in o a join in o ma ion-p ocessing space a e modi ied
and e ined (De D eu e al., 2011). Taking his pe spec i e as a poin o depa u e
and conside ing insigh s om p io esea ch indica ing ha o eign language use is
consequen ial o he cogni i e esou ces indi iduals ha e a hei disposal (Geenen
e al., in p ess; Volk e al., 2014) and can in luence he exchange o knowledge and
in o ma ion in eams (Du-Babcock, 1999; Kassis-Hende son, 2005; Lau ing & Kli -
mølle , 2017), we i s p opose ha using a o eign language a he han one’s na i e
language has a nega i e e ec on he c ea i e pe o mance o eams (H1). Expanding
on ou a gumen s leading o H1 and building on p e ious esea ch on o eign lan-
guage use in MNEs (Geenen e al., in p ess; Hadjich is idis e al., 2017; U big e al.,
2020; Volk e al., 2014), we also elabo a e on how eam membe s’ o eign language
p o iciency (H2) and hei o eign language anxie y (H3) quali y he link be ween
o eign language use and he c ea i e pe o mance o eams. Recognizing in o ma-
ion p ocessing in eams as being con ex dependen (Hinsz e al., 1997; Nijs ad &
De D eu, 2012) and i ual in e ac ion as an impo an con ex ual inpu ac o (Hahn
& Sem au, 2023; Ma hieu e al., 2008) ha can shape eam in o ma ion p ocessing
(Hinsz e al., 1997), we u he add ess how eam c ea i e pe o mance is a ec ed by
i uali y and he in e play be ween i uali y and o eign language use. Speci ically,
we e alua e he consequences o he addi i e and educ i e ea u es o compu e -
media ed in e ac ion (Ca e & Chidamba am, 2004) om a g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-
in o ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e o es ablish why we expec i ual in e ac ion o
ha e a posi i e main e ec on eam c ea i e pe o mance (H4), as well as a posi i e
mode a ion e ec on he link be ween o eign language use and he c ea i e pe o -
mance o eams (H5).
Following a g owing s eam o esea ch on collec i e c ea i i y ha zooms in
on dyadic eams (e.g., Bellis & Ve gan i, 2021; Bellis e al., 2024; B ucks & Le a ,
2022; Koseoglu e al., 2022; Rouse, 2020; Skalicky e al., 2017), we es ou hypo h-
eses using an expe imen al s udy wi h dyads. This ocus is pa icula ly app op ia e o
add ess ou esea ch ques ions because dyads o en cons i u e he nucleus o collec-
i e co-c ea ion in o ganiza ions (Bellis & Ve gan i, 2021; Rouse, 2020), especially
in i ual eams (e.g., Ma ins & Shalley, 2011). Mo eo e , ocusing on dyadic eams
allows us o minimize po en ially con ounding in luences ela ed o mic opoli ical
maneu e ing and inequali y among eam membe s (Rouse, 2020). In ou expe i-
men al s udy, we andomly assigned 95 dyadic eams o pe o m c ea i e asks in
ei he hei na i e language (he e: Ge man) o English as he o eign language. When
pe o ming hei c ea i e asks, eams in e ac ed ei he i ually o ace- o- ace. To
p o ide us wi h da a on hei o eign language anxie y and p o iciency, pa icipan s
comple ed a ques ionnai e ha included a “ ill-in- he-blanks” English es (see, e.g.,
C-Tes , 2007). We analyzed ou da a using eg ession analyses.
Wi h he insigh s gene a ed, he p esen s udy con ibu es o expanding schola ly
knowledge in se e al ways. We p o ide heo e ical a gumen s and empi ical e i-
dence o he nega i e consequences o o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o -
mance. As such, ou s udy complemen s p io esea ch on o eign language use and
1 3
147
K. Muehl eld e al.
he c ea i e pe o mance o indi iduals (e.g., Geenen e al., in p ess; Haans & an
Wi eloos uijn, 2024) and adds o a s eam o esea ch in in e na ional managemen
ha add esses linguis ic in luences on eam in o ma ion and knowledge p ocessing
(e.g., Aichho n & Puck, 2017; Kli mølle & Lau ing, 2013; Tenze e al., 2021) as
well as o language-sensi i e esea ch in in e na ional business, mo e gene ally (e.g.,
Akke mans e al., 2010; Ba ne -Rasmussen e al., 2023; Ka hunen e al., 2023; Ten-
ze e al., 2017). Iden i ying o eign language use, and he in e play be ween o eign
language use and, espec i ely, o eign language p o iciency and i ual in e ac ion
as impo an de e minan s o he c ea i e pe o mance o eams, ou s udy also helps
o expand and e ine g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s models o eam
c ea i i y (e.g., De D eu e al., 2011; Mi on-Spek o e al., 2022). Ou s udy e eals
ha in e ac ing i ually may ha e posi i e implica ions o he c ea i e pe o mance
o eams, an e ec ha is p ima ily d i en by he in e play be ween i ual in e ac-
ion and o eign language use. These indings also con ibu e o he ongoing deba e
on he consequences o i ual in e ac ion o he c ea i e pe o mance o eams (e.g.,
B ucks & Le a , 2022; Giamba is a & Bhappu, 2010; Ke & Mu hy, 2004; Wang
e al., 2024) and sugges ha ins ead o elabo a ing on a po en ial uni o m e ec
o i ual in e ac ion, u u e esea ch may be well-ad ised o ocus on con ingen-
cies ha a ec he consequences o i uali y. Gi en ha in con empo a y o ganiza-
ions, eams o en collabo a e in a non-na i e language (e.g., Tenze e al., 2021)
and in e ac i ually (Hahn & Sem au, 2023), ou s udy also has impo an p ac ical
implica ions.
2 Concep ual Backg ound and Hypo heses
In he ield o o ganiza ional beha io , c ea i i y e e s o he gene a ion o ou comes
ha a e no el and use ul (Amabile, 1988; Runco & Jaege , 2012; Zhou & Hoe e ,
2014).1 Gene a ing such ou comes equi es b eaking wi h no ms, o ‘ hinking ou side
he box’ (Goncalo & S aw, 2006), and hey may be exhibi ed by indi idual employees
as well as eams (Seong & Choi, 2023; Zhou & Hoe e , 2014).
