Perceptions of leadership emoji use in virtual teams: A cross-cultural study

Abstract

This research explores cultural differences in perceptions of leadership emoji use in digitally mediated workplace communication. Two experiments tested the effects of emojis in virtual leadership scenarios. Participants from four cultural clusters (N = 1488)—Confucian Asia, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa—were randomly assigned to control or treatment conditions and asked to read workplace scenarios featuring leaders communicating either with or without emojis. After exposure, participants evaluated leadership perceptions and organizational attributes. GLOBE leadership styles were used to predict and explain cross-cultural variation in responses. Across both studies, emoji use significantly increased perceived leadership warmth in all cultural clusters except Sub-Saharan Africa. In Study 2, emotionally intense emojis (e.g., heart-shaped eyes) led to decreased perceptions of leader competence. Perceptions of organizational attributes increased significantly only among Germanic European participants. The use of more emotionally intense emojis in Study 2 amplified the effects observed in Study 1. These findings offer implications for leadership theory and cross-cultural communication in virtual teams.

Keywords

cross-cultural communication emoji GLOBE leadership styles digital leadership virtual teams workplace scenarios

Both globalization and technological advancements have contributed significantly to changes in workplace diversity and communication dynamics (Okoro and Washington, 2012; Smith et al., 2018; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). Traditional face-to-face communication is frequently being replaced with digitally mediated communication (Romiszowski and Mason, 2013). The introduction of new workplace communication technologies increases digital connectivity among co-workers but can also have unintended consequences related to language appropriateness, miscommunications, and impersonalized identities (Cameron and Webster, 2005; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). One emerging area of research in digital communication explores differences in emoji use and its subsequent perceptions (Choi et al., 2023; Riordan and Glikson, 2020). Emojis have become common throughout the global workspace. Early studies suggest that the appropriateness of using emojis in intra-organizational communication varies depending on context (Cavalheiro et al., 2022; Luor et al., 2010) and that subjective perceptions of what constitutes professionalism and emoji use exist (Shandilya et al., 2022). Leadership communication styles can also lead to subjective perceptions of what constitutes effective workplace communication (Jenifer and Raman, 2015). Through leadership communication, employees identify with their organizational culture (Jo Hatch and Schultz, 1997), leading to various organizational attributes (Men, 2014). Therefore, it is important for leaders responsible in setting the ‘tone’ of organizational culture to be aware of how employees perceive their workplace communications.

Currently, little is known about how cultural differences impact communication styles in digital settings (Mutheu, 2023). In face-to-face environments, cultural values can predict communication styles (Hall, 1976; House et al., 2004), including differences in speech related to directness, succinctness, personalization, and affection (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). Despite this acknowledged significance of culture in communication (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988; Hall, 1976) and leadership emoji use in communication (Aretz and Mierke, 2019), the interaction between leadership emoji use and culture remains underexplored (Hébert and Tabler, 2019). Such research is necessary given that emojis have the power to influence leadership perceptions (Ernst et al., 2022; Liegl and Furtner, 2024) and impact how employees evaluate the organization itself (Porath et al., 2015; Saputra, 2021). Understanding how cultural differences impact perceptions of leadership emoji use can increase leadership effectiveness by allowing leaders to tailor their approach to their audience (Gore, 2013; Liu et al., 2025; Shachaf, 2008).

By addressing this knowledge gap, we aim to make a significant contribution to the fields of leadership communication and cross-cultural perceptions of emoji use. We explore how perceptions of leadership emoji use differ across four distinct cultural clusters (House et al., 2004). Simply stated, our research question is: How do cultural differences in leadership style preferences impact perceptions of leadership emoji use? Over two studies, we randomly assign participants to a treatment (leadership communication with emojis) or control group (leadership communication without emojis) and measure their perceptions of leadership and organizational attributes. We rely on the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) framework (House et al., 2004, 2013) and implicit leadership theory (Lord and Maher, 1991) to predict how participants from Confucian Asia, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa will respond to leadership emoji use. Research suggests that the way emojis are used (i.e., context, valence of information conveyed, type of emoji) can impact effectiveness (Cavalheiro et al., 2024; Glikson et al., 2018). Therefore, we designed two different types of virtual leadership scenarios that vary in the emotional intensity of emojis (Krekhov et al., 2022) to contrast the impact of one of these contextual factors. We use measures of leadership perceptions (warmth and competence; Fiske et al., 2007), as well as measures of organizational attributes (civility, welfare, and person-organization [P-O] fit; Matthews et al., 2022; Porath et al., 2015), which we believe to be sensitive to leadership emoji use. Our research challenges the notion that the impact of emoji use is universal across societies (Danesi, 2022) by providing supporting evidence that preferences for leadership communication styles are indeed culturally bound (Guntuku et al., 2019; House et al., 2013).

