# A chorus of different tongues: Official corporate language fluency and informal influence in multinational teams

Felipe Guzman, B. Sebastian Reiche

► To cite this version:

Felipe Guzman, B. Sebastian Reiche. A chorus of different tongues: Official corporate language fluency and informal influence in multinational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2024, 182, pp.104334. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104334. hal-04820485

HAL Id: hal-04820485

https://hal.science/hal-04820485v1

Submitted on 21 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# A chorus of different tongues: Official corporate language fluency and informal influence in multinational teams

Felipe A. Guzman<sup>a,b,c,*</sup>, B. Sebastian Reiche<sup>d</sup>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Language

- Status

- Informal influence

- Multinational teams

- Voice

- Leadership emergence

## ABSTRACT

Multinational team members commonly face challenges to influence their peers to attain shared work goals in a language different from their mother tongue. However, the mechanisms linking multinational team members' official corporate language fluency and their displays of informal influence are not well understood. Drawing from status characteristics theory, we propose that peer-granted status mediates the relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence. We tested this prediction across two field studies and two experiments utilizing three different operationalizations of informal influence: voice behavior, voice quality, and leadership emergence. Overall, we demonstrate that members fluent in the official corporate language receive higher peer-granted status than their less fluent peers, and this relationship is stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in a common non-corporate language. In turn, high-status members engage in voice more frequently, and are more likely to convey voice quality and emerge as leaders.

## 1. Introduction

To maintain a competitive edge in our globalized economy, multi-national organizations must seek out talent from different geographies and foster cross-border collaboration (Welch & Welch, 2015). To organize their diverse workforce, organizations tend to draw on multinational teams (Stahl & Maznevski, 2021). Multinational teams excel at combining specialized skills, local and global insights, and the rich national, cultural, and linguistic diversity of their members (Mannucci & Shalley, 2022). Consequently, to achieve common work goals team members are often required to speak in the official corporate language even if that language is not their native tongue (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017; Welch & Welch, 2015). However, not all multinational team members are equally fluent in speaking the official corporate language.

Although researchers have mostly compared native speakers to their non-native peers (Hideg et al., 2022; Neeley & Dumas, 2016), large variation in fluency exists among non-natives. For example, in the Chilean division of a global company studied by Reiche and Neeley (2019), 25 percent of employees had high fluency in English, i.e., their official corporate language, 53 percent had medium, and 22 percent low fluency. In a French high-tech company that also used English as their

official corporate language, 41.5 percent of employees had high, 41.5 percent had medium, and 17 percent low English fluency (Neeley, 2013). As the common non-corporate language in these organizations was Spanish and French respectively, we expect fluency differences in the official corporate language to have important downstream consequences for multinational team functioning.

Although the multinational teams literature has explored a broad range of observed differences that affect team processes and outcomes (Stahl & Maznevski, 2021), differences in official corporate language fluency have been shown to have unique effects compared with other diversity dimensions such as culture (Tenzer et al., 2014). For example, research has established that less fluent members tend to talk less than their fluent peers during team discussions (Li et al., 2019). Further, differences in fluency affect interpersonal communication (Reiche et al., 2015) and members' perceptions of their peers (Paunova, 2017; Peltonkorpi & Pudelko, 2021). Importantly, because language serves as a "medium for thought" for individuals to fundamentally shape collective action (Brannen & Doz, 2012, p. 80), differences in fluency should also affect members' informal influence, defined as individuals' capacity to modify others' behavior, thoughts, or feelings (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Yet, despite the importance of informal influence for team

<footnote><sup>a</sup> IESEG School of Management, UMR 9221 - LEM - Lille Économie Management, F-59000 Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Univ. Lille, UMR 9221 - LEM - Lille Économie Management, F-59000 Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> CNRS, UMR 9221 - LEM - Lille Économie Management, F-59000 Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> IESE Business School, Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: IESEG School of Management, UMR 9221 - LEM - Lille Économie Management, F-59000 Lille, France.
E-mail address: f.guzman@ieseg.fr (F.A. Guzman).</footnote>
functioning (Guzman & Espejo, 2019; Li et al., 2017; Li & Tangirala, 2022), we know surprisingly little about the theoretical mechanisms linking multinational team members' official corporate language fluency to their informal influence.

Preliminary evidence suggests that differences in official corporate language fluency may affect members' capacity to influence others in multinational teams. For example, a qualitative study of multinational team members showed that differences in members' relative official corporate language fluency impacted their ability to leverage their positional or expert power (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017). Similarly, disparities in globally distributed team members' official corporate language fluency accentuated subgroup faultlines especially in teams with high levels of conflict and disagreement (Hinds et al., 2014). While these results are informative, they are limited to formal sources of influence, whether these reflect hierarchical position or team structures. However, there are several ways in which multinational team members can exercise informal influence, for example by voicing ideas (Burris et al., 2008; Liang et al., 2012), providing the team with high quality suggestions (Brykman & Raver, 2021), or informally leading a leaderless team (Badura et al., 2022).

We draw from status characteristics theory (Berger et al., 1972, 1980) to investigate how fluency in the official corporate language affects indicators of informal influence such as voice behavior, voice quality, and leadership emergence in multinational teams. Status characteristics theory examines how members' personal attributes shape interactions in group settings. Our central proposition is that in multinational teams, fluency in the official corporate language is a status cue, such that members reward their peers' fluency by granting them status—defined as being respected and admired by others (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In turn, high-status members should have more opportunities and expectations to influence other members because informal influence is a behavior that allows fluent high-status members to contribute to the team (Willer, 2009). Moreover, as the team context affects the degree to which members grant status (Bunderson, 2003; Hinds et al., 2014), we show that members are more likely to reward high fluency with status in teams whose members primarily converse in a common non-corporate language, as opposed to the team's official corporate language. Fig. 1 depicts our conceptual model that we test in four studies and one supplemental study.

Our research makes several contributions. First, we theorize and empirically demonstrate how and when multinational team members are more likely to gain status and exercise informal influence in the official corporate language. In doing so, we expand the literature by introducing fluency in the official corporate language as a relevant predictor of informal influence, which has been underexplored in multinational settings (Maddux et al., 2021). Relatedly, by investigating fluency differences in the official corporate language in settings where this language is foreign for most participants, our work moves beyond the dichotomy of contrasting native versus non-native speakers that characterizes existing research (Hideg et al., 2022). Second, we introduce team dominant language as a relevant contextual characteristic

that affects the degree to which multinational team members use fluency in the official corporate language as a basis to grant status and exercise informal influence. Our results document particularly positive downstream consequences for members' status and influence in teams who converse in a common non-corporate language but are highly proficient in the official corporate language. Third, we contribute to our understanding of multinational team functioning by showing that fluency in the official corporate language fosters the voicing and sharing of constructive ideas and leadership emergence in these teams.

## 1.1. Informal influence in multinational teams

Understanding how multinational team members influence their peers to achieve work goals is both theoretically and practically meaningful because exerting informal influence is particularly challenging in diverse teams. Given their diverse national, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, multinational team members have the potential to positively influence team functioning by providing relevant ideas, insights, or leadership (Gibson et al., 2014). However, members' greater dissimilarity also makes influence attempts more difficult. For example, members may not know a priori how their peers from different backgrounds will react to their contributions, which makes influence attempts uncertain. Yet, members are more likely to exercise influence when they expect a positive reaction from their target audience, than when they face uncertainty regarding the outcomes of their influence attempts (Takeuchi et al., 2012). Another challenge in multinational teams is that less fluent members may believe that other members do not understand them or attribute low task competence when they speak (Hideg et al., 2022), which may prompt them to stop trying to influence others.

Following this logic, research has shown that cultural distance between team members and their target audience (i.e., peers or supervisors) reduced their attempts to influence other members with their ideas because they expect their ideas will not make a difference (Ng et al., 2019). Research also suggests that multinational team members are more likely to convince their supervisor to introduce changes to the team when both member and supervisor share the same nationality (Tröster & van Knippenberg, 2012). These studies suggest that employees prefer to influence others who will be more likely to understand and value their influence attempts. However, we know little about how and when fluency in the official corporate language translates into multinational team members' informal influence.

## 1.2. A status characteristics view of official corporate language fluency in multinational teams

We draw on status characteristics theory to theorize the link between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence. Status characteristics theory (Berger et al., 1972, 1980) holds that group members judge another member's potential to contribute to the group as a function of the social status they assign to that individual's personal

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Theoretical model.</figcaption></figure>
characteristics. For example, group members have been shown to expect higher expertise and competence from individuals who are male, older, more highly educated, and who are extravert (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In general, relevant attributes are not homogenously distributed across individuals within a group (Bunderson, 2003), but group members have a shared understanding of the characteristics that are valued within their group (Berger et al., 1998).

In line with status characteristics theory, we argue that fluency in the official corporate language serves as a valued attribute for team members to assess their peers' status, for two reasons. First, fluency in the official corporate language is critical for the functioning of multilingual organizations (Luo & Shenkar, 2006) and for members of multinational teams to effectively interact and collaborate with one another (Tenzer et al., 2014). Second, since fluency in the official corporate language is unevenly distributed among individuals (Reiche & Neeley, 2019), differences in fluency are easily noticeable by peers. As a result, we conceptualize fluency in the official corporate language as a status cue (Neeley, 2013; Neeley & Dumas, 2016) and expect that higher fluency is associated with higher peer-granted status (Berger et al., 1980). Further, research suggests that because diffuse status cues like gender or language fluency are immediately noticeable by others, they should be more salient in triggering status attributions in shorter-tenured teams (Bunderson, 2003).

Once a status hierarchy is formed within a group, members develop higher expectations toward high-status individuals and consequently the group provides these members with more opportunities to exercise influence within the group (Berger et al., 1980). When presented with these opportunities coupled with the group's expectations to act according to their status, high-status members behave in an expectancy-consistent manner by influencing the group and its members to attain shared work goals.

### 1.3. Fluency in the official corporate language and peer-granted status

In line with status characteristics theory (Berger et al., 1972, 1980), we propose that relative to less fluent team members, those perceived as fluent in the team's official corporate language will be granted higher status. We conceptualize fluency in the official corporate language as an individual's ability to speak in this language as perceived by other team members. There are two key features of this definition. First, our definition follows the tenets of status characteristics theory insofar team members are able to evaluate and rank other members' official corporate language fluency. Second, our definition treats official corporate language fluency as an ability that can be learned, developed, and mastered over time (Neeley, 2013).

There is ample evidence suggesting that individuals use verbal cues to assess other individuals' capabilities. For instance, vocal tones have been used to make inferences about other individuals' potential and status (Ridgeway, 1987). Within a group, status cues become more salient when there is variability in that characteristic and when members are aware of that variability (Berger et al., 1972), as tends to be the case in multinational teams (Reiche & Neeley, 2019; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017). Indeed, research demonstrates that multinational team members are aware of other members' level of fluency in the team's lingua franca and use these cues to evaluate others (e.g., Tenzer et al., 2014). Official corporate language fluency has been associated with team members' perceived competence (Neeley, 2013), access to organizational resources (Harzing & Pudelko, 2013), and career advancement (Neeley & Dumas, 2016).