Team c ea i e pe o mance is based on eam membe s in e ac ing o join ly gene -
a e no el and use ul ideas (Bae , 2014; Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Paulus, 2000; Shin
& Zhou, 2007). F om a g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e
(De D eu e al., 2008; Hinsz e al., 1997), such ideas a e gene a ed h ough a epea ed
“cycling be ween indi idual-le el and g oup-le el in o ma ion p ocessing” (De D eu
e al., 2011, p. 82). By means o sha ing ideas, p o iding insigh s and en a i e solu-
1 Following (Guild o d, 1957), he p oduc ion o c ea i e ideas is usually associa ed wi h wo ypes o
hinking p ocesses. Di e gen hinking––which b oadly e e s o he gene a ion o mul iple di e en solu-
ions––is ypically conside ed one o he mos impo an elemen s o c ea i e pe o mance (e.g., Geenen
e al., in p ess; Sil ia e al., 2008). Con e gen hinking as he second elemen ela es o he p ocess o
na owing down he esul ing se o op ions owa d choosing a ocal solu ion. By concep ualizing eam
c ea i e pe o mance as he ex en o which eams a e able o gene a e a a ie y o new and aluable ideas,
his s udy ocuses, in pa icula , on he di e gen hinking elemen . This ocus ies in li e a u e on bo h
eam c ea i i y (e.g., Paulus, 2000; Bae , 2014) and c ea i i y h ough a language lens (e.g., Geenen e
al., in p ess; Skalicky e al., 2017), including applied and sociolinguis ic s udies (e.g., Swann & Deume ,
2018).
1 3
148
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
ions, and e ealing p e e ences, indi idual eam membe s con ibu e esou ces o a
join g oup in o ma ion-p ocessing space (De D eu e al., 2008; Hinsz e al., 1997).
Once con ibu ed, hese in o ma ional esou ces a e a ailable o o he s wi hin he
eam, who may p ocess and in eg a e hem in o hei own knowledge base (Hinsz
e al., 1997; Huang & Liu, 2022). Such in eg a ion may lead o new insigh s, ideas,
o solu ions ha , again, can be sha ed and hus con ibu ed o he join in o ma ion-
p ocessing space (De D eu e al., 2008). Th ough epea ed cycling be ween indi-
idual and eam in o ma ion p ocessing, he esou ce con ibu ions o di e en eam
membe s may hus be combined, modi ied, and e ined o ul ima ely esul in he
gene a ion o ideas ha a e no el and use ul (De D eu e al., 2011).
When ying o p edic he c ea i e pe o mance o eams in line wi h a pe spec-
i e o g oups as (mo i a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s, p io esea ch has iden i ied
se e al aspec s o eam composi ion (e.g., he con igu a ion o eam membe s’ open-
ness o expe ience and hei need o cogni ion) as well as con ex ual cha ac e is ics
(e.g., ime p essu es) as c ucial an eceden s (De D eu e al., 2011). The in luences
emana ing om hese con ex ual and composi ional ea u es can be explained when
conside ing hem as mo i a ional an eceden s o eam membe s’ “ endency o engage
in sys ema ic and e o ul in o ma ion p ocessing” (De D eu e al., 2011, p. 83). This
endency de e mines he dep h and deg ee o delibe a ion wi h which in o ma ion is
p ocessed, communica ed, and in eg a ed in indi idual and eam in o ma ion p o-
cessing (e.g., De D eu e al., 2008; De D eu e al., 2011; Mi on-Spek o e al., 2022).
Beyond s imula ing in o ma ion p ocessing a he indi idual le el, i also appea s o
enable eams o achie e deepe p ocessing o di e ging pe spec i es and o be e
b idge ep esen a ional gaps wi hin he g oup (De D eu e al., 2008, 2011; Mi on-
Spek o e al., 2022).Agains his backd op, we ollow ea lie esea ch on eam c e-
a i i y (Li e al., 2018; Huang & Liu, 2022; Mi on-Spek o e al., 2022) and d aw on a
pe spec i e o “g oups as (mo i a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s” (De D eu e al., 2008,
p. 24) o subsequen ly de elop ou hypo heses, which a e illus a ed in Fig. 1. In so
doing, we heo ize how he ( o eign) language used by a eam in conjunc ion wi h he
Fig. 1 Concep ual model
1 3
149
K. Muehl eld e al.
ype o wo k se ing (physical o i ual) a ec s eam c ea i e pe o mance h ough a
g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s lens.
2.1 Fo eign Language Use and Team C ea i e Pe o mance
To da e, no s udies ha e sys ema ically in es iga ed he in luence on eam c ea i -
i y o using a non-na i e language. Al hough se e al s udies indica e ha o eign
language use a ec s he c ea i e pe o mance o indi iduals (Geenen e al., in p ess;
Haans & an Wi eloos uijn, 2024; Hayakawa & Keysa , 2018; No hel e , 2020;
S ephan, 2017), i is widely ecognized ha , a leas in he c ea i i y domain, assum-
ing homology (i.e., assuming ha an eceden s ha e he same e ec s a di e en
le els) is no necessa ily jus i ied, because he p ocesses and dynamics in ol ed in
gene a ing ou comes a di e en le els end o a y conside ably (Zhou & Hoe e ,
2014; Zhou & Shalley, 2008). Mo e speci ically, he pe spec i e o g oups as (mo i-
a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s in oduced p e iously sugges s ha he consequences
o o eign language use o indi idual in o ma ion p ocessing and o eam in o ma-
ion p ocessing need o be conside ed o p edic i s o e all e ec on eam c ea i e
pe o mance. The e o e, we subsequen ly in eg a e, om a pe spec i e o g oups as
(mo i a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s, insigh s on how o eign language use in luences
he c ea i e pe o mance o indi iduals (Geenen e al., in p ess; Haans & an Wi -
eloos uijn, 2024; Hayakawa & Keysa , 2018; No hel e , 2020; S ephan, 2017) and
shapes p ocesses o eam communica ion and in e ac ion in gene al (e.g., Chen e al.,
2006; Kassis-Hende son, 2005; Kli mølle e al., 2015; Pel oko pi & Vaa a, 2014;
Tenze & Pudelko, 2017), o de elop ou heo e ical easoning.
In p inciple, posi i e e ec s o o eign language use on eams’ c ea i e pe o -
mance seem possible. Using a o eign language may po en ially enable un amilia
associa ions and acili a e ‘ hinking-ou -o - he-box’ among indi idual eam membe s
(e.g., Skalicky e al., 2022; S ephan, 2017). Mo eo e , h ough an applied linguis ics
and sociolinguis ics lens, a po en ial o c ea i i y enhancemen a ises a he eam
le el: When in e locu o s use a o eign language a he han hei na i e language
when join ly wo king on a c ea i e ask, hey a e mo e likely o make language- ela ed
mis akes (i.e., make g amma ical e o s, use wo ds inco ec ly, o p oduce seman i-
cally meaningless combina ions o wo ds; Swann & Deume , 2018). A he g oup
le el, such ule-b eaking c ea i i y ela ed o language use (i.e., linguis ic c ea i i y;
Swann & Deume , 2018) may igge no el associa ions by o he eam membe s,
which can in u n posi i ely con ibu e o he eam’s o e all c ea i e pe o mance.