Theoretical approach

We draw on the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) and implicit leadership theory (Lord and Maher, 1991) to predict and explain differences in perceptions of leadership emoji use. Implicit leadership theory refers to unconscious beliefs that influence how people perceive, evaluate, and behave toward leaders. These leadership perceptions are inherently subjective and shaped by individual experiences and cultural norms (Den et al., 1999). The GLOBE research project began in the 1990s and was conducted with the help of 170 co-researchers in 62 societies (grouped into ten cultural clusters). Research using the GLOBE framework spans disciplinary contexts ranging from corporate social responsibility (Waldman et al., 2006) and organizational commitment (Steyrer et al., 2008) to interview selection (Arseneault and Roulin, 2021, 2024a, 2024b).

The GLOBE leadership framework includes six distinct leadership styles with corresponding societal-level scores (House et al., 2013, Table 1.7). After analyzing their sub-dimensional attributes (House et al., 2013, Table 1.3), we believe some leadership styles and their relationships to perceptions of emoji use will be more relevant to our outcome variables than others. Table 1 summarizes all proposed relationships between GLOBE leadership dimensions and the present study’s outcome variables. We use this theoretical model to formulate and test our hypotheses. We found it more effective to customize our predictive relationships by selecting the most relevant leadership dimensions for each of our outcome variables (warmth, competence, organizational attributes) instead of including all six leadership dimensions for each variable. For example, based on the subdimensions of humane-oriented leadership (i.e., compassion, generosity, supportiveness), we expect it to be positively related to perceptions of warmth in leadership emoji use. In contrast, we expect that self-protective leadership (i.e., status consciousness, face-saving, procedural caution) will have a negative relationship with leadership emoji use and perceptions of competence.

Table 1.

Globe leadership dimensions’ relationship to emoji use and outcome variables.

GLOBE leadership dimension	Relationship to perceived warmth	Relationship to perceived competence	Relationship to perceived organizational attributes
Humane-oriented	Positive
Participative	Positive
Autonomous		Negative
Self-protective		Negative
Charismatic/value-based			Positive
Team-oriented			Positive

We use the cultural cluster scores of leadership dimensions (House et al., 2013, Table 1.7) as proxies to predict how participants from each cluster will perceive leadership emoji use. As House et al. (2013, p. 30) state, “Each cluster has its own expectations with regard to desired leadership qualities.” Thus, the extent to which leaders behave in ways (i.e., using emojis) that are aligned (or not aligned) with those expectations should be reflected in their leader evaluations. In sum, we find the GLOBE leadership and implicit leadership theory framework suitable for exploring how a society’s cultural values influence leadership style expectations and the subsequent impact of emoji use.

Hypothesis development

Warmth

Emojis are graphic symbols that supplement or replace textual cues in digital communication (Bai et al., 2019). Originally designed to convey emotion and tone in digitally mediated interactions, emojis have since evolved into widely used socio-emotional signals in personal and professional settings. They are particularly valued for their ability to compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues in text-based environments, helping users express affect, manage impressions, and enrich interpersonal exchanges (Luangrath et al., 2017). Importantly, emojis vary in their emotional intensity, with different emojis (e.g., gradations of similar facial emojis) eliciting distinct levels of perceived emotion across communicators (Krekhov et al., 2022). Functionally, emojis are often used as phatic language, a form of language that prioritizes social connection over informational content. Phatic language includes expressions like greetings, small talk, and other rituals aimed at fostering sociability (Malinowski, 1923). In both face-to-face and digital contexts (e.g., emails, instant message platforms), phatic language plays a critical role in reducing social distance, easing tension, and cultivating rapport (Coupland et al., 1992; Eggins and Slade, 2004).

According to Fiske et al. (2007), warmth is one of two universal dimensions through which people evaluate others. In organizational contexts, emojis allow leaders to express friendliness, solidarity, and interpersonal warmth in virtual settings where nonverbal cues are limited (Luangrath et al., 2017). For example, when Aretz and Mierke (2019) asked participants to read an email written by a male supervisor demanding the timely completion of an important task, supervisors were perceived as lower in assertiveness but higher in warmth when messages were embedded with emojis. As such, we predict that the use of emojis in leadership communication will enhance perceptions of warmth across our participants:

H1a

Leadership emoji use will increase perceived warmth of the leader.