In practice, fluent members can express themselves more eloquently when delivering a point compared to less fluent members, which legitimizes them in the eyes of their peers (Neeley, 2013). Even if a member is a subject matter expert but is unable to share their knowledge due to language barriers, their peers will penalize them for not contributing to the team (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017). Thus, individuals who are unable to express themselves in a satisfactory manner are socially penalized

whereas those who are capable of correctly expressing themselves are socially rewarded (Neeley, 2013; Neeley & Dumas, 2016). In sum, we expect that differences in official corporate language fluency will stand out in multinational teams and members will use these cues as a basis to grant status. Therefore:

**H1:** Fluency in the official corporate language is positively related to peer-granted status.

### 1.4. Peer-granted status and informal influence

Status characteristics theory proposes that high-status individuals have greater control over group outcomes and the processes and resources to achieve those outcomes (Berger et al., 1972, 1980). High-status members are given more opportunities to join high-profile projects (Hinds et al., 2000), whereas low-status members are provided with fewer opportunities and are instead placed in undesirable positions (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Once a member is seen as high-status, other members develop higher expectations toward that individual, and treat them accordingly (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In turn, high-status members behave in accordance with other members' expectations, and in ways that contribute to the group (Willer, 2009). We thus expect that multinational team members would provide more opportunities to high-status members to influence the team and its members, which creates an expectation that they ought to use those opportunities to exercise their influence. In turn, we expect that high-status members would behave in accordance with their team's expectations by exerting higher levels of informal influence compared with low-status members. Thus:

**H2:** Peer-granted status is positively related to informal influence.

Taken together, Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest a mediated relationship, such that members fluent in the official corporate language are granted higher status by their peers, which increases their level of informal influence. This prediction is consistent with status characteristics theory because fluent members who are granted more status by their peers are in turn expected to engage in behaviors that use their higher fluency to contribute to the team's success (Berger et al., 1972, 1980). In turn, high-status members are particularly likely to engage in behaviors that use their official corporate language fluency to contribute to the team to give back to the team for having rewarded their fluency with status (Willer, 2009). Because informal influence involves displaying verbal behavior (Burris et al., 2008), we expect members who gained status through their higher fluency in the official corporate language will use their informal influence to help improve the team's functioning and task accomplishment. Therefore:

**H3:** Peer-granted status mediates the relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence.

### 1.5. The moderating role of team dominant language

The positive indirect relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence via peer-granted status occurs because team members form expectations about others' behavior based on language-related cues. As status granting is a socially driven process (Berger et al., 1972, 1980), we expect the group context to affect the extent to which members reward their peers' fluency in the official corporate language. This is consistent with research showing that group characteristics impact status-granting processes within teams (Bunderson, 2003; Hinds et al., 2014).

Multinational team members are often expected to accomplish tasks in a language different from their native tongue. Importantly, members may share a common non-corporate language in which they converse during team interactions yet are required to produce team outputs in the company's lingua franca (Harzing & Pudelko, 2013). For example, a multinational team may form part of an English-speaking organization but consist of French speakers. We propose that the team's dominant language is a key contextual variable that shapes members' perceptions
of the relative value of their peers' fluency, thus affecting the extent to which they grant status. We define team dominant language as the common language that team members primarily use to communicate with one another during team meetings and discussions.

In practice, we expect that members of some multinational teams primarily speak in a common non-corporate language, either because it is the language of the country where the team is based or because it is a language in which members are well versed (e.g., Spanish in the case of Latinos in the US, or French in the case of individuals from former French colonies). By contrast, members of other multinational teams who do not share a common non-corporate language may speak in the official corporate language. We expect that teams composed of members who share a common non-corporate language will speak in that language to one another, even if their team needs to produce team outcomes in the team's official corporate language (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017). By contrast, teams composed of members who do not collectively share a common non-corporate language will speak in the official corporate language as organizational members are expected to have some command of that language. Below, we explain how team dominant language moderates the relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and peer-granted status, such that this relationship is stronger in teams who primarily converse in a common non-corporate language.

Teams whose members share a common non-corporate language can conduct team discussions in this language. However, members of these teams would eventually require switching to the organization's *lingua franca* to produce outputs as required by the organization (Fiset et al., 2023). Given that official corporate language fluency is unevenly distributed, some members will be able to work fluently in both languages while other members will struggle to do so. We expect that members will value more highly peers who can successfully work in the official corporate language because fluency differences between a common non-corporate and the official corporate language would be relatively more salient for other team members, compared to teams who only converse in the organization's *lingua franca*. Team members who primarily converse in a common non-corporate language need to engage more frequently in code-switching between languages to produce team outputs (Neeley, 2013; Tenzer et al., 2014), which should make differences in the official corporate language fluency more noticeable. The more fluent members are particularly likely to notice differences toward their less fluent peers, as the latter will be unable to maintain a fluid discussion in the official corporate language the same way they do in the common non-corporate language. By contrast, fluent members will have no such problem with fluent peers. Thus, members will hold higher performance expectations toward and hence grant higher status to those fluent in the official corporate language (Bunderson, 2003).

In teams whose members do not share a common non-corporate language, members will need to communicate in the official corporate language. In most cases, these members will only be able to communicate with one another in the official corporate language, making members less likely to switch to other languages. Thus, members in these teams can only compare the fluency of their peers against one another, not against themselves in another language as is the case for teams whose members share a common non-corporate language. This will make differences in official corporate language fluency comparatively less salient. Additionally, native speakers of the official corporate language are likely to forgive speech mistakes and pronunciation errors of non-native speakers by giving them the benefit of the doubt (Gibson et al., 2017; Hanulíková et al., 2012). This suggests that in multinational teams composed of members who do not share a common non-corporate language, native speakers of the official corporate language will be more forgiving with their less fluent peers, giving them the benefit of the doubt when they make language-related mistakes. As a result, some team members will be more lenient when granting status to less fluent peers compared to members from teams who primarily speak in a common non-corporate language. In sum, we expect that the

relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and peer-granted status, and by extension the indirect relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence via peer-granted status, is more pronounced in teams whose members converse in a common non-corporate language compared to teams whose members converse in the official corporate language. Thus:

**H4:** Team dominant language moderates the positive relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and peer-granted status, such that the relationship is stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in a common non-corporate language vis-à-vis teams whose members primarily converse in the official corporate language.

**H5:** Team dominant language moderates the indirect relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence via peer-granted status, such that the indirect relationship is stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in a common non-corporate language vis-à-vis teams whose members primarily converse in the official corporate language.

## 1.6. Overview of studies

We tested our theoretical model through a multi-study research design that consisted of two field studies and two experiments. Across the studies, we varied our operationalization of informal influence, such that our results would generalize to different indicators of influence. Study 1 reports data from a field study of 112 multinational teams where we test our theoretical model utilizing voice behavior as an indicator of informal influence. Study 2 reports data from another field study of 137 multinational teams where we replicated our results from Study 1 and expanded them by testing voice quality and leadership emergence as two additional indicators of informal influence. As Studies 1 and 2 use data from a French organization, we sought to extend our results to another common non-corporate language. Thus, Study 3 replicates our theoretical model with an experimental design in a sample of German-English bilinguals where the common non-corporate language is German. Further, as our first three studies conceptualize English as the team's *lingua franca*, we sought to generalize our results to another official corporate language. Thus, Study 4 demonstrates that our key mediation also holds in a context where Spanish is the official corporate language. Lastly, we conducted one post-hoc experiment to show that speakers' foreign language accents do not pose a major threat to our results. Our datasets, study materials, the syntax to replicate our main results, and our pre-registration forms for Study 3 and Study 4 are openly available as an online Appendix at the Open Science Framework repository at: https://osf.io/qh7wu/?view_only=ee803988ef60411dbbf66c7305ecd1aa.

## 2. Study 1

Study 1 seeks to test our hypotheses with a two-wave, time-lagged design in a sample of self-managed teams in a French educational institution where English is the official *lingua franca*. We chose the context of self-managed teams that lack more formal status hierarchies (Magee & Galinsky, 2008) to better examine the role of peer-granted status perceptions based on language-related status cues. Members of teams with defined supervisors are more likely to share their supervisors' views (Wo et al., 2018), and thus their perceptions of their peers may be influenced by those of the formal supervisor.

In Study 1, we conceptualized voice as an indicator of informal influence. Voice is a proactive work behavior that focuses on the verbal expression of constructive ideas, opinions, or suggestions aimed at introducing changes into the organization by challenging the status quo via constructive change (Detert & Burris, 2007; Liang et al., 2012). As voice can affect other group members (Bain et al., 2021), group processes (Li & Tangirala, 2022), and group outcomes (Guzman & Espejo, 2019; Li et al., 2017), high-status members can use voice to influence their team. Specifically, we expected that team members would provide more opportunities to high-status members to engage in voice, which
creates an expectation that they ought to speak up. In turn, we expected
that high-status members would behave in accordance with their team’s
expectations by engaging in voice behavior more frequently than
members with less status.

## 2.1. Participants and design

Study 1 draws on data from 400 master's students in Management in 112 self-managed teams that worked together during a semester-long project as part of a Leadership Development course. While the institution is not located in an English-speaking country, English is its official corporate language (i.e., all courses are taught in English and all internal communication is also delivered in English). Most participants were male (52 %), their average age was 22.97 (SD = 2.80) years old, and 97 % were non-native English speakers who spoke 23 different languages. We did not pre-register Study 1.

Participants were assigned into self-managed teams at the beginning of the semester to work on a semester-long project representing 40 % of their final grade. Average team size was 4.83 (range 4–7). Teams collaborated to resolve business cases, plan strategies, and work on interconnected projects that resulted in the delivery of three group presentations. Group presentations were equally spaced during the semester and occurred after one third, two thirds, and in the penultimate session of the course, respectively. Together, team presentations made up 30 % of the final grade. Additionally, about 10 % of the final grade was obtained by completing intermediary team-related activities leading to the team presentations. To increase members’ interdependence, each member obtained the same group grade.

Immediately after participants finished their first team presentation (Time 1 hereafter), we sent them an online survey that included round-robin measures of their peers' English fluency and peer-granted status, as well as self-rated measures of English self-efficacy, psychological safety, extraversion, team dominant language, and their demographics. At the end of the semester (Time 2 hereafter), we sent participants a second survey in which we collected round-robin evaluations of voice behavior. At Time 1, we contacted 657 individuals working in 136 teams. At Time 2, after matching responses from completed surveys, we reached a final sample of 400 complete responses (61 % response rate).