Howe e , he e is e en mo e compelling e idence o sugges ha o eign lan-
guage use migh ha e a nega i e e ec on eam c ea i i y. Resea ch on indi idual
c ea i i y has ound ha o eign language use mos ly ends o educe c ea i e pe -
o mance, especially o e bal c ea i e asks such as b ains o ming (e.g., Geenen e
al., in p ess). These nega i e e ec s ha e been a ibu ed o inc eased cogni i e load,
which binds esou ces ha a e hus no a ailable o he (c ea i e) ask i sel (Geenen
e al., in p ess; Volk e al., 2014). Addi ionally, he quali y o in o ma ion p ocessing
may su e because i idness o men al image y can be educed in a o eign language
(Hayakawa & Keysa , 2018). The pe spec i e o g oups as (mo i a ed) in o ma ion
p ocesso s in oduced p e iously sugges s ha he c ea i e pe o mance o eams
1 3
150
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
builds on he esou ces ha indi idual membe s con ibu e o in o ma ion p ocessing
o achie ing “a ho ough, ich, and accu a e unde s anding o he wo ld” (De D eu
e al., 2011, p. 82). The e o e, i seems easonable o expec ha by deple ing he
cogni i e esou ces ha eam membe s ha e a ailable, using a o eign language will
ad e sely a ec hei indi idual capaci ies o con ibu e o he in o ma ion p ocess-
ing, which is essen ial o eam c ea i e pe o mance.
Simila ly, eam-le el esea ch (e.g., Chen e al., 2006; Kassis-Hende son, 2005;
Kli mølle e al., 2015; Pel oko pi & Vaa a, 2014; Tenze & Pudelko, 2017) sugges s
ha using a o eign language will likely also ha e a nega i e impac on eam in o -
ma ion p ocessing. Fi s , s udies indica e ha o eign language use can slow down
communica ion p ocesses because i makes i mo e challenging o eam membe s
o send and ecei e messages (Aichho n & Puck, 2017; Tenze e al., 2021). Fo -
eign language use can make i mo e di icul o exp ess onesel (Du-Babcock, 1999;
Kassis-Hende son, 2005), and o use linguis ic ea u es such as me apho s, humo ,
and wo d play (e.g., Skalicky e al., 2017), hus also p e en ing eam membe s om
e ec i ely con ibu ing hei ideas and sugges ions o he join eam in o ma ion-
p ocessing space. Mo eo e , o eign language use makes i mo e di icul o ully and
quickly comp ehend he con ibu ions o o he eam membe s (Kassis-Hende son,
2005; Lau ing & Kli mølle , 2017), which may u he in e e e wi h e ec i e knowl-
edge in eg a ion (Hinsz e al., 1997; Huang & Liu, 2022). Hinde ing he e ec i e
communica ion and in eg a ion o knowledge and in o ma ion, o eign language use
hus likely obs uc s he ho ough and undis o ed p ocessing o in o ma ion in eams
(De D eu e al., 2008; D eu e al., 2011; Mi on-Spek o e al., 2022), which is c ucial
o gene a ing c ea i e ou comes (De D eu e al., 2011).
O e all, based on a g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e,
we he e o e expec ha he po en ial posi i e consequences o u ilizing a o eign
language will likely be ou weighed by he po en ial ad e se e ec s on eam c ea i e
pe o mance. We consequen ly p opose:
H1 Using a o eign a he han a na i e language has a nega i e e ec on eam c e-
a i e pe o mance.
2.2 The Mode a ing E ec s o Fo eign Language P o iciency and Fo eign
Language Anxie y
P io esea ch has iden i ied a ious con ex ual and composi ional ea u es o eam-
wo k as mo i a ional an eceden s o eam membe s’ “ endency o engage in sys em-
a ic and e o ul in o ma ion p ocessing” (De D eu e al., 2011, p. 83). We in eg a e
in o a g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e insigh s om li e a-
u e ha has in es iga ed o eign language p ocessing in mul ina ional o ganiza ions
h ough a (neu o-)cogni i e pe spec i e (e.g., Geenen e al., in p ess; Hadjich is idis
e al., 2017; U big e al., 2016; Volk e al., 2014) and a gue ha o eign language use
in oduces a complemen a y se o ele an pe sonal cha ac e is ics on which eam
composi ion may a y and ha may impac eams’ c ea i e pe o mance: eam o -
eign language p o iciency and eam o eign language anxie y.
1 3
151
K. Muehl eld e al.
2.2.1 The Mode a ing E ec o Team Fo eign Language P o iciency
Fo eign language p o iciency cap u es he deg ee o which a pe son can compe en ly
use a non-na i e language (encompassing, a minimum, lis ening and speaking, ead-
ing and w i ing [e.g., Hammadou, 1991]). P io esea ch has iden i ied his p o i-
ciency as in luen ial o in e ac ions and pe o mance in a non-na i e language (e.g.,
Fleischmann e al., 2020a; Fleischmann e al., 2020b; Tenze e al., 2021). Building
on insigh s gene a ed by his esea ch s eam and he g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o -
ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e in oduced p e iously, we sugges ha he o eign
language p o iciency o eam membe s mode a es he ela ionship be ween o eign
language use and eam c ea i e pe o mance.