Although leadership emoji use is generally expected to increase perceptions of warmth, we predict that the magnitude of this effect will vary across cultural clusters based on leadership style preferences. Specifically, we expect preferences for humane-oriented and participative leadership styles to be most receptive to emoji use, thereby producing the strongest positive impact on perceptions of leader warmth. Leaders who score high on humane-oriented leadership are perceived as warm, caring, and considerate of others’ well-being—traits central to perceptions of warmth (House et al., 2013; Hunt, 2017). Similarly, participative leadership emphasizes openness and inclusiveness, signaling approachability and lower power distance (House et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2022). We therefore expect participants from cultural clusters that strongly endorse participative leadership to respond most favorably to emoji use in terms of perceived leader warmth. In sum, we predict:

H1b

The leadership dimensions of humane-oriented and participative leadership will enhance the positive effect of emoji use on perceived leader warmth.

Competence

While emojis can enhance perceptions of warmth, they may simultaneously undermine perceptions of competence, particularly in leadership contexts (Ernst et al., 2022). The warmth-competence compensation effect posits a trade-off: as perceived warmth increases, perceived competence may decrease if the communicative behavior is deemed inappropriate for the role (Fiske et al., 2007). Empirical studies on leader emoji use in email communication have reported negative perceptions related to competence (Aretz and Mierke, 2019; Riordan and Glikson, 2020). Therefore, we predict:

H2a

Leadership emoji use will decrease perceived competence of the leader.

We predict that the extent to which leadership emoji use negatively affects perceptions of competence will also be influenced by cultural values and leadership style preferences. For example, in Confucian Asian cultures, where high power distance, face-saving, and emotional restraint are normative (Dickson et al., 2012; House et al., 2013), emoji use by leaders may signal undue informality, thereby diminishing impressions of competence. Similarly, the GLOBE study describes autonomous leadership as valuing independence and formality. In such contexts, the perceived unprofessionalism of emoji use is likely to undermine perceived competence, particularly among individuals who endorse autonomous leadership styles (Chiniara and Bentein, 2016; Shandilya et al., 2022). In sum, we predict:

H2b

The leadership dimensions of self-protective and autonomous leadership will enhance the negative effect of emoji use on perceived leader competence.

Organizational attributes

In addition to shaping person perception, leadership emoji use may influence how participants evaluate the organization itself (Saputra, 2021). Leaders can express politeness and courtesy through verbal and nonverbal behaviors, including emojis, which may demonstrate affective intent. For example, emojis can convey a respectful tone and courteousness, potentially interpreted as markers of organizational civility (De Vries and Bakker-Pieper, 2010) or indicators of perceived alignment (i.e., P-O fit) between the individual and the organization’s values (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). This, in turn, may shape how employees identify with their organization (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Porath et al., 2015). Based on this reasoning and prior evidence (Aretz and Mierke, 2019; Choi et al., 2023; Liegl and Furtner, 2024), we predict:

H3a

Leadership emoji use will increase perceptions of organizational attributes.

Cultural differences in leadership style preferences are also likely to influence how employees perceive a leader’s emoji use and, by extension, the organization the leader represents. The GLOBE study highlights that charismatic/value-based leadership is strongly associated with organizational effectiveness and cultural alignment. Prior research has shown that charismatic leadership fosters a heightened sense of collective identity, trust, and perceived group task performance (Conger et al., 2000). Similarly, team-oriented leadership promotes collaboration, trust, and care, factors that shape how employees perceive the emotional tone and values of their workplace (Giessner et al., 2013). As defined in the GLOBE framework, team-oriented leadership is closely linked to perceptions of organizational culture (House et al., 2013). Based on this discussion, we predict:

H3b

The leadership dimensions of charismatic / value-based and team-oriented leadership will enhance the positive effect of emoji use on perceived organizational attributes.

Study 1

The objective of Study 1 was to examine the impact of leadership emoji use on perceptions of the leader (i.e., warmth and competence) and organizational attributes (i.e., civility, welfare, and P-O fit) across four distinct cultural clusters. To test this, we conducted a controlled online experiment using a workplace scenario depicting a conversation between a supervisor and an employee (i.e., the participant) during a performance review. This scenario was designed to mimic messenger- or chat application-based interactions common in global and remote work contexts. The supervisor-employee relationship was intentionally designed to illicit perceptions of power distance.

Method

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a treatment group, in which the supervisor used emojis (Appendix A), and a control group, which viewed the same scenario without emojis. We used the GLOBE leadership cluster scores to test and evaluate the hypotheses from our predictive model. To do so, we standardized the relevant leadership dimension scores and created aggregate scores (Appendix B), following procedures used in prior research employing the GLOBE framework (Arseneault and Roulin, 2024b).