## 2.2. Measures

**Voice behavior (round-robin, Time 2).** To measure members' voice behavior, participants rated each other's voice behavior with the five-item promotive voice behavior scale (Liang et al., 2012) (1 = almost never/never, 5 = almost always/always). An item reads, "[Peer's name] proactively develops and makes suggestions for issues that may influence the team." (α = 0.94).

**Peer-granted status (round-robin, Time 1).** In line with status research (Pettit et al., 2013), members rated the extent to which they use the following attributes to describe their peers: respect, admiration, status, and prestige (1 = almost never/never, 5 = almost always/always). We averaged the four items to form a scale score (α = 0.85).

**English fluency (round-robin, Time 1).** To assess English fluency as a status signal in multinational teams, we asked team members "how would you assess [Peer's name]'s English skills" to rate the verbal English fluency of each team member with a single-item validated measure (1 = speaks very poorly; 5 = speaks like a native) (Reiche et al., 2015). Single-item measures are often used in roster methods, such as round-robin assessments to counterbalance time constraints, fatigue, and poor responses (e.g., Lee & Duffy, 2019).

**Team dominant language (self-reported, Time 1).** Team members reported the language in which they primarily spoke to one another when working on team assignments (1 = English, 2 = French). We aggregated members' answers to the group level to create one score per team.

**Control variables (self-reported, Time 1).** Aligned with research on voice within teams, we controlled for members' sex (1 = female, 2 =

male, 3 = other) and age (in years) since male and older individuals are more likely to engage in voice (Tangirala et al., 2013). We controlled for psychological safety because it has been found to influence voice (Morrison, 2023). To assess psychological safety, members used the three-item measure by Burris and colleagues (2008). A sample item is "in this team it is safe for me to speak up" (α = 0.95). We also controlled for extraversion to account for the unique role of peer-rated English fluency, above and beyond extraverts' characteristics such as good communication, persuasion, and assertiveness (Riggio, 1986). Members self-reported their level of extraversion with the four-item measure by Donnellan and colleagues (2006). A sample item is, "I talk to a lot of different people at parties" (α = 0.73). Lastly, following Ng and colleagues' scale and recommendations (2019), members self-reported their perceived confidence with four items representing their speaking, listening, reading, and writing English skills (1 = Not at all confident, 5 = Extremely confident)(α = 0.88).

## 2.3. Data aggregation

To analyze voice behavior, peer-granted status, team dominant language, and English fluency, we first needed to aggregate these constructs as they were collected with a round-robin design. To justify aggregating these variables across raters, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) as an indicator of interrater reliability (IRR) and $r_{WG(J)}$ as an indicator of interrater agreement (IRA). High IRR and IRA values would justify aggregation since members belonging to the same team are expected to develop similar views of other members' attitudes and behaviors (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The aggregation of round-robin ratings to the level of each participant was justified for voice behavior (ICC1 = 0.36, *p* < .001; ICC2 = 0.69; $r_{WG(5)}$ = 0.87), peer-granted status (ICC1 = 0.57, *p* < .001; ICC2 = 0.84; $r_{WG(4)}$ = 0.86), and English fluency (ICC1 = 0.24, *p* < .001; ICC2 = 0.56; $r_{WG(1)}$ = 0.68) because they were above the commonly recommended threshold levels for IRR and IRA scores. Similarly, IRR scores for team dominant language also suggest that aggregation to the group-level was justified (ICC1 = 0.64, *p* < .001; ICC2 = .86¹).

## 2.4. Analytical strategy

As team members are nested in teams, we employed multi-level methods to test H1, H2, and H4 utilizing the mixed command in Stata 17 MP. Moreover, to test our indirect effect predictions (i.e., H3 and H5), we used multi-level path analysis in MPlus 8.1 as it allowed us to test for mediation and moderated mediation while accounting for the nested structure of our data. We estimated the indirect effects by calculating a confidence interval (CIs) with 20,000 replications of Monte Carlo simulations (Preacher et al., 2010). In both software, we specified a two-level model with a group-level random intercept to account for group-level differences. We included all control variables in all regression models. Additionally, to facilitate the interpretation of the regression coefficients at their respective level and to reduce the risk of multicollinearity of our group-level team dominant language variable, we grand mean-centered our main explanatory variables (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).

## 2.5. Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations.

Table 2 shows the results of our multi-level regression analyses. H1 suggests that English fluency is positively related to peer-granted status

<footnote n="1">¹ Calculating $r_{WG}$ scores is informative for Likert-type scales where respondents have at least five response options (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). For this reason, we do not report the $r_{WG}$ score for this dichotomous variable.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1**

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities (Study 1 and Study 2).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="14">Study 1 (n = 400, k = 112)</td></tr><tr><td>1. Sex</td><td>1.52</td><td>0.50</td><td>-</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.18</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.05</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Age</td><td>22.97</td><td>2.28</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.26**</td><td>-0.27**</td><td>-0.42**</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.23*</td><td>-0.19*</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. English self-efficacy</td><td>4.17</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.04</td><td>(0.88)</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.40**</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.07</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Extraversion</td><td>3.44</td><td>0.72</td><td>-0.15**</td><td>-0.19**</td><td>0.08</td><td>(0.73)</td><td>0.18</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.14</td><td>-0.15</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Psychological safety</td><td>4.50</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.01</td><td>-0.11*</td><td>0.12*</td><td>0.10*</td><td>(0.95)</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.36**</td><td>0.13</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Group-level team dominant language</td><td>1.48</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.29**</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>-</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.14</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. English fluency</td><td>3.40</td><td>0.59</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.13*</td><td>0.45**</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.11*</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-</td><td>0.45**</td><td>0.29**</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Peer-granted status</td><td>3.64</td><td>0.49</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.17**</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.18**</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.42**</td><td>(0.85)</td><td>0.40**</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. Voice</td><td>3.89</td><td>0.68</td><td>-0.04</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.21**</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.32**</td><td>0.40**</td><td>(0.94)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="14">Study 2 (n = 567, k = 137)</td></tr><tr><td>1. Sex</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.50</td><td>-</td><td>-0.18*</td><td>0.23**</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.28**</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.04</td><td>-0.08</td><td>-0.03</td></tr><tr><td>2. Age</td><td>22.73</td><td>1.74</td><td>-0.04</td><td>-</td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.17*</td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.54**</td><td>-0.11</td><td>-0.11</td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.03</td></tr><tr><td>3. English self-efficacy</td><td>4.23</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.14**</td><td>-0.07</td><td>(0.86)</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.20*</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.36**</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>4. Extraversion</td><td>3.21</td><td>0.53</td><td>-0.09*</td><td>-0.13**</td><td>0.04</td><td>(0.73)</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.20*</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>5. Psychological safety</td><td>4.46</td><td>0.64</td><td>-0.00</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.14**</td><td>0.04</td><td>(0.86)</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.27**</td><td>0.41**</td><td>0.41**</td><td>0.25**</td><td>0.28**</td></tr><tr><td>6. Group-level team dominant language</td><td>1.72</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.15**</td><td>-0.32**</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.08</td><td>-</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>7. English fluency</td><td>3.56</td><td>0.60</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.08*</td><td>0.32**</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.12**</td><td>-0.01</td><td>-</td><td>0.41**</td><td>0.51**</td><td>0.37**</td><td>0.35**</td></tr><tr><td>8. Peer-granted status</td><td>3.88</td><td>0.58</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.00</td><td>0.16**</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.40**</td><td>(0.91)</td><td>0.68**</td><td>0.49**</td><td>0.45**</td></tr><tr><td>9. Voice</td><td>3.85</td><td>0.63</td><td>-0.16**</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.16**</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.51**</td><td>0.69**</td><td>(0.95)</td><td>0.54**</td><td>0.52**</td></tr><tr><td>10. Voice quality</td><td>3.95</td><td>0.65</td><td>-0.13**</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.10*</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.13**</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.34**</td><td>0.46**</td><td>0.58**</td><td>(0.94)</td><td>0.79**</td></tr><tr><td>11. Leadership emergence</td><td>3.75</td><td>0.96</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.13**</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.15**</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.36**</td><td>0.43**</td><td>0.54**</td><td>0.76**</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Cronbach's alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses. Within-team correlations appear below the diagonal and between-team correlations appear above the diagonal.

*p* <.05.

**p** <.01.

<table><caption>**Table 2**

Results of multi-level regression analyses predicting voice behavior (Study 1).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Peer granted status</th><th colspan="3">Voice behavior</th></tr><tr><th>M1</th><th>M2</th><th>M3</th><th>M4</th><th>M5</th><th>M6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.08**<br>(0.32)</td><td>3.79**<br>(0.31)</td><td>3.73**<br>(0.31)</td><td>3.43**<br>(0.46)</td><td>4.09**<br>(0.45)</td><td>4.04**<br>(0.46)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>-0.07<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.01<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.01<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.14*<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.08<br>(0.06)</td><td>-0.08<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.01<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.01<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.00<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.01<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.01<br>(0.01)</td></tr><tr><td>English self-efficacy</td><td>0.11**<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.23**<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.11*<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.11*<br>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Extraversion</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>Psychological safety</td><td>0.05<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.01<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Team dominant language</td><td>0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.16<br>(0.11)</td><td>0.16<br>(0.10)</td><td>0.16<br>(0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>English fluency</td><td></td><td>0.33**<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.32**<br>(0.04)</td><td></td><td>0.29**<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.29**<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>English fluency × Team dominant language</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.17*<br>(0.08)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.13<br>(0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Peer-granted status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.37**<br>(0.12)</td><td>0.36**<br>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>- 2 × log likelihood</td><td>468.02</td><td>402.53</td><td>397.71</td><td>742.74</td><td>701.70</td><td>700.35</td></tr><tr><td>Δ - 2 × log (df)</td><td>-</td><td>65.49** (1)</td><td>4.82* (1)</td><td>-</td><td>41.06** (2)</td><td>1.35 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudo R<sup>2</sup> Level-one</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.17</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudo R<sup>2</sup> Level-two</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.16</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. n = 400, k = 112. Standard errors appear in parenthesis.

*p* <.05.

**p** <.01.

and this relationship was supported (Table 2, M2: b = 0.33, p <.001). H2 suggests a direct positive relationship between peer-granted status and voice, which our data supports (Table 2, M5: b = 0.37, p =.002). There was also a significant interaction effect between English fluency and

team dominant language (Table 2, M3: b = 0.17, p =.027). To better understand the form of this interaction, we plotted simple slopes at one standard deviation above and below the mean value of team dominant language in Fig. 2. Supporting H4, simple slopes analysis suggests that
the relationship between English fluency and peer-granted status is stronger in teams whose members primarily speak in French (i.e., the common non-corporate language) (slope = 0.40, *z* = 7.89, *p* < .001), than in teams who speak in English (i.e., the official corporate language) (slope = 0.25, *z* = 4.97, *p* < .001).