When eam membe s’ o eign language p o iciency is low, eam c ea i e pe o -
mance likely su e s om he ad e se e ec s on indi idual and eam in o ma ion
p ocessing ha a e associa ed wi h using a o eign a he han a na i e language. As
desc ibed p e iously, his is because using a o eign language ends o inc ease eam
membe s’ cogni i e load (Geenen e al., in p ess; Hadjich is idis e al., 2017; U big e
al., 2020; Volk e al., 2014) and may nega i ely a ec bo h indi iduals’ de elopmen
o high-quali y con ibu ions and an e ec i e exchange o in o ma ion, ideas, and
knowledge wi hin he eam (Aichho n & Puck, 2017; Tenze e al., 2021). When eam
membe s a e highly p o icien in a o eign language, in con as , hese e ec s a e
alle ia ed. Fo eign language p o iciency educes he cogni i e load associa ed wi h
using a o eign language (e.g., Geenen e al., in p ess; P esbi e o, 2020; Volk e al.,
2014). When eam membe s’ language p o iciency is high, hey su e less om he
s ain on hei cogni i e esou ces ha esul s om using a non-na i e language and
hus can con ibu e mo e esou ces o sys ema ic and e o ul ask- ela ed in o ma-
ion p ocessing (De D eu e al., 2011). Simila ly, o eign language p o iciency also
educes he occu ence o language- ela ed misunde s andings (B annen e al., 2014;
Kli mølle & Lau ing, 2017; Tenze e al., 2021), which allows membe s o commu-
nica e hei own ideas and pe spec i es mo e clea ly and o in eg a e he con ibu-
ions o o he eam membe s mo e e ec i ely and e icien ly when using a o eign
language. As such, eam membe s who a e highly p o icien in a o eign language
a e mo e likely o be able o b idge ep esen a ional gaps wi hin he eam, which is a
p econdi ion o making p oduc i e use o di e en pe spec i es and join ly gene a -
ing c ea i e ou comes (e.g., Mi on-Spek o e al., 2022).
In sum, by allowing eam membe s o de o e mo e cogni i e esou ces o in o ma-
ion p ocessing and by alle ia ing he nega i e consequences o o eign language use
o he exchange o ideas and in o ma ion, we expec o eign language p o iciency
o mi iga e he ad e se e ec o o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance.
We hus p opose:
H2 Team o eign language p o iciency posi i ely mode a es he e ec o o eign lan-
guage use on eam c ea i e pe o mance.
1 3
152
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
wo incomple e pic u es (e.g., a iangle open a he bo om). Thei ask was o w i e
down, wi hin i e minu es, as many ideas as possible on wha hese pic u es could be
i someone we e o comple e he d awing. We ollowed Mainbe ge ’s (1977) assess-
men scheme o calcula e c ea i e pe o mance and excluded all ideas ha we e no
use ul in e ms o no being ask ela ed. The hi d ask was an unusual uses ask
(Schoppe, 1975), in which eams had o ind as many unusual uses as possible o
an emp y in can and a simple piece o s ing wi hin i e minu es each. We ollowed
Schoppe’s (1975) assessmen scheme o e ie e c ea i e pe o mance by coun ing
he numbe o ideas eams gene a ed. Two speci ically ained a e s independen ly
assessed he esponses. In e - a e co ela ions exceeded 0.94 o all asks, indica ing
a high le el o consis ency (S emle , 2004). Following p io esea ch (e.g., Geenen
e al., in p ess; Pesou & Nie eld, 2021), we z-s anda dized he sco es om all h ee
asks o ensu e equal weigh ing and compa abili y be o e agg ega ing hem o an
index e lec ing eam c ea i e pe o mance.
3.3.2 Team Fo eign Language Use/Team Vi uali y
We e ec -coded eam o eign language use (1 = o eign; 0 = na i e) and eam i ual-
i y (1 = i ual in e ac ion; 0 = ace- o- ace in e ac ion).
3.3.3 Team Fo eign Language P o iciency
In line wi h p io esea ch (e.g., Geenen e al., in p ess), we cap u ed he o eign
language p o iciency o ou s udy pa icipan s du ing he p e-ques ionnai e using a
“ ill-in- he-blanks” English es (see, e.g., C-Tes , 2007), equi alen o he one which
is commonly used o assign lea ne s o app op ia e English-language cou ses acco d-
ing o hei p o iciency le els.2 We summed up he numbe o co ec esponses o
each pa icipan . A highe numbe o co ec esponses indica es a highe le el o
English p o iciency, wi h a maximum sco e o 20. We calcula ed he mean o eam
membe s’ indi idual language p o iciency sco es o ob ain a measu e o eam o eign
language p o iciency.
3.3.4 Team Fo eign Language Anxie y
We measu ed o eign language anxie y using a en-i em scale (Ga galianou e al.,
2016; adap ed om Ho wi z e al., 1986). All en i ems pe ained o English as he
ocal o eign language (e.g., “I eel o e whelmed by he numbe o ules you ha e
o lea n o speak English”). Pa icipan s indica ed he ex en o which he s a emen s
applied o hem on a se en-poin Like scale anging om “s ongly disag ee” (1) o
“s ongly ag ee” (7). We obse ed an excellen le el o eliabili y (α = 0.93) and hus
combined he i ems in o a single index. We hen calcula ed he mean le els o eam
membe s’ o eign language anxie y sco es o e lec eam o eign language anxie y.
2 Using a se en-i em scale adap ed om Cos a e al. (2014), he p e-ques ionnai e addi ionally cap u ed
eam membe s’ pe cep ions o hei English language p o iciency. We ound his subjec i e measu e o be
highly co ela ed ( = 0.5, p < 0.01) wi h ou objec i e measu e, on which we ocus in ou u he analyses.
1 3
159
K. Muehl eld e al.
3.3.5 Con ol Va iables
We also cap u ed se e al aspec s o eam composi ion ha ha e been shown o po en-
ially ela e o o eign language use, eam c ea i i y, o i uali y in p io esea ch.
Fi s , ecognizing ha p io esea ch has associa ed eam gende composi ion wi h
eam c ea i e pe o mance (e.g., Pea sall e al., 2008), we measu ed he numbe o
emale membe s (no. o emale pa icipan s) wi hin eams. Second, we ollowed ea -
lie esea ch (Ba czak e al., 2010) in accoun ing o he mean age o ou eam mem-
be s in yea s ( eam age). Thi d, we cap u ed he numbe o s uden s in a eam (no. o
s uden s) and he a e age wo k expe ience o eam membe s in mon hs ( eam wo k
expe ience).
4 Resul s
As p elimina y analyses, we examined whe he he eams in ou condi ions di e ed
wi h espec o demog aphic cha ac e is ics. Wi h espec o he numbe o s uden s,
we ound no signi ican di e ences ac oss he condi ions ela ed o eam language
(U = 1,130.5, p = 0.917) and eam i uali y (Mann-Whi ney U = 933, p = 0.147). Simi-
la ly, a Mann-Whi ney U es did no indica e signi ican di e ences in numbe o
emale pa icipan s ac oss he language condi ions (U = 1.188, p = 0.571) o he i -
uali y condi ions (U = 981.5, p = 0.308). Fo wo k expe ience (U = 1,199, p = 0.543)
and age (U = 1,147.5, p = 0.825), we ound no signi ican di e ences be ween he
eam language condi ions, bu we did obse e signi ican di e ences be ween hose
eams ha in e ac ed ace- o- ace and hose eams ha in e ac ed i ually (U = 734.5,
p < 0.01 o wo k expe ience; U = 1,480.5, p < 0.01 o age). Thus, we included wo k
expe ience and age as con ol a iables in ou eg ession analyses. Table 1 shows
desc ip i e s a is ics and bi a ia e Pea son co ela ion coe icien s.