Participants

A total of 747 participants were recruited via Prolific, which includes screening filters for country and employment status. We only recruited participants who were currently employed, in order to enhance the realism and relevance of the workplace scenario by drawing on participants’ lived experiences. Participants were selected from four cultural clusters: Confucian Asia (Korea and Japan), Germanic Europe (Germany), Latin Europe (Spain), and Sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa), with a target of approximately 200 participants per cluster. Participants from Korea and Japan were combined into a single cultural cluster of Confucian Asia, in accordance with the GLOBE framework, due to sample size limitations and theoretical alignment. Demographic information collected included age, gender, country of residence, and country of origin (used to verify cultural background). Participant demographics are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographics of participants in study 1.

Culture	n	Age		Treatment (n)	Control (n)	Female (n)
Culture	n	M	SD	Treatment (n)	Control (n)	Female (n)
Confucian Asia	168	34.3	7.90	91	77	95
Germanic Europe	185	34.3	8.00	106	79	64
Latin Europe	198	37.1	9.96	98	100	71
Sub-Saharan Africa	196	32.0	8.14	101	95	131
Total	747	34.4	8.75	396	351	361

Measures

We measured warmth and competence using items adapted from Fiske et al. (2007) to assess participants’ perceptions of their supervisor. Each construct was measured with three items. Participants were presented with the prompt: “Based on the interaction you had, how __________ is Jennifer?” and asked to rate six adjectives (i.e., warm, friendly, good-natured [warmth], and competent, capable, skillful [competence]) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

We also included three items from Matthews et al. (2022) to assess participants’ perceptions of organizational attributes. Participants were prompted with: “Based on the scenario, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.” Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), participants rated their perceptions of organizational civility (“My organization expects employees to treat one another with respect.”), welfare (“My organization values and cares for its employees.”), and P-O fit (“I feel like I ‘fit’ with this organization.”).

Results

Table 3 summarizes the mean scores reflecting the impact of emoji use across the four cultural clusters. For each culture and measured variable, two mean scores are presented: the top value represents the treatment condition (with emojis), and the bottom value represents the control condition (without emojis). We also used Cohen’s d to measure the effect size when comparing the means of two groups. Cohen’s d provides insight into the practical significance of our results, beyond mere statistical significance (Fritz et al., 2012; Goulet-Pelletier and Cousineau, 2018). We used the following interpretation based on Cohen’s guidelines: 0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = medium effect; 0.8 = large effect. These mean scores and Cohen’s d values were used to test for statistically significant differences and to assess effect sizes, respectfully, in evaluating support for our hypotheses.

Table 3.

Mean score comparison of emoji versus no emoji across study constructs.

Culture	WarmthM (SD)	Cohen’s d	CompetenceM (SD)	Cohen’s d	Organizational attributesM (SD)	Cohen’s d
Confucian	5.62 (1.02)**	.47	5.77 (.93)	.04	3.91 (.57)	.02
Asia	5.13 (1.08)	.47	5.73 (1.00)	.04	3.90 (.72)	.02
Germanic	5.73 (.92)**	.56	5.76 (.78)	.28	4.18 (.50)**	.43
Europe	5.18 (1.05)	.56	5.53 (.86)	.28	3.94 (.62)	.43
Latin	5.80 (.97)**	.51	5.94 (.76)	.19	4.13 (.68)	.06
Europe	5.28 (1.07)	.51	5.78 (.88)	.19	4.17 (.62)	.06
Sub-Saharan	6.06 (1.08)	.02	6.31 (.81)	.15	4.42 (.50)	.02
Africa	5.97 (1.17)	.02	6.18 (.90)	.15	4.43 (.58)	.02
Total	5.81 (1.01)**		5.95 (.85)*		4.17 (.59)
Total	5.41 (1.14)		5.82 (.93)		4.13 (.66)

Note. Top value in each cell represents the mean score with emojis with (standard deviation in parentheses); bottom value represents the score without emojis.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Warmth

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of culture and emoji use on perceptions of warmth (α = .90). As shown in Figure 1, results revealed a significant main effect of culture, F (3, 739) = 14.17, p < .001, and a significant main effect of emoji use, F (1, 739) = 28.33, p < .001. The interaction between culture and emoji use was not significant, F (3, 739) = 2.01, p = .111.

Figure 1.