In relation to the hypothesized indirect effects, H3 proposed that peer-granted status mediates the relationship between English fluency and voice, and our data support this (indirect effect = 0.14, *p* < .001, CI = (0.08, 0.21)). H5, which predicted that team dominant language moderates the first stage of the mediated relationship between English fluency and voice via status, was also supported. In line with our prediction, this indirect effect is positive and stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in French (indirect effect = 0.16, *p* < .001, CI = (0.10, 0.24)), compared to teams who primarily speak in English (indirect effect = 0.11, *p* < .001, CI = (0.05, 0.18)).

## 2.6. Supplemental analyses

Our conceptual logic suggests that in multinational teams, English fluency provides members with status which, in turn, allows them to engage in voice more frequently. While this conceptual logic is consistent with the prevalent view of the voice literature (Kim et al., 2022), some studies show that voice can help individuals maintain their elevated status (McClean et al., 2018; Weiss & Morrison, 2019). As voice and status are correlated, we cannot rule out the possibility of a self-reinforcing loop, wherein status leads to voice and voice leads to further increases in status. However, we have conceptual and empirical reasons that support the proposed direction of our model. Conceptually, because individuals tend to quickly form impressions about others and first impressions tend to last (Black & Vance, 2021), status impressions are likely formed before individuals have the chance to engage in voice. This is particularly relevant given that we are studying teams tasked to deliver a project in English across their entire, relatively short lifespan (i. e., four months). In team settings, the first time that individuals interact with their teammates is by introducing themselves, i.e., they first engage in a verbal interaction with their peers. Given the English language requirements for the team task in our setting, participants' respective language fluency should trigger immediate status cues. By contrast, voice behavior tends to occur later in the life cycle of a team (Farh & Chen, 2018). In other words, we would expect that our empirical context

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Interactive effect of English fluency and team dominant language on peer-granted status (Study 1).</figcaption></figure>

helps us tease out the direction between peer-granted status and voice behavior. Our data indeed shows that the interaction between English fluency and team dominant language—while significantly related to status as described above—is not significantly related to voice (*b* = 0.14, *se* = 0.11, *p* = .225), which supports the direction of our predictions.

Following best practice recommendations (Becker, 2005), we removed our control variables and repeated our regression analyses. This robustness check revealed that our results and conclusions remained unchanged, thereby increasing confidence in our results. Consistent with previous research (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012), we also examined whether our choice of grand-mean centering our main explanatory variables resulted in a spurious cross-level moderation. Thus, we retested our moderation by group-mean centering English fluency at Level 1 while introducing a group-level aggregate of this variable at Level 2 (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). This procedure generated results equivalent to those involving grand-mean centering, which increased the robustness of our results.

Lastly, to increase the validity of team dominant language as a key moderating variable, we explored three alternative moderating mechanisms that capture language diversity within a multinational team. Specifically, we explored the proportion of French native speakers in a team, the average number of languages team members can speak, and the number of languages other than English or French shared by team members, as alternative moderators. The interaction between English fluency and each of these group-level variables was not significantly related to peer-granted status. Controlling for these variables did not affect the significance of our results or conclusions, which bolsters the robustness of the moderating role of team dominant language.

## 2.7. Discussion

Study 1 supports our predictions. Members perceived to speak the official corporate language more fluently are granted higher status by their peers and, as a result, they exert more informal influence (measured as voice behavior). This mediated effect is stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in French (i.e., the common non-corporate language) compared to teams whose members primarily speak in English (i.e., the official corporate language).

## 3. Study 2

Study 2 reports data from a multi-source, time lagged field study of self-managed teams that seeks to replicate the results presented in Study 1. Study 2 also adopts an alternative measure of status (McClean et al., 2018), allowing us to triangulate our results across different conceptualizations and measures of peer-granted status. Both measures allowed us to investigate the unique effects of status without conflating them with influence (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

In Study 1, we investigated voice behavior as an indicator of informal influence. However, status characteristics theory not only predicts that high-status members would engage in influencing behaviors such as voice, but also that their peers would socially reward them by evaluating their behavior more positively (Berger et al., 1972, 1980). Peers may do so by assessing high-status members' suggestions as higher quality or by entrusting them with leadership contributions. We thus propose that voice quality and leadership emergence serve as additional indicators of informal influence in the context of our conceptual model. Voice quality refers to team members' perceptions of the value of a focal individual's voice communication (Brykman & Raver, 2021). According to Brykman and Raver (2021), voice quality is high when other team members perceive an individual's voiced contributions to be well reasoned, feasible, aligned with the team's goals, and novel. As team members tend to give more consideration to their high-status peers' team contributions (Bunderson, 2003; Li et al., 2019), we expect that compared to ideas voiced by low-status members, those voiced by high-status members will be perceived as higher quality. We further expect that high-
status members are more likely to emerge as informal team leaders in self-managed multinational teams. Leadership emergence is defined as "being perceived as leaderlike" (Kaiser et al., 2008, p. 97). Members who are admired and respected are more likely to be seen as team leaders (McClean et al., 2018). Team members prefer to elect high-status individuals as leaders because they believe those leaders would be able to contribute more effectively to the team (Badura et al., 2022).

## 3.1. Participants and design

Study 2 includes data from a separate cohort of 567 master's students in Management in 137 self-managed teams that took part in the same course reported in Study 1, however during the following academic year. Most participants were male (51 %), their average age was 22.73 years old (SD = 1.74), and 99 % were non-native English speakers who spoke 21 different languages. Average team size was 5.46 (range 3–9). We did not pre-register Study 2.

At Time 1, participants responded to a survey that included round-robin measures of their peers' English fluency, peer-granted status, and voice behavior as well as self-rated measures of English self-efficacy, psychological safety, extraversion, team dominant language, and their demographics. At Time 2, participants assessed their peers' voice quality and leadership emergence utilizing round-robin methods. At Time 1, we contacted 814 individuals working in 149 teams, At Time 2, after matching data from all surveys, we reached a final sample of 567 complete responses (69 % response rate).

## 3.2. Measures

We utilized the same measures reported in Study 1 to assess voice behavior (α = 0.95), psychological safety (α = 0.92), team dominant language, English self-efficacy (α = 0.86), English fluency, extraversion (α = 0.73), and participants' demographics.

**Voice quality (round-robin, Time 2).** We assessed this construct with a short version of the scale by Brykman and Raver (2021). The original scale included three items for each of the four subdimensions of voice quality, resulting in twelve items. Team members evaluated their peers utilizing the highest loading item from each subdimension with a Likert-type scale (1 = almost never/never, 5 = almost always/always). A sample item is, "[Peer's name] provides evidence to support their suggestions." (α = 0.94).

**Leadership emergence (round-robin, Time 2).** We assessed this construct by adapting the scale by McClean and colleagues (2018). Team members answered the following question for all peers: "If you had the opportunity to work with the same team you currently have in this course, would you want [Peer's name] to be the team leader?" (1 = definitely no, 5 = definitely yes).

**Peer-granted status (round-robin, Time 1).** Following previous research on status in teams (McClean et al., 2018), team members rated their peers utilizing two items that reflect the core of status (i.e., admiration and respect). The items were, "[Peer's name] has a high level of respect in others' eyes" and "[Peer's name] is held in high regard by others." (α = 0.91).

## 3.3. Data aggregation

In line with Study 1, we calculated indicators of IRR and IRA to justify aggregation. The ratings across raters were above the general recommended thresholds for voice behavior (ICC1 = 0.35, p <.001; ICC2 = 0.66; r<sub>WG(5)</sub> = 0.94), voice quality (ICC1 = 0.33, p <.001; ICC2 = 0.55; r<sub>WG(4)</sub> = 0.84), status (ICC1 = 0.26, p <.001; ICC2 = 0.55; r<sub>WG(2)</sub> = 0.79), and English fluency (ICC1 = 0.24, p <.001; ICC2 = 0.53; r<sub>WG(1)</sub> = 0.69), thus justifying the aggregation of round-robin scores to each participant. Leadership emergence (ICC1 = 0.31, p <.001; ICC2 = 0.53; r<sub>WG(1)</sub> = 0.34) had acceptable IRR scores and relatively weaker IRA scores. We nevertheless decided to aggregate this measure given the

acceptable IRR scores. Specifically, because it involves the ranking of peers leadership emergence is a high variance construct (McClean et al., 2018; Smith & Foti, 1998), making weaker IRA scores more likely. IRR indicators for team dominant language also suggest that aggregation to the group-level was justified (ICC1 = 0.64, p <.001; ICC2 = 0.68).

## 3.4. Results

We adopted the same analytical strategy described in Study 1 to test our hypotheses. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations of our Study 2 variables. Table 3 shows the results of our multi-level regression analyses.

In line with H1, our data support a significant relationship between English fluency and peer-granted status (Table 3, M2: b = 0.39, p <.001). Peer-granted status is significantly related to voice behavior (Table 3, M5: b = 0.48, p <.001), voice quality (Table 3, M8: b = 0.38, p <.001), and leadership emergence (Table 3, M11: b = 0.48, p <.001). Thus, our data support H2 for all three indicators of informal influence. Further, there is a significant interaction effect between English fluency and team dominant language (Table 3, M3: b = 0.22, p =.021). We plotted this interaction in Fig. 3 and conducted simple slope analyses. Simple slopes analysis indicates that the link between English fluency and status is stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in French (slope = 0.48, z = 9.05, p <.001), compared to teams who primarily speak in English (slope = 0.31, z = 5.93, p <.001), supporting H4.

In relation to the hypothesized indirect effects, our data demonstrate a positive indirect effect of English fluency via peer-granted status on voice behavior (indirect effect = 0.25, p <.001, CI = (0.19, 0.31)), voice quality (indirect effect = 0.16, p <.001, CI = (0.11, 0.22)), and leadership emergence (indirect effect = 0.22, p <.001, CI = (0.15, 0.30)). This supports H3.

Lastly, in support of H5, our data demonstrate evidence for our predicted moderated mediation regarding our three outcomes. Specifically, the indirect effect of English fluency via peer-granted status is positive and stronger in teams whose members primarily speak in French (indirect effect for voice behavior = 0.29, p <.001, CI = (0.21, 0.37); indirect effect for voice quality = 0.20, p <.001, CI = (0.14, 0.28); indirect effect for leadership emergence = 0.26, p <.001, CI = (0.18, 0.35)), compared to teams who speak in English (indirect effect for voice behavior = 0.20, p <.001, CI = (0.14, 0.27); indirect effect for voice quality = 0.12, p <.001, CI = (0.07, 0.19); indirect effect for leadership emergence = 0.18, p <.001, CI = (0.11, 0.26)).