We used IBM SPSS S a is ics (Ve sion 28) and a sequence o i e linea eg ession
models o es ou hypo heses. Table 2 con ains he de ailed eg ession esul s o all
i ed models. Model 1, which con ains ou co a ia es, ha is, age and wo k expe i-
ence, is no signi ican (F = 0.453, p = 0.637). Model 2, which con ains he main e ec s
o ou s udy a iables, is signi ican (F = 2.446, p < 0.05), eaching an adjus ed R2 o
8.4%. Models 3–5, which include he in e ac ion e ms co esponding wi h ou h ee
mode a ion hypo heses a e also signi ican (Model 3: F = 3.183, i < 0.01, R2 = 14.0%;
Model 4: F = 2.162, p < 0.05, R2 = 8.0%; Model 5: F = 2.472, p < 0.05, R2 = 9.9%).
H1 posi s ha using a o eign a he han a na i e language has a nega i e e ec
on eam c ea i e pe o mance. P o iding e idence in suppo o H1, Model 2 shows
a signi ican nega i e e ec o eam o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o -
mance (B = − 0.322; p < 0.01).
H2 p oposes ha eam o eign language p o iciency posi i ely mode a es he e ec
o o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance. Lending suppo o H2, Model
3 e eals a signi ican posi i e in e ac ion e ec o eam o eign language p o iciency
and eam o eign language use (B = 1.794; p < 0.01). To u he examine his in e ac-
ion e ec , we an simple slope analyses (Aiken & Wes , 1991; P eache e al., 2006).
While hese analyses e ealed nega i e condi ional e ec s o eam o eign language
1 3
160
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
Table 1 Desc ip i e s a is ics and co ela ions
(a) Desc ip i e s a is ics by eam language and eam i uali y
Fo eign language Na i e language
Team c ea i e pe o mance o al i ual ace- o- ace o al i ual ace- o- ace
Mean −0.258 0.062 −0.468 0.213 0.251 0.181
S anda d de ia ion 0.724 0.688 0.680 0.846 1.036 0.659
Sample size 43 17 26 52 24 28
(b) Co ela ions among me ic a iables
Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 No. o emale pa icipan s 1.14 0.72 1 0.040 −0.151 −0.117 0.035 0.184 0.258*
2 No. o s uden s 1.39 0.72 1 −0.602** −0.331** −0.099 0.045 −0.174
3TA 27.60 5.78 1 0.483** 0.110 −0.069 −0.014
4TWE 19.71 36.76 1 −0.170 0.083 −0.092
5 TFLP 15.27 2.30 1 −0.440** 0.055
6 TFLA 3.01 0.95 1 −0.121
7 TCP 70.41 16.25 1
TA = eam age; TWE = eam wo k expe ience; TFLP = eam o eign language p o iciency; TFLA = eam o eign language anxie y; TCP = eam c ea i e pe o mance
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
1 3
161
K. Muehl eld e al.
use on eam c ea i e pe o mance a one s anda d de ia ion below (Blow = − 0.983;
p < 0.01) and abo e he mean (Bhigh = − 0.136; p < 0.05) o eam language p o iciency,
hey also e ealed ha he magni udes o he wo condi ional e ec s di e ed consid-
e ably. Figu e 2 illus a es he in e ac ion esul .
H3 p oposes ha eam o eign language anxie y nega i ely mode a es he e ec
o o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance. In con as o H3, Model 4
does no e eal a signi ican in e ac ion e ec be ween eam o eign language anxie y
and eam o eign language use (B = − 0.132; p = 0.23). To u he p obe his esul ,
we an simple slope analyses and ound signi ican nega i e condi ional e ec s o
eam o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance a bo h low (Blow = − 0.408;
p < 0.05) and high le els (Bhigh = − 0.659; p < 0.01) o eam o eign language anxie y.
The condi ional e ec s a e illus a ed in Fig. 2.
H4 submi s ha in e ac ing i ually has a posi i e e ec on eam c ea i e pe -
o mance. In line wi h H4, Model 2 e eals a signi ican posi i e e ec o i ual-
i y (B = 0.220, p < 0.05). As e iden om Model 5, howe e , his esul is p ima ily
d i en by he in e ac ion be ween i uali y and eam o eign language use. We del e
deepe in o his inding in ou Discussion (Sec . Discussion).
H5 s a es ha in e ac ing i ually posi i ely mode a es he e ec o o eign lan-
guage use on eam c ea i e pe o mance. In line wi h H5, we obse e a ma ginally
signi ican posi i e in e ac ion e ec be ween i uali y and eam o eign language
use (B = 0.242; p = 0.06). Simple slope analyses u he e ealed ha while he
condi ional e ec o eam o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance is
signi ican and nega i e o ace- o- ace in e ac ion (B = − 0.764; p < 0.01), he con-
di ional e ec o eam o eign language use o i ual in e ac ion is no signi ican
(B i = − 0.247; p = 0.16; see Fig. 2, bo om pa ).
5 Discussion
This s udy examined he unde explo ed consequences o o eign language use and
i ual in e ac ion, which a e bo h impo an elemen s o mode n-day wo k se -
ings, o he c ea i e pe o mance o eams. Building on a g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-
in o ma ion-p ocesso s pe spec i e, in conjunc ion wi h insigh s om p io esea ch
on o eign language use in in e na ional business and s udies on eam i uali y, we
de eloped heo e ical a gumen s ha we es ed in an expe imen al s udy in ol ing 95
dyadic eams. In he ollowing, we discuss he implica ions o ou indings.