Mean warmth score comparison of emoji versus no emoji across cultures. Note. CA: Confucian Asia; GE: Germanic Europe; LE: Latin Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Simple main effects tests indicated that perceived warmth was significantly higher in the emoji condition compared to the no-emoji condition for Confucian Asia (p = .003), Germanic Europe (p < .001), and Latin Europe (p < .001), supporting H1a that leadership emoji use increases perceived warmth of the leader. However, for Sub-Saharan Africa, the difference was not significant (p = .542), suggesting that emoji use did not enhance perceived warmth in this cultural group.

H1b predicted that the effect would be strongest for the cultural clusters with higher preferences for humane-oriented and participative leadership styles. Based on our aggregate z-scores, the expected order of effect strength was: Germanic Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin Europe, and Confucian Asia. Our results partially align with this prediction. Germanic Europe showed the strongest positive response to leadership emoji use across the four-cluster sample (ΔM = .55; d = .56). Latin Europe also showed a significant increase in warmth, with a medium effect size (ΔM = .52; d = .51). However, the effect for Sub-Saharan Africa was insignificant and small (ΔM = .09; d = .02). Interestingly, Confucian Asia, despite having the lowest aggregate warmth score, exhibited a medium positive effect in response to emoji use (ΔM = .49; d = .47). Thus, H1b was partially supported.

Competence

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the effects of culture and emoji use on competence perceptions (α = .89). As shown in Figure 2, there was a significant main effect of culture, F (3, 739) = 17.53, p < .001, and a significant main effect of emoji use, F (1, 739) = 4.95, p = .026. The interaction between culture and emoji use was not significant, F (3, 739) = 0.40, p = .756.

Figure 2.

Mean competence score comparison of emoji versus no emoji across cultures. Note. CA: Confucian Asia; GE: Germanic Europe; LE: Latin Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Simple main effects tests indicated that perceived competence did not differ significantly between the emoji and no-emoji conditions for Confucian Asia (p = .799), Latin Europe (p = .195), or Sub-Saharan Africa (p = .262). For Germanic Europe, the difference was marginally significant (p = .069), with competence ratings slightly higher in the emoji condition. Therefore, leadership emoji use did not meaningfully decrease perceived competence of the leader, and H2a was not supported.

The direction of the effect was contrary to our predictions, and the cultural pattern did not align with expectations. H2b predicted that the negative impact on competence would be strongest among cultural clusters with a preference for autonomous and self-protective leadership. Based on our aggregate scores, we expected the strongest negative effect for Confucian Asia, followed by Germanic Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin Europe. Contrary to this prediction, small positive effects (i.e., increased competence perceptions) were observed for Germanic Europe (ΔM = .23; d = .28), Latin Europe (ΔM = .16; d = .19), and Sub-Saharan Africa (ΔM = .13; d = .15), with an insignificant effect for Confucian Asia (ΔM = .04; d = .04). Thus, H2b was not supported.

Organizational attributes

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of culture and emoji use on perceptions of organizational attributes (α = .70). As shown in Figure 3, results revealed a significant main effect of culture, F (3, 739) = 23.97, p < .001, but the main effect of emoji use was not significant, F (1, 739) = 1.34, p = .248. The interaction between culture and emoji use was also not significant, F (3, 739) = 2.14, p = .094.

Figure 3.

Mean organizational attributes score comparison of emoji vs no emoji across cultures. Note. CA: Confucian Asia; GE: Germanic Europe; LE: Latin Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Simple main effects tests indicated that perceived organizational attributes were significantly higher in the emoji condition compared to the no-emoji condition for Germanic Europe (p = .007), partially supporting H3a. However, no significant differences between the emoji and no-emoji conditions were found for Confucian Asia (p = .937), Latin Europe (p = .689), or Sub-Saharan Africa (p = .886), offering no consistent support for H3a across cultural clusters.

H3b predicted that the leadership dimensions of charismatic/value-based and team-oriented leadership would strengthen the positive effect of emoji use on perceived organizational attributes. Based on our aggregate scores, we expected this effect to be strongest for Germanic Europe, followed by Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Confucian Asia. While Germanic Europe showed a significant increase and a medium effect size in response to emoji use (ΔM = .24; d = .43), no significant effects were observed for Confucian Asia (ΔM = .00; d = .02), Latin Europe (ΔM = −.04; d = .06), or Sub-Saharan Africa (ΔM = −.01; d = .02). As such, we partially support H3b.

Discussion

In Study 1, we examined how leadership style preferences impact perceptions of leadership emoji use. Overall, leadership emoji use significantly increased perceptions of warmth in three out of four cultural clusters