## 3.5. Supplemental analyses

We ran several post-hoc tests in line with Study 1. First, to rule out alternative conceptual models, we investigated whether English fluency interacts with team dominant language to predict our outcome variables. Results of these analyses show that this interaction is not significantly related to voice behavior (b = 0.15, se = 0.10, p =.129), voice quality (b = -0.10, se = 0.11, p =.358), or leadership emergence (b = -0.10, se = 0.16, p =.535). Similarly, neither removing our control variables, nor our use of grand-mean centering affect our results or conclusions. Lastly, we explored the same three alternative moderating mechanisms described in Study 1, and none of them moderated the relationship between English fluency and peer-granted status, nor did they affect our results or conclusions when included as control variables.

## 3.6. Discussion

Overall, the data reported in Study 2 not only replicate the results from Study 1 utilizing a different measure of peer-granted status, but they also support our hypothesized predictions for two other indicators of informal influence, voice quality and leadership emergence. Despite the strengths of our first two studies (i.e., time lagged design, round-robin measurement of key variables, different operationalizations of
<caption>Table 3</caption>

Results of multi-level regression analyses predicting voice behavior, voice quality, and leadership emergence (Study 2).

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Peer granted status</th><th colspan="3">Voice behavior</th><th colspan="3">Voice quality</th><th colspan="3">Leadership emergence</th></tr><tr><th>M1</th><th>M2</th><th>M3</th><th>M4</th><th>M5</th><th>M6</th><th>M7</th><th>M8</th><th>M9</th><th>M10</th><th>M11</th><th>M12</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.69**<br>(0.42)</td><td>4.43**<br>(0.39)</td><td>4.27**<br>(0.40)</td><td>2.88**<br>(0.46)</td><td>3.94**<br>(0.39)</td><td>3.85**<br>(0.40)</td><td>2.93**<br>(0.47)</td><td>3.56**<br>(0.45)</td><td>3.62**<br>(0.46)</td><td>1.55*<br>(0.69)</td><td>2.60<br>(0.67)</td><td>2.66<br>(0.67)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>-0.09*<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.05<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.22**<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.14**<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.15**<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.19**<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.15**<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.15**<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.21**<br>(0.08)</td><td>-0.14<br>(0.07)</td><td>-0.14<br>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>-0.00<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.01)</td><td>-0.01<br>(0.01)</td><td>0.03*<br>(0.02)</td><td>0.01*<br>(0.01)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.01)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.02)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.01)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.01)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.02)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.02)</td><td>0.02<br>(0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>English self-efficacy</td><td>0.04<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.08*<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.07*<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.06<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.08*<br>(0.03)</td><td>-0.07*<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.12**<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.23**<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.08<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.08<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Extraversion</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.00<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.01<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.07<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.02<br>(0.04)</td><td>-0.06<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.03<br>(0.05)</td><td>-0.04<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.01<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.01<br>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Psychological safety</td><td>0.08*<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.06<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.06<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.12**<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.03)</td><td>0.09*<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.15*<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.09<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.09<br>(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Team dominant language</td><td>0.08<br>(0.09)</td><td>0.04<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.05<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.11<br>(0.09)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.19*<br>(10)</td><td>0.14<br>(0.09)</td><td>0.13<br>(0.09)</td><td>0.24<br>(0.14)</td><td>0.16<br>(0.13)</td><td>0.16<br>(0.13)</td></tr><tr><td>English fluency</td><td></td><td>0.39**<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.39**<br>(0.04)</td><td></td><td>0.46**<br>(0.04)</td><td>0.46**<br>(0.04)</td><td></td><td>0.28**<br>(0.05)</td><td>0.28**<br>(0.05)</td><td></td><td>0.47**<br>(0.07)</td><td>0.47**<br>(0.07)</td></tr><tr><td>English fluency<br>×<br>Team dominant language</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.22*<br>(0.09)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.15<br>(0.09)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.09<br>(11)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.08<br>(0.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Peer-granted status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.48**<br>(0.06)</td><td>0.48**<br>(0.06)</td><td></td><td>0.38**<br>(0.08)</td><td>0.38**<br>(0.08)</td><td></td><td>0.48**<br>(0.12)</td><td>0.47**<br>(0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>- 2 × log likelihood</td><td>934.17</td><td>839.13</td><td>833.88</td><td>1028.94</td><td>816.05</td><td>813.27</td><td>1049.51</td><td>982.04</td><td>981.32</td><td>1499.85</td><td>1426.30</td><td>1427.02</td></tr><tr><td>Δ - 2 × log (df)</td><td>-</td><td>95.04**<br>(1)</td><td>5.25*<br>(1)</td><td>-</td><td>212.89*<br>(2)</td><td>2.78<br>(1)</td><td>-</td><td>67.47**<br>(2)</td><td>0.72<br>(1)</td><td>-</td><td>73.54**<br>(2)</td><td>0.28<br>(1)</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudo R<sup>2</sup> Level-one</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudo R<sup>2</sup> Level-two</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.23</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. n = 567, k = 137. Standard errors appear in parenthesis.

*p* < .05.

**p* < .01.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Interactive effect of English fluency and team dominant language on peer-granted status (Study 2).</figcaption></figure>

status, and consistent results across both studies), they are not without limitations. First, both studies assessed status at the same time as English fluency, and it is possible that participants granted status for reasons unrelated to their peers' English fluency, thereby limiting the causal inferences we can draw from our analyses. Also, both studies were conducted in a single organization in France, which raises the question of whether our results can be generalized to another common non-corporate language.

## 4. Study 3

Study 3 was designed to conceptually replicate and extend our results reported in Studies 1 and 2 and address the aforementioned limitations utilizing a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design with a sample of German-English bilinguals where the common non-corporate language was German. We created two audio files of an individual introducing himself to the study participants. Holding the content and style of the message constant, we varied whether the individual spoke (1) fluently in English with a standard North American accent or (2) non-fluently as an individual who speaks English as a second language. Additionally, we created a scenario where we varied participants' team dominant language (i.e., majority German-speaking vs. majority English-speaking). These experimental conditions allowed us to examine whether differences in English fluency across different types of teams result in different levels of peer-granted status and informal influence. We pre-registered the study: https://aspredicted.org/5XY_J4W.

### 4.1. Participants and design

We analyzed a sample of 214 German nationals from Prolific.com, who fluently spoke English as a second language.<fnref n="2" /> We paid 1.8 British pounds to participants for their time. Most participants were female (64

%), they were 30.4 (SD = 7.79) years old, and most of them had at least completed a university degree (54%).

We divided participants into four experimental conditions: Facing a fluent English speaker in a majority German-speaking team (n = 53), facing a non-fluent English speaker in a majority German-speaking team (n = 51), facing a fluent English speaker in an English-speaking team (n = 55), and facing a non-fluent English speaker in an English-speaking team (n = 55). In all conditions, participants were asked to imagine that they worked in GlobalMarketing, a German-based multinational company that uses English as their official corporate language. This language policy allowed the company to grow by having an international workforce and international clients. Participants read that they had been at the company for two years, and that in the previous week they had joined a newly formed team inside the company charged with developing and launching social media campaigns for a U.S.-based client over a five-months period. When introducing the new team, we included the team dominant language treatment. Half of participants read, “most members of your team are from Germany,” while the other half read, “most members of your team are from many different countries.” Then, to reinforce the idea that participants are expected and required to use English, participants also read, “since your client is in the USA, you really have to use English on a daily basis.”

Participants were then informed that their current social media team would have one additional member from Germany who recently entered the company to join their team for a trial period of one month. This trial period allowed us to create a valid reason to ask questions about this new member—participants were informed that the company routinely collects feedback about new employees. We told participants that they received a notification in the WhatsApp group chat of their social media team. Participants read, “when you unlocked your phone, you realized that the person sending the message was the new team member from Germany who will be on a trial period of one month and who wanted to introduce himself to the team before coming in person to the office next week.” At this stage, participants were presented with an audio file and upon clicking the play button, could listen to the following audio message:

> Hi everyone, I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself. My name is Martin Müller, and I'm the newest member of the social media team. I have a bachelor's in management and a master's in marketing. Before joining GlobalMarketing, I worked in another marketing agency. I'm thrilled to bring my skills and expertise to help create social media campaigns with you. As I settle into my new role, I wanted to let you know that I'm here to support the team in any way I can. Please feel free to let me know if there are any particular areas where I can contribute or offer assistance. I'm eager to learn from the team and contribute to our collective success. Thank you for the opportunity to join this exceptional team, and I look forward to working together to achieve our goals. See you soon...

To increase realism, the actor pronounced his name with the same German accent as we expect people would state their name using their native accent independently of their English fluency. After listening to the message, participants responded to our survey to answer questions evaluating their new team colleague.

### 4.2. Measures

Given the hypothetical nature of the vignette studies, we faced a methodological challenge to assess actual behavioral outcomes. Specifically, our study would not be able to assess future displays of informal influence of their new hypothetical team colleague upon joining the team. Because Study 3 aimed to provide a conceptual replication of our field studies, we decided to employ hypothetical measures. Specifically, we asked study participants to assess anticipated voice behavior, anticipated voice quality, and anticipated leadership emergence of their

<footnote n="2">² We used G*Power to conduct a power analysis. Aligned with previous research (Lee et al., 2022), we followed the standard recommendations to detect a small effect size of 0.25, with a 0.05 alpha error probability and a power of 0.80, which results in a recommended sample size of 180 (i.e., 45 per cell). Following our pre-registration protocol, we collected a slightly larger sample size in case we needed to remove some participants.</footnote>
hypothetical new colleague. This approach is appropriate when researchers investigate explicit processes and outcomes of phenomena for which study participants have prior knowledge and thus can provide appropriate information when answering questions (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). As we expect study participants to have knowledge about group discussions, they should be able to answer our survey questions. Indeed, hypothetical measures are commonly used in vignette studies where researchers conceptually replicate results from field studies (Burris, 2012; Leslie et al., 2017).

Except for leadership emergence, we used the same measures reported in Study 2 to assess all our constructs. In Study 2, we used a single-item measure to assess leadership emergence because we wanted to keep our round-robin survey brief. In this study, we were not particularly restricted by survey space, and therefore utilized the five-item scale by Cronshaw and Lord (1987). A sample item is, “he fits my image of a leader” (α.92).

**English fluency manipulation.** To examine the effectiveness of our English fluency manipulation, we asked participants to rate the appropriateness of Martin's English skills. As expected, an ANOVA test ($F(1, 212) = 433.22, p < .001$) revealed that participants in the high fluency English condition rated their new colleague's English skills significantly higher ($M = 4.81, SD = 0.39$) than participants in the low fluency English condition ($M = 2.68, SD = 0.99$).