5.1 Implica ions o Theo y and Resea ch
Ou s udy p o ides heo e ical a gumen s and empi ical e idence o he ad e se con-
sequences o o eign language use on eam c ea i e pe o mance. As such, ou s udy
complemen s p io esea ch on he implica ions o ( o eign) language use o he
c ea i e pe o mance o indi iduals (e.g., Geenen e al., in p ess; Haans & an Wi -
eloos uijn, 2024; Hayakawa & Keysa , 2018; No hel e , 2020; S ephan, 2017). This
p io esea ch indica es ha using a non-na i e language ypically has ad e se con-
sequences, especially wi h espec o e bal c ea i e asks (e.g., b ains o ming), and
1 3
162
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
sugges s ha an inc eased cogni i e load (e.g. Geenen e al., in p ess) and educed
i idness o men al images (Hayakawa & Keysa , 2018) esul ing om o eign lan-
guage use migh explain hese e ec s. In line wi h ou heo e ical a gumen s ha in e-
g a e, om a pe spec i e o g oups as (mo i a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s, insigh s
on how o eign language use in luences he c ea i e pe o mance o indi iduals and
shapes eam in e ac ion and communica ion (e.g., Chen e al., 2006; Kassis-Hen-
de son, 2005; Kli mølle e al., 2015; Pel oko pi & Vaa a, 2014; Tenze & Pudelko,
2017), ou s udy highligh s ha o eign language use also nega i ely a ec s eams’
c ea i e pe o mance. Gi en ha he p ocesses and dynamics in ol ed in gene a -
ing c ea i e ou comes a he indi idual and he eam le el a y conside ably (Zhou
& Hoe e , 2014; Zhou & Shalley, 2008), his is an impo an inding. The esul
ha using a non-na i e language nega i ely a ec s eams’ c ea i e pe o mance also
complemen s p io quali a i e esea ch (Lode e e al., 2024) ocused on eam c e-
a i e p ocesses, which has iden i ied se e al po en ially c ea i i y-s imula ing impli-
ca ions o o eign language use (e.g., linguis ic de ou s, al e na i e associa ions,
enhanced ole ance o mis akes wi hin he eam). Add essing he c ea i e ou comes
gene a ed by eams, we did no ind e idence in suppo o he e ec s Lode e e al.
Table 2 Reg ession esul s
Team c ea i e pe o mance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
In e cep Coe . 0.700 1.842†0.581 0.645
SE 0.862 0.945 0.879 0.856
TFLU Coe . −0.530** −3.369** −0.136 −0.764**
SE 0.171 1.112 0.565 0.228
TV Coe . 0.363* 0.440* 0.356* 0.145
SE 0.205 0.201 0.206 0.247
TFLP Coe . 0.019 −0.058 0.016 0.028
SE 0.041 0.050 0.042 0.041
TFLA Coe . −0.120 −0.112 −0.073 −0.113
SE 0.095 0.092 0.115 0.095
TFLU × TFLP Coe . 0.184**
SE 0.071
TFLU × TFLA Coe . −0.132
SE 0.180
TFLU × TV Coe . 0.517†
SE 0.334
TA Coe . 0.006 −0.022 −0.024 −0.021 −0.022
SE 0.017 0.020 0.019 0.020 0.019
TWE Coe . −0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004
SE 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
E ec size(s) η o es ed
a iable(s)
TL: 0.313
TV: 0.181
TL × TFLP:
0.266
TL × TFLA:
0.077
TL × TV:
0.164
R2(adjus ed) −0.012 0.084 0.140 0.080 0.099
F 0.453 2.446* 3.183** 2.162* 2.472*
TFLU = eam o eign language use; TV = eam i uali y; TFLP = eam o eign language p o iciency;
TFLA = eam o eign language anxie y; TA = eam age; TWE = eam wo k expe ience
†p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
1 3
163
K. Muehl eld e al.
(2024) p opose. Fu u e esea ch should u he elabo a e on hese con lic ing indings
and add ess possible disc epancies be ween p ocedu al and ou come-based assess-
men s o eam c ea i i y in o eign language con ex s.
Highligh ing nega i e pe o mance implica ions o o eign language use in he
c ea i i y domain, ou s udy also con ibu es o a s eam o in e na ional managemen
esea ch ha add esses linguis ic in luences on in o ma ion and knowledge p ocess-
ing in eams (e.g., Aichho n & Puck, 2017; Kli mølle & Lau ing, 2013; Tenze e
al., 2021). P e ious indings gene a ed by his esea ch s eam indica e ha , p e-
dominan ly, o eign language use has ad e se e ec s on knowledge p ocessing in
eams, because eam membe s end o ind i mo e challenging o send, ecei e, and
p ocess messages in a o eign language (Aichho n & Puck, 2017; Du-Babcock, 1999;
Kassis-Hende son, 2005; Tenze e al., 2021). Ou s udy adds alidi y o his idea.
Mo e speci ically, he ad e se e ec o o eign language use ha we obse e in ou
s udy aligns wi h he no ion ha using a non-na i e language may p o oundly a ec
he epea ed cycling be ween indi idual and eam in o ma ion p ocessing, in which
ideas and esou ces a e con ibu ed in o a join in o ma ion-p ocessing space, modi-
ied, and e ined o gene a ing c ea i e eam ou comes (De D eu e al., 2008).
As such, ou s udy also makes an impo an con ibu ion o ex an g oups-as-
(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s models o eam c ea i i y (e.g., De D eu e al.,
2011; Mi on-Spek o e al., 2022). P io esea ch on eam c ea i i y om a pe spec-
Fig. 2 Condi ional e ec s o eam o eign language use. TFLP = Team o eign language p o iciency;
TFLA = Team o eign language anxie y
1 3
164
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
i e o g oups as (mo i a ed) in o ma ion p ocesso s has iden i ied aspec s o eam
composi ion (e.g., he con igu a ion o eam membe s’ openness o expe ience and
hei need o cogni ion) and si ua ion-based cha ac e is ics (e.g., ime p essu es) as
c ucial mo i a ional ac o s ha d i e indi idual and g oup in o ma ion p ocessing
(De D eu e al., 2011). Ou s udy sugges s ha g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-
p ocesso s models o eam c ea i i y (e.g., De D eu e al., 2011; Mi on-Spek o e
al., 2022) can be expanded and en iched om an in e na ional business (IB) pe spec-
i e by in eg a ing he language in which eam membe s communica e as a c i ical
an eceden .
