Perceptions of Leadership Emoji Use in Virtual Teams: A Cross-Cultural Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores cross-cultural differences in perceptions of leadership emoji use and its implication for managing virtual teams. Two randomized controlled experiments tested for the effects of using emojis in computer-mediated workplace communication. Participants from four countries (N = 1488) were randomly assigned to a control or treatment group and asked to read workplace scenarios with or without emoji presence. Leadership perceptions as well as organizational measures, including civility and PO-fit were extended to all participants post-study. GLOBE leadership styles were used to predict the impact of emoji use on our study variables in hierarchical linear modeling. We found leadership emoji use to have a significant effect on several leadership perceptions across our sample. Leadership emoji use significantly increased perceptions of warmth for all countries except South Africa but led to negative perceptions of competence when ‘strong’ emojis (i.e., heart-shaped eyes) were used. German participants were the only country group to be positively impacted by leadership emoji use on organizational outcomes. The stronger emojis used in scenario 2, led to amplified effects as compared with those observed in study 1. Our findings have implications for diversity management and global leadership communication across virtual teams.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".