**Team dominant language.** To examine the effectiveness of our team dominant language treatment, we asked participants, “which of the following alternatives is true about your current team at Global-Marketing?” We presented participants with four options, only one of which was correct depending on their condition: “Most members of your team are from Germany/many different countries.” Ninety-one percent of participants in the majority German-speaking teams (n = 119) and 92 % of participants in the majority English-speaking teams (n = 121) respectively answered this question correctly, indicating that participants not only paid attention to our stimuli, but also were significantly more likely to answer the treatment question correctly. As we detail next, we dropped the 21 participants who answered this question incorrectly.

### 4.3. Procedure

To develop the audio files, we hired a voice actor who fluently speaks English as a second language. We made sure he had the skills to speak English with different accents and levels of fluency. For the high fluency condition, we asked the voice actor to record the script utilizing a Standard North American English accent. For the low fluency condition, we asked him to speak with a strong German accent, to slightly mispronounce some of the words, and to make common mistakes that German speakers tend to make when learning English. We adapted the generated output to fit our scenario, presented the final version to the voice actor, and asked him to memorize it so that the recordings felt more natural. We did not inform him of our hypotheses and asked him to use the same speech style, pace, and emotion when recording each version (Grant & Hofmann, 2011). Each recording was approximately one minute long.

We contacted 240 participants via Prolific.com. We offered no additional incentives for good performance beyond payment for completing the study. Participants first provided consent for us to use their responses and continued to the study. Unbeknownst to them, upon signing the consent form they were assigned into one of the four experimental conditions. In addition to the 21 participants who failed the team dominant language treatment check, we dropped five more participants who failed attention checks, resulting in a final sample of 214 participants.

### 4.4. Results

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and

correlations.

An ANOVA test that included both of our experimental conditions demonstrates that our English fluency manipulation was significantly related to peer-granted status ($F(1, 211) = 230.41, p < .001$, partial eta-squared = 0.52). Providing support for H1, participants in the high fluency condition rated the status of their new colleague significantly higher ($M = 4.22, SD = 0.72$) than participants in the low fluency condition ($M = 2.61, SD = 0.82$). Testing H4 reveals a significant interaction between our experimental conditions and status ($F(1, 210) = 6.30, p = .013$, partial eta-squared = 0.03). We plotted the simple slopes of this interaction in Fig. 4. Supporting H4, a simple slopes analysis shows that the fluency dummy is more strongly associated with peer-granted status in the majority German-speaking team condition (slope = 1.88, CI = (1.58, 2.18), $t = 12.51, p < .001$) than in the English-speaking team condition (slope = 1.35, CI = (1.07, 1.64), $t = 9.27, p < .001$).

We used ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression to test our remaining predictions and reported unstandardized coefficients. Controlling for both experimental dummy variables, peer-granted status was positively related to anticipated voice behavior (b = 0.16, $p = .001$, partial R-squared = 0.05), anticipated voice quality (b = 0.30, $p < .001$, partial R-squared = 0.14), and anticipated leadership emergence (b = 0.34, $p < .001$, partial R-squared = 0.08), supporting H2.

To test for mediation, we computed indirect effects by calculating bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) utilizing 5,000 bootstraps replications. Supporting H3, peer-granted status mediated the effect of the fluency dummy on anticipated voice behavior (indirect effect = 0.25, $p = .002$, CI = (0.10, 0.42)), anticipated voice quality (indirect effect = 0.48, $p < .001$, CI = (0.31, 0.68)), and anticipated leadership emergence (indirect effect = 0.55, $p < .001$, CI = (0.32, 0.79)).

Supporting H5, the moderated mediation effect was stronger in the majority German-speaking team condition (indirect effect for anticipated voice behavior = 0.27, $p = .003$, CI = (0.08, 0.47); indirect effect for anticipated voice quality = 0.55, $p < .001$, CI = (0.34, 0.80); indirect effect for anticipated leadership emergence = 0.56, $p < .001$, CI = (0.34, 0.91)), compared to the English-speaking team condition (indirect effect for anticipated voice behavior = 0.19, $p = .007$, CI = (0.06, 0.34); indirect effect for anticipated voice quality = 0.40, $p < .001$, CI = (0.25, 0.57); indirect effect for anticipated leadership emergence = 0.44, $p < .001$, CI = (0.25, 0.65)).

We replicated Study 3's results utilizing the four-item status measure from Study 1, indicating that our results are robust to different operationalizations of peer-granted status.

### 4.5. Discussion

Study 3 extends our two field studies by providing experimental evidence of the relationship between English fluency and peer-granted status, and by extending our results to another common non-corporate language. Our results should be interpreted with caution because participants assessed both status and our outcome variables, which may lead to percept-percept inflation (Sherf et al., 2021). Similarly, the hypothetical nature of our dependent variables (e.g., anticipated voice behavior instead of actual voice behavior) limits the external validity of our results. However, because the goal of Study 3 was to conceptually replicate our field results by experimentally manipulating our independent variables, it is reasonable to draw on hypothetical measures, following other scholars (Burris, 2012; Leslie et al., 2017). Relatedly, using hypothetical measures is consistent with our prediction that individuals can make attributions based on diffuse status cues (i.e., immediately after listening to an audio file).

## 5. Study 4

Thus far, we have largely relied on English as the official corporate language because English is considered the lingua franca of business
<table><caption>**Table 4**

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities (Studies 3 and 4).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Study 3 (n = 214)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1. Peer-granted status</td><td>3.42</td><td>1.11</td><td>(0.94)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Anticipated voice behavior</td><td>3.96</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.35**</td><td>(0.84)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Anticipated voice quality</td><td>3.68</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.36**</td><td>0.58**</td><td>(0.76)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Anticipated leadership emergence</td><td>2.69</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.57**</td><td>0.40**</td><td>0.20**</td><td>(0.92)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. English fluency condition (0 = low, 1 = high)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.72**</td><td>0.27**</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.52**</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>6. Team dominant language condition (0 = majority English, 1 = majority German)</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.50</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Study 4 (n = 94)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1. Peer-granted status</td><td>4.05</td><td>0.60</td><td>(0.81)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Anticipated voice behavior</td><td>4.06</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.45**</td><td>(0.80)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Anticipated voice quality</td><td>3.79</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.48**</td><td>0.70**</td><td>(0.79)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Anticipated leadership emergence</td><td>3.09</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.53**</td><td>0.46**</td><td>0.36**</td><td>(0.87)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. Spanish fluency condition (0 = low, 1 = high)</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.39**</td><td>0.29**</td><td>0.22*</td><td>0.17</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note.* Cronbach's alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Interactive effect of English fluency condition and team dominant language condition on peer-granted status (Study 3).</figcaption></figure>

(Welch & Welch, 2015). However, it is important to generalize our mediating logic to another official corporate language. Consequently, Study 4 tests our key mediating mechanism for our three indicators of informal influence by translating our materials from Study 3 into Spanish. We pre-registered the study: https://aspredicted.org/WJV_7PP.

## 5.1. Participants and design

We utilized Prolific.com to recruit a sample of 120 Spanish nationals and paid them 1.20 British pounds.<fnref n="3" /> Out of these 120 participants, we dropped 26 for failing attention checks, leaving a final sample of *n* = 94. Forty-nine percent of them were male, they were on average 32.33 (SD = 12.35) years old, and 62% had at least completed a bachelor's university degree.

## 5.2. Procedure

We adapted and translated our materials from Study 3 and told participants to imagine they worked in the Spanish branch of a U.S.-based company that uses Spanish as their official corporate language. Participants were randomly placed in one of two experimental conditions, in which they listened to a recording of a new teammate from the U.S. introducing himself. We hired a voice actor from the U.S. who recorded a high and low Spanish fluency version of the same introduc-tory message. After listening to the recording, participants rated the same mediators and dependent variables using the same measures from Study 3.

## 5.3. Results

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations. Participants in the high Spanish fluency condition rated their new colleague's Spanish skills significantly higher (n = 48, M = 4.27, SD = 0.57) than those in the low Spanish fluency condition (n = 46, M = 3.35, SD = 0.67) (F(1, 92) = 51.26, p < .001), demonstrating the effectiveness of our manipulation.

An ANOVA test shows that our Spanish fluency dummy was significantly related to peer-granted status (F(1, 92) = 14.18, p < .001, partial eta-squared = 0.13). Supporting H1, participants in the high fluency condition rated the status of their new colleague significantly higher (M = 4.24, SD = 0.64) than participants in the low fluency condition (M = 3.77, SD = 0.56).

To test our remaining predictions, we utilized OLS regression with the same specifications reported in Study 3. Controlling for our Spanish fluency dummy, peer-granted status was positively related to anticipated voice behavior (b = 0.36, p = .001, partial R-squared = 0.18), anticipated voice quality (b = 0.47, p < .001, partial R-squared = 0.21), and anticipated leadership emergence (b = 0.48, p < .001, partial R-squared = 0.17), supporting H2. Lastly, our data indicates that our Spanish fluency dummy was indirectly related to anticipated voice behavior (indirect effect = 0.17, p = .002, CI = (0.08, 0.30)), anticipated voice quality (indirect effect = 0.22, p = .002, CI = (0.07, 0.37)), and anticipated leadership emergence (indirect effect = 0.23, p = .007, CI = (0.10, 0.43)) via peer-granted status, supporting H3 for our indicators of informal influence.

Consistent with our previous studies, Study 4 results do not change when assessing peer-granted status with the four-item status measure reported in Study 1.

<footnote>*p* < .05.</footnote>

<footnote>**p* < .01.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ We used G*Power to conduct a power analysis to detect a medium effect size of 0.40, with a 0.05 alpha error probability and a power of 0.80, which results in a recommended sample size of 76 (i.e., 38 per cell). Following our pre-registration protocol, we collected a slightly larger sample size in case we needed to remove some participants.</footnote>
## 5.4. Discussion

Study 4 provides evidence that our conceptual logic can be gener-
alized to other official corporate languages. Despite the relevance of this
result, we note the same limitations as for Study 3, namely, that par-
ticipants assessed both the mediator and the dependent variables, and
that our dependent variables represent hypothetical rather than actual
behaviors.

Finally, we considered the possibility that the accent individuals
have when speaking a foreign language might have influenced our re-
sults. Previous research suggests that in settings with one dominant
language, native speakers tend to have negative reactions toward in-
dividuals with foreign sounding accents (Hideg et al., 2022). We would
argue, however, that in multilingual settings the accent individuals have
when speaking the official corporate language is relatively less relevant
for determining their status. This is in part because although the strength
of a foreign accent and official corporate language fluency are concep-
tually distinct, they are highly correlated in practice (Munro & Derwing,
1995), suggesting that individuals with a thicker accent are generally
perceived to speak with lower fluency. Moreover, in multinational
teams, an accent can signal status only when there is a shared under-
standing regarding the relative status of that accent. However, research
shows that individuals are not accurate at determining the origin of
foreign accents (McKenzie, 2010). Similarly, over shorter time spans,
individuals are unable to change their fluency, but they may alter their
accent (Hideg et al., 2022), which further complicates the predictive
validity of foreign accents. In sum, we expect that accents will be less
indicative of status in multinational teams because members are less
likely to collectively agree on the origin (and status) of their peers' ac-
cents. Experiment 1 (reported in the online Appendix) provides support
for our arguments. We randomly played back either one of our two voice
recordings reported in Study 3 to a sample of 115 German-English bi-
linguals and asked them to guess the country of origin of the voice actor.
As expected, the data shows that only one participant per condition
correctly guessed that the actor was from Austria.