Addi ional implica ions o g oups-as-(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion p ocesso s mod-
els a ise om ou indings ega ding he in e ac ions be ween o eign language use
and, espec i ely, eam o eign language p o iciency and wo k se ing ( i ual s.
physical). Recognizing ha o eign language p o iciency can alle ia e he nega-
i e implica ions o o eign language use o eam c ea i e pe o mance, g oups-as-
(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion-p ocesso s models should inco po a e eam composi ional
cha ac e is ics ela ed o ( o eign) language use as complemen a y a iables. Mo e-
o e , such models should comp ehensi ely conside how using a non-na i e lan-
guage can addi ionally al e he e ec s o o he , al eady es ablished an eceden s o
eam c ea i i y. Speci ically, he in e ac ion be ween i uali y and eam language use
obse ed in his s udy sugges s ha he e ec s o o he an eceden s may also di e
ac oss language se ings. Despi e i s po en ially c ucial impo ance o g oups-as-
(mo i a ed)-in o ma ion p ocesso s models in gene al and in IB se ings in pa icula ,
his opic has, o ou knowledge, so a no been add essed. I hus emains o be
explo ed whe he o eign ( a he han na i e) language use migh also in e ac wi h
o he si ua ional an eceden s (e.g., ime p essu e, accoun abili y o p ocess; Nijs ad
& De D eu, 2012), and pe son-based an eceden s (e.g., cogni i e di e si y; Qi e al.,
2022) o eam c ea i e pe o mance.
The indings o his s udy also con ibu e o he ongoing deba e ela ed o he con-
sequences o i ual in e ac ion o he c ea i e pe o mance o eams (e.g., B ucks
& Le a , 2022; Giamba is a & Bhappu, 2010; Ke & Mu hy, 2004; Pissa a &
Jesuino, 2005; Wang e al., 2024). Re lec ing he di e se consequences o he addi-
i e and educ i e ea u es ha a e associa ed wi h in e ac ing ia ICT, p io esea ch
on i ual in e ac ion and eam c ea i e pe o mance has yielded inconclusi e ind-
ings. While Ke and Mu phy (2004) ound i uali y o posi i ely a ec eam c e-
a i e pe o mance, B ucks and Le a (2022) showed a nega i e e ec o i uali y
on eam c ea i i y in e ms o di e gen hinking. Simila o Ke and Mu phy (2004),
we obse e ha in e ac ing i ually may bene i he c ea i e pe o mance o eams,
an e ec p ima ily d i en by he in e play be ween i uali y and o eign language
use. In conjunc ion wi h insigh s gene a ed on he in e ac ion be ween i uali y and
eam di e si y by Giamba is a and Bhappu (2010), ou s udy’s indings imply ha
ins ead o seeking o iden i y uni o m e ec s o i ual in e ac ion, u u e schola ly
e o s migh a he wan o ocus on unco e ing he con ingencies ha a ec he
consequences o i uali y and may e en esul in sign- e e sals o “ he i uali y
e ec ”. In doing so, u u e esea ch may ui ully elabo a e in mo e de ail on how
he speci ic con igu a ions o addi i e and educ i e ea u es ha a e cha ac e is ic
o di e en ypes o ICT (Dennis e al., 2008) shape he consequences o in e ac ing
1 3
165
K. Muehl eld e al.
i ually. Fo hei s udy indica ing a posi i e e ec o i ual in e ac ion, Ke and
Mu phy (2004) u ilized a cha -enabled echnology, whose educ i e ea u es p o-
ide ull audio- isual anonymi y. In con as , B ucks and Le a (2022) obse ed a
nega i e e ec o i uali y based on a s udy using ideocon e encing echnology,
which is associa ed wi h a ela i ely low le el o anonymi y. In ou s udy, we used a
cha -augmen ed audio- i uali y ool ha allows o isual anonymi y and obse ed
ha ––a leas when communica ing in a o eign language––in e ac ing i ually can
bene i eam c ea i e pe o mance. In conjunc ion wi h B ucks and Le a ’s (2022)
obse a ions, his pa e n o esul s may sugges ha u ilizing ypes o ICT ha p o-
ide highe le els o ( isual) anonymi y can alle ia e he nega i e consequences o
in e ac ing i ually, po en ially because hey allow pa icipan s o le hei gaze oam
eely a ound in hei su oundings a he han ixing i on o he sc een.
5.2 Manage ial Implica ions
In con empo a y o ganiza ions, eams––ei he empo a ily o pe manen ly––o en
collabo a e in a non-na i e eam language (e.g., Tenze e al., 2021) and u ilize ICTs
o in e ac ing i ually a he han ace- o- ace (Hahn & Sem au, 2023). Ou s udy
e eals a nega i e e ec o o eign language use on he c ea i e pe o mance o eams
and highligh s in e ac ions be ween o eign language use and language p o iciency
and i ual in e ac ion, espec i ely. Fo o ganiza ions ponde ing whe he o adop a
common co po a e language, ou s udy implies ha hey should conside con ingen-
cies o he e ec o o eign language use on c ea i e pe o mance. Speci ically, ou
s udy indings sugges ha while adop ing a common language can be app op ia e
o o ganiza ions whose employees ha e su icien le els o language p o iciency and
a e able and allowed o collabo a e i ually when collec i ely engaging in c ea i e
endea o s, i is likely coun e p oduc i e o o he s. Con e sely, when adop ing a
common co po a e language is ine i able, o ganiza ions a e well-ad ised o in es in
he o eign language p o iciency and he echnical skills o hei employees wo king
in eams and p o ide hem wi h he equipmen necessa y o in e ac i ually (p e e -
ably while main aining a leas some deg ee o anonymi y) o ensu e hei c ea i e
con ibu ions o o ganiza ional inno a ion and compe i i eness (Zhou & Hoe e ,
2014).
5.3 Limi a ions and Di ec ions o Fu u e Resea ch
As wi h any s udy, ou esea ch has ce ain limi a ions, which p o ide oppo uni ies
o u u e esea ch. To es ou hypo heses, we conduc ed a labo a o y expe imen
wi h dyadic eams in Ge many. While his esea ch design allows us o d aw in e -
ences abou causali y wi h some con idence (Aguinis & Edwa ds, 2014), he gene -
alizabili y o ou indings may be limi ed. Fu u e esea ch should hus y o eplica e
ou indings in ield s udies wi h eams asked wi h gene a ing c ea i e ou comes in
o ganiza ional se ings and pe haps in di e en na ional con ex s. Also ela ed o he
gene alizabili y o ou indings, we acknowledge ha la ge eams may ha e mo e
complex dynamics han he dyadic eams in ou expe imen (Edwa ds e al., 2006).
1 3
166
Fo eign Language Use, Vi uali y, and he C ea i e Pe o mance o …
While we belie e ha i is no un easonable o assume ha ou indings may gene al-
ize o la ge eams, u he esea ch is needed o es his assump ion.