# 6. General discussion

The present research provides support for a theoretical model linking fluency in the official corporate language with informal influence via status in multinational teams. Following status characteristics theory (Berger et al., 1972, 1980), we show that higher fluency in the official corporate language is associated with peer-granted status. Further, high-status members are better able to influence their peers by engaging in voice more frequently, but also by conveying higher voice quality and emerging as team leaders in the eyes of their peers. This relationship is more pronounced in teams whose members primarily converse in a common non-corporate language. Our results contribute to the literatures on linguistic diversity, status, and informal influence in multinational teams.

## 6.1. *Theoretical contributions*

First, we advance the literature on multinational teams. Extant
research continues to focus on the role of cross-cultural capabilities and
experiences rather than linguistic proficiency for individuals' effec-
tiveness in multinational teams (e.g., Lu et al., 2022). We conceive
fluency in the official corporate language as an important additional
predictor of multinational teams' informal processes and outcomes. The
relatively few studies on official corporate language fluency in such
teams have shown that language barriers for members not fluent in the
dominant language involve negative affective reactions by other mem-
bers (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015), reduced trust formation (Tenzer et al.,
2014), and increased faultlines within teams (Hinds et al., 2014). Our
results expand our understanding of multinational team functioning by
showing that fluency in the official corporate language is not only an

individual status marker (e.g., Neeley, 2013), but can benefit teams by
allowing members to exercise informal influence. Specifically, fluent
members can voice more and better ideas and are more likely to emerge
as leaders, especially in teams that typically converse in a common non-
corporate language. By investigating different indicators of informal
influence, we advance our currently limited understanding of relevant
outcomes in multinational settings (Maddux et al., 2021).

Relatedly, we also contribute to research on the consequences of
linguistic diversity in global organizations more broadly. Existing
research primarily compares the downstream consequences of fluency
differences between native and non-native speakers (e.g., Hideg et al.,
2022). For example, compared to non-native speakers, native speakers
are often granted higher status by their peers (Neeley, 2013; Neeley &
Dumas, 2016). By studying fluency differences in the official corporate
language in a setting where most members do not speak that language
natively, our study moves beyond the dichotomy of contrasting native
versus non-native speakers to unearth important nuance in the uneven
distribution of official corporate language fluency among non-native
speakers. For example, our results suggest that individuals are able to
distinguish between and grant different levels of status to non-native
speakers depending on their official corporate language fluency.
Whereas previous research has suggested that non-native speakers have
generally lower status, our results are important because they show that
individuals perceive meaningful status differences among non-native
speakers. As such, our results inform status characteristics theory
(Berger et al., 1972, 1980) by highlighting how a group's linguistic
composition and fluency distribution may influence the status granting
processes among its members. Further, although English is commonly
considered the lingua franca of business, we show that our results can be
generalized to other official corporate languages.

Second, our research introduces the role of a team's dominant lan-
guage as a novel and important contextual variable for multinational
teams. Our results highlight the need to consider the nuances of the
team's linguistic composition to have a more thorough understanding of
team dynamics. Importantly, our results from Study 1 and 2 suggest that
team dominant language has unique moderating effects above other
indicators of team linguistic composition, highlighting the relevance of
this construct in status granting processes. Scholars have recently begun
to theorize how the rich characteristics of the team context may impact
informal influence in domestic settings. For instance, when team
members speak out publicly in front of the team (as opposed to pri-
vately), other team members can witness such communication of ideas
and amplify it, making those ideas more likely to be acted upon by the
team (Bain et al., 2021). Extending this study, and consistent with
research highlighting the challenges of multinational environments (e.
g., Affinito et al., 2023), our results show that fluency in the official
corporate language is more likely to affect voice behavior, voice quality
and leadership emergence in less diverse multinational teams where
most members share a common non-corporate language.

Third, we contribute to research on how and in what form multi-
national team members can exercise informal influence. The literature
has suggested that fluency in the official corporate language enables
members to use their structural or expert power (Tenzer & Pudelko,
2017) and alleviate subgroup faultlines in globally dispersed teams
(Hinds et al., 2014). At the same time, we know much less about how
members can exert informal influence in multinational teams where
formal bases of influence are less salient because the team is self-
managed. Such teams are widespread as diverse members are tasked
to collaborate towards common objectives, whether for new product
development or the provision of professional services (see Cheng et al.,
2012; Lee et al., 2018). Our work suggests that members of self-managed
multinational teams can exercise informal influence when they are
fluent in the official corporate language because fluency serves as a
status cue in the eyes of their peers. Our studies provide converging
evidence that team members' fluency in the lingua franca is not only
associated with the frequency of their communicated ideas (i.e., voice
behavior), but also with the perceived value of those ideas (i.e., voice quality) and the emergence as informal leaders. Our results regarding voice quality are particularly meaningful to the voice literature because previous research has mainly explored the consequences of voice quality (Brykman & Raver, 2021, 2023). We also contribute to our understanding of what drives others to assess a *peer's* voice as higher quality. This is important because previous research has primarily investigated the value of voice from the team leaders' perspective (Burris, 2012). Thus, our paper joins recent studies in highlighting the important role of peers in the voice process as peers can help determine which ideas should be acted upon by team members (Bain et al., 2021).

Relatedly, a study by Paunova (2017) showed that members with higher objective English fluency levels emerged as team leaders only if they also had high core self-evaluations. This research concluded that personal characteristics augment the effect of official corporate language fluency on leadership emergence. Given we controlled for team members' relevant personal attributes such as extraversion and English self-efficacy, we show that contextual characteristics such as a team's dominant language may be a more prominent condition for the indirect effect of fluency in the official corporate language on leadership emergence.

Further, aside from a handful of exceptions (Grant, 2014; Ng et al., 2019), studies focusing on the role that knowledge, skills, and abilities have on voice continue to remain scarce despite a longstanding call to expand this research (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Grant (2014) showed that employees who were better at regulating their emotions were more likely to engage in voice. Similarly, members high on cultural intelligence were also more likely to speak up in multinational teams (Ng et al., 2019). We extend this line of research by introducing the critical role of fluency in the official corporate language as a voice antecedent in multinational teams. Finally, our results contribute to the issue selling literature by highlighting that, especially in multilingual settings, members' ability to get their peers to pay attention to an issue is not only a function of the framing and the relational dynamics in the issue selling process (e.g., Lauche & Erez, 2023), but also depends on the seller's official corporate language fluency.

## 6.2. Limitations and future research directions

When considered in isolation, each of our studies have some limitations. While we assessed our dependent variable a few weeks later than the rest of the variables to avoid issues related with common method bias in Studies 1 and 2, an even stronger research design would have included measurements at three time points instead of two. We supplemented the limited causal inference from these two studies with two experiments. However, Studies 3 and 4 also have limitations as experimental participants reacted to a fictional colleague in a fictional team. Although we tried to enhance the realism of these studies—for instance, by using a voice actor—their main goal was to offer high internal validity in a controlled setting.

While our results show how fluency in the official corporate language affects informal influence, it is also possible that fluency impacts how influence itself is perceived. For instance, suggestions to change coming from more fluent members may be more easily recognized by peers (Bain et al., 2021) or formal leaders (Howell et al., 2015) than those of less fluent members. Further, ideas similar in quality but communicated with higher fluency may receive more attention from team members. Also, in teams with a defined leader, members who share a language with the leader might be more effective in exerting influence within the team (Tröster & van Knippenberg, 2012). Investigating these and other nuances of language fluency should open several research avenues on informal influence in multinational teams.

Our field studies focused on teams with a relatively short lifespan (i. e., four months). Such temporary teams are common forms of collaboration across many industries. However, it is possible that diffuse status cues like language fluency may become less salient as team tenure

increases (e.g., Bunderson, 2003), and we would therefore encourage scholars to extend our results to such team contexts. It would also be interesting to investigate whether status dynamics in multinational teams fluctuate over time as team members get accustomed to their peers' fluency levels. For instance, could less fluent members gain status and exercise more influence in the team as time goes by? Which conditions would facilitate this?

## 6.3. Managerial implications and conclusion

Our research also offers managerial implications. We show that fluent members are given more opportunities to participate in team decisions and, consequently, they can exercise more informal influence by speaking up more often and voicing ideas that are perceived by their peers as having higher quality. They are also more likely to emerge as leaders. An inadvertent consequence is that while some of the less fluent members may be better experts, they are not given the same opportunities to provide their input. Therefore, we advise multinational team members to have more patience with their less fluent peers and listen to their input. Multinational teams may also institute more formal procedures to solicit input from less fluent members. For example, technology tools such as those supported by AI could solicit input from each member in their native language before translating it into the team's common language. To mitigate status differences stemming from members' differences in official corporate language fluency, team members' input could be anonymized before it is shared in the team.

We also offer advice to individuals with lower official corporate language skills, whether they are part of a multinational team or engage in expatriation and other forms of global work. It is important for them to proactively participate in team discussions, otherwise their position within the team and their career progression may suffer. If the language gap is too big, they should seek training support. Similarly, HR managers should offer language training to less fluent employees to help them improve their fluency (Reiche & Neeley, 2019), so their contributions to the team will be more appreciated.

In conclusion, we presented a theoretical model linking fluency in the official corporate language with informal influence via peer-granted status. Results from four studies show that higher official corporate language fluency is associated with higher status. In turn, higher status allows individuals to speak up more often, convey higher voice quality, and emerge as leaders, especially in teams that converse in a common non-corporate language. We hope that our research engenders future studies looking into how different facets of official corporate language fluency affect key processes and outcomes in multinational teams.

### Author statements

**Disclosure statement:** All studies, measures, manipulations, and data/participants exclusions are reported in the manuscript

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Felipe A. Guzman:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **B. Sebastian Reiche:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Data availability

Study materials, as well as the data and syntax to replicate all of our
findings are openly available on the Open Science Framework repository. Link appears in the manuscript

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Associate Editor William Maddux for his guidance during the review process. We also wish to thank Eren Akkan, Kyle Brykman, Ethan Burris, Giverny Deboe, Pablo Escriban, and OBHDP anonymous reviewers for their comments on our manuscript. We wish to express additional gratitude to faculty members and doctoral students at ESMT Berlin and the Center for Global Work and Employment at Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations for their input and feedback. An earlier version of our research was presented as part of a Symposium organized by Yurianna Kimmons and Chi Nguyen at the 2023 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management under a different title.

## References

Affinito, S. J., Antoine, G. E., Gray, K., & Maddux, W. W. (2023). Negative multicultural experiences can increase intergroup bias. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 109*, Article 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104498

Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. *Organizational Research Methods, 17*(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96*(2), 491-503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001420

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). "How Can You Do It?": Dirty Work and the Challenge of Constructing a Positive Identity. *Academy of Management Review, 24*(3), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.220219

Badura, K. L., Galvin, B. M., & Lee, M. Y. (2022). Leadership Emergence: An Integrative Review. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 107*(11), 2069-2100. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000997

Bain, K., Kreps, T. A., Meikle, N. L., & Tenney, E. R. (2021). Amplifying Voice in Organizations. *Academy of Management Journal, 64*(4), 1288-1312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0621

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations. *Organizational Research Methods, 8*(3), 274-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. *American Sociological Review, 37*(3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093465

Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The Legitimation and Delegitimation of Power and Prestige Orders. *American Sociological Review, 63*(3), 379. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657555

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. *Annual Review of Psychology, 61*(1), 479-508. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), *Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions* (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; pp. 349-381). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations Foundations, extensions, and new directions. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2000-16936-008.

Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. L. (2012). Corporate Languages and Strategic Agility: Trapped in Your Jargon or Lost in Translation. *California Management Review, 54*(3), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.77

Brykman, K. M., & Raver, J. L. (2021). To speak up effectively or often? The effects of voice quality and voice frequency on peers' and managers' evaluations. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42*(4), 504-526. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2509

Brykman, K. M., & Raver, J. L. (2023). Persuading managers to enact ideas in organizations: The role of voice message quality, peer endorsement, and peer opposition. *Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2703

Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 48*(4), 557-591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556637

Burris, E. R. (2012). The Risks and Rewards of Speaking Up: Managerial Responses to Employee Voice. *Academy of Management Journal, 55*(4), 851-875. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 93*(4), 912-922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912

Cheng, C., Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Lee, L. (2012). Finding the right mix: How the composition of self-managing multicultural teams' cultural value orientation influences performance over time. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33*(3), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1777

Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of Categorization, Attribution, and Encoding Processes on Leadership Perceptions. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 72*(1), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.97

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? *Academy of Management Journal, 50*(4), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. *Psychological Assessment, 18*(2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192

Fiset, J., Bhave, D. P., & Jha, N. (2023). The Effects of Language-Related Misunderstanding at Work. *Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231181651

Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century Teams. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1*(1), 217-244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091240

Gibson, E., Tan, C., Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., & Fedorenko, E. (2017). Don't Underestimate the Benefits of Being Understood. *Psychological Science, 28*(6), 703-712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797167960277

Grant, A. M. (2014). Rocking the Boat but Keeping It Steady: The Role of Emotion Regulation in Employee Voice. *Academy of Management Journal, 56*(6), 1703-1723. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0035

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. *Research in Organizational Behavior, 28*, 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Outsourcing inspiration: The performance effects of ideological messages from leaders and beneficiaries. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116*(2), 73-187. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000781

Guzman, F. A., & Espejo, A. (2019). Introducing changes at work: How voice behavior relates to management innovation. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40*(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2319

Hanulková, A., van Alphen, P. M., van Goch, M. M., & Weber, A. (2012). When One Person's Mistake Is Another's Standard Usage: The Effect of Foreign Accent on Syntactic Processing. *Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24*(4), 878-887. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a00103

Harzing, A.-W., & Pudelko, M. (2013). Language competencies, policies and practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic MNCs. *Journal of World Business, 48*(1), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.011

Hideg, I., Shen, W., & Hancock, S. (2022). What is that I hear? An interdisciplinary review and research agenda for non-native acents in the workplace. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43*(2), 214-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2591

Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing Work Group Members: Balancing Similarity, Competence, and Familiarity. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81*(2), 226-251. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2875

Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. *Journal of International Business Studies, 45*(5), 536-561. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/journals/journal/v45/n5/abs/jibjs201362a.html.

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Models: Implications for Research in Organizations. *Journal of Management, 24*(5), 623-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504

Howell, T. M., Harrison, D. A., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2015). Who Gets Credit for Input? Demographic and Structural Status Cues in Voice Recognition. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 100*(6), 1765-1784. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl00000025

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. *American Psychologist, 63*(2), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-666x.63.2.96

Kim, S., McClean, E. J., Doyle, S. P., Podsakoff, N. P., Lin, E., & Woodruff, T. (2022). The Positive and Negative Effects of Social Status on Ratings of Voice Behavior: A Test of Opposing Structural and Psychological Pathways. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 107*(6), 951-967. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000945

Lauche, K., & Erez, M. (2023). The Relational Dynamics of Issue-Selling: Enacting Different Genres for Dealing with Discontent. *Academy of Management Journal, 66*(2), 553-577. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1484

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement. *Organizational Research Methods, 11*(4), 815-852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

Lee, K., & Duffy, M. K. (2019). A Functional Model of Workplace Envy and Job Performance: When do Employees Capitalize on Envy by Learning from Enved Targets? *Academy of Management Journal, 62*(4), 1085-1110. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1202

Lee, R., Mai, K. M., Qiu, F., Ilies, R., & Tang, P. M. (2022). Are you too happy to serve others? When and why positive affect makes customer mistreatment experience feel worse. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 172*, Article 104188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohbdp.2022.104188

Lee, Y.-T., Masuda, A. D., Fu, X., & Reiche, B. S. (2018). Navigating between Home, Host, and Global: Consequences of Multicultural Team Members' Identity Configurations. *Academy of Management Discoveries, 4*(2), 180-201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2016.0063

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., & Dahm, P. C. (2017). Why and When Does the Gender Gap Reverse? Diversity Goals and the Pay Premium for High Potential Women. *Academy of Management Journal, 60*(2), 402-432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0195

Li, A. N., Liao, H., Tangirala, S., & Firth, B. M. (2017). The content of the message matters: The differential effects of promotive and prohibitive team voice on team productivity and safety performance gains. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 102*(8), 1259-1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl00000215
Li, A. N., & Tangirala, S. (2022). How Employees' Voice Helps Teams Remain Resilient in the Face of Exogenous Change. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 107*(4), 668-692.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000874

(Jessica) Li, H., Yuan, Y. C., Bazarova, N. N., & Bell, B. S. (2019). Talk and Let Talk: The Effects of Language Proficiency on Speaking Up and Competence Perceptions in Multinational Teams. *Group & Organization Management, 44*(5), 953-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118756734

Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. *Academy of Management Journal, 55*(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176

Lu, J. G., Swaab, R. I., & Galinsky, A. D. (2022). Global leaders for global teams: leaders with multicultural experiences communicate and lead more effectively. *Especially in Multinational Teams. Organization Science, 33*(4), 1554-1573. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1480

Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. (2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual community: Language and organization in a global context. *Journal of International Business Studies, 37*(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400197

Maddux, W. W., Lu, J. G., Affinito, S. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2021). Multicultural experiences: A systematic review and new theoretical framework. *Academy of Management Annals, 15*(2), 345-376. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0138

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. *Academy of Management Annals, 21*(1), 351-398. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211628

Mannucci, P. V., & Shalley, C. E. (2022). Embracing multicultural tensions: How team members' multicultural paradox mindsets foster team information elaboration and creativity. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 173*, Article 104191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohbdp.2022.104191

McClean, E. J., Martin, S. R., Emich, K. J., & Woodruff, C. T. (2018). The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. *Academy of Management Journal, 61*(5), 1869-1891.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0148

McKenzie, R. M. (2010). The social psychology of english as a global language. *Springer*.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8566-5

Morrison, E. W. (2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10*(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. *Language Learning, 45*(1), 73-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x

Neeley, T. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. *Organization Science, 24*(2), 476-497. http://pubsonline.inf.orms.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1120.0739

Neeley, T. B., & Dumas, T. L. (2016). Unearned status gain: evidence from a global language mandate. *Academy of Management Journal, 59*(1), 14-43. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0535

Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2019). Speaking out and speaking up in multicultural settings: A two-study examination of cultural intelligence and voice behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151*, 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohbdp.2018.10.005

Paunova, M. (2017). Who gets to lead the multinational team? An updated status characteristics perspective. *Human Relations, 70*(7), 883-907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716678469

Pelttokorpi, V., & Pudelko, M. (2021). When more is not better: A curvilinear relationship between foreign language proficiency and social categorization. *Journal of International Business Studies, 52*(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00316-y

Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Marr, J. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. *Psychological Science, 24*(8), 1579-1584.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473120

Preacher, K. J., Zypur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. *Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15*(3), 209-233. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-18042-001.

Reiche, B. S., Harzing, A. W., & Pudelko, M. (2015). Why and how does shared language affect subsidiary knowledge inflows? A social identity perspective. *Journal of International Business Studies, 46*(5), 528-551. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.3

Reiche, B. S., & Neeley, T. B. (2019). Head, heart, or hands: how do employees respond to a radical global language change over time? *Organization Science, 30*(6), 1252-1269.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1289

Ridgeway, C. L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. *American Sociological Review, 52*(5), 683. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095603

Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51*(3), 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.649

Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., & Isaakyan, S. (2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. *Academy of Management Journal, 64*(1), 114-148. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1428

Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. *The Leadership Quarterly, 9*(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(98)90002-9

Stahl, G. K., & Maznevski, M. L. (2021). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A retrospective of research on multicultural work groups and an agenda for future research. *Journal of International Business Studies, 52*(1), 4-22. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00389-9

Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. Y. (2012). Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation. *Personnel Psychology, 65* (2), 283-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01247.x

Tangirala, S., Kamdar, D., Venkataramani, V., & Parke, M. R. (2013). Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees' voice. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 98*(6), 1040-1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033855

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. *Personnel Psychology, 65*(2), 251-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01248.x

Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2015). Leading across language barriers: Managing language-induced emotions in multinational teams. *The Leadership Quarterly, 26*(4), 606-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.006

Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2017). The influence of language differences on power dynamics in multinational teams. *Journal of World Business, 52*(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.11.002

Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. W. (2014). The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. *Journal of International Business Studies, 45* (5), 508-535. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v45/n5/abs/jibs201364a.html.

Tröster, C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Leader openness, nationality dissimilarity, and voice in multinational management teams. *Journal of International Business Studies, 43*(6), 591-613. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.15

Weiss, M., & Morrison, E. W. (2019). Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees' social status. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 85*(4), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2262

Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2015). Developing multilingual capacity: A challenge for the multinational enterprise. *Journal of Management, 0149206315594846*. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315594846

Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. *American Sociological Review, 74*(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240970400102

Wo, D. X. H., Schminke, M., & Ambrose, M. L. (2018). Trickle-down, trickle-out, trickle-up, trickle-in, and trickle-around effects: an integrative perspective on indirect social influence phenomena. *Journal of Management, 45*(6), 2263-2292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318812951