When in e p e ing ou esul s, i is impo an o no e ha al hough we andomly
assigned dyadic eams o he language condi ions, assignmen o he in e ac ion con-
di ions ollowed cons ain s imposed by he COVID-19 pandemic ou b eak. While
inco po a ing i ual in e ac ion as a quasi-expe imen al a iable is no uncommon
in esea ch on i uali y in he eam c ea i i y domain (e.g., Giamba is a & Bhappu,
2010), u u e esea che s should ne e heless eplica e ou indings using a esea ch
design ha allows o a simul aneous andom assignmen o he di e en in e ac-
ion condi ions. Addi ionally, as discussed p e iously, u u e esea ch should explic-
i ly add ess i uali y as a mul i ace ed concep (Fiol & O’Conno , 2005; G i i h e
al., 2003; Ki kman & Ma hieu, 2005) and sys ema ically elabo a e on he e ec s o
i uali y condi ions ha di e wi h espec o he educ i e and addi i e ea u es
p o ided.
Fu u e esea ch should also elabo a e on he mechanisms ha can help explain
he e ec s obse ed in ou s udy. Speci ically, schola s could add ess how he e ec s
o o eign language use and i ual in e ac ion a e ansmi ed by a iables such as
cogni i e s ain (Kelle & Weible , 2015) and eam communica ion quali y (Ma low
e al., 2017). Simila ly, u u e esea ch could examine how di e ences in eam com-
posi ion wi h espec o cul u al and/o linguis ic backg ounds may al e he e ec o
using a o eign language (e.g., Neeley e al., 2012).
These and ela ed ques ions poin o exci ing a enues o u u e s udies. We hope
ha hey will s imula e u he esea ch a he in e sec ion o eam c ea i i y, o eign
language use, and i uali y in o ganiza ions. This a ea o esea ch is o conside able
and g owing impo ance o o ganiza ional p ac ice, and ou s udy con ibu es some
c ucial insigh s: While he use o a o eign language appea s o be de imen al o he
c ea i e pe o mance o eams, in e ac ing i ually seems o po en ially alle ia e
his nega i e e ec . Thus, digi al echnology may help mi iga e some globaliza ion-
ela ed challenges in os e ing he c ea i e pe o mance o eams.
5.4 Conclusion
Teams ha collabo a e in a non-na i e language on c ea i e asks end o unde pe -
o m, compa ed wi h eams ha communica e in hei membe s’ na i e language.
Supe io o eign language skills can alle ia e his ad e se e ec —as can i ual
in e ac ion ia ce ain echnologies. MNEs should he e o e ca e ully design wo k
se ings o eap possible bene i s o using a common co po a e language while mini-
mizing associa ed disad an ages.
Acknowledgemen s We hank ou s uden esea ch assis an s (Tobias Döll, The esa Geißle , Magdalena
Mülle , Jonas Ossadnik, and Ann-Ch is in Siege ) o hei aluable suppo in collec ing he da a.
Funding Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL.
The esea ch leading o hese esul s ecei ed unding om he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Educa ion and
Resea ch h ough he ITA 2017 p og am.
1 3
167
K. Muehl eld e al.
Da a A ailabili y The da ase s gene a ed du ing and/o analyzed du ing he cu en s udy a e a ailable
om he co esponding au ho on easonable eques .
Decla a ions
Con lic o in e es All au ho s ce i y ha hey ha e no a ilia ions wi h o in ol emen in any o ga-
niza ion o en i y wi h any inancial in e es o non- inancial in e es in he subjec ma e o ma e ials
discussed in his manusc ip .
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long
as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e
Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his
a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line
o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use
is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission
di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p : / / c e a i e c o m m o n s . o g / l i c e n
s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / .
Re e ences
Aguinis, H., & Edwa ds, J. R. (2014). Me hodological wishes o he nex decade and how o make wishes
come ue. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 51(1), 143–174.
Aichho n, N., & Puck, J. (2017). I jus don’ eel com o able speaking English: Fo eign language anxie y
as a ca alys o spoken-language ba ie s in MNCs. In e na ional Business Re iew, 26(4), 749–763.
Aiken, L. S., & Wes , S. G. (1991). Mul iple eg ession: Tes ing and in e p e ing in e ac ions. Sage.
Akinola, M., Kapadia, C., Lu, J. G., & Mason, M. F. (2019). Inco po a ing physiology in o c ea i i y
esea ch and p ac ice: The e ec s o bodily s ess esponses on c ea i i y in o ganiza ions. Academy
o Managemen Pe spec i es, 33(2), 163–184.
Akke mans, D., Ha zing, A.-W., & an Wi eloos uijn, A. (2010). Cul u al accommoda ion and language
p iming: Compe i i e e sus coope a i e beha io in a p isone ’s dilemma game. Managemen In e -
na ional Re iew, 50, 559–583.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model o c ea i i y and inno a ion in o ganiza ions. Resea ch in O ganiza ional
Beha io , 10(1), 123–167.
Angou i, J., & Piekka i, R. (2018). O ganising mul ilingually: Se ing an agenda o s udying language a
wo k. Eu opean Jou nal o In e na ional Managemen , 12(1–2), 8–27.
Baas, M., de D eu, C. K., & Nijs ad, B. A. (2008). A me a-analysis o 25 yea s o mood c ea i i y esea ch:
Hedonic one, ac i a ion, o egula o y ocus? Psychological Bulle in, 134(6), 779–806.
Bae , J. (2014). C ea i i y and di e gen hinking: A ask-speci ic app oach. Psychology.
Ba czak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). An eceden s o eam c ea i i y: An examina ion o eam emo-
ional in elligence, eam us and collabo a i e cul u e. C ea i i y and Inno a ion Managemen ,
19(4), 332–345.
Ba ne -Rasmussen, W., Gaib ois, C., & Wilmo , N. V. (2023). Pe ec ion, hyb idi y o shu ing up? A
c oss-coun y s udy o how language ideologies shape pa icipa ion in in e na ional business. In e -
na ional Business Re iew, 102189.
Ba y, A. O. (2021). An eye- acking s udy o a en ion o isual cues in L2 lis ening es s. Language Tes -
ing, 38(4), 511–535.
Bellis, P., & Ve gan i, R. (2021). Pai s as pi o s o inno a ion. How collabo a i e sensemaking bene i s
om inno a ing in wos. Inno a ion, 23(3), 375–399.
Bellis, P., Ve gan i, R., & T abucchi, D. (2024). Le ’s mo e on! How pai collabo a ion ac i a es esilience
owa d inno a ion c ises. Eu opean Managemen Jou nal, 42(2), 186–199.
Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R. L., & an Wi eloos uijn, A. (2009). F om he edi o s:
S uden samples in in e na ional business esea ch. Jou nal o In e na ional Business S udies, 40,
361–364.
1 3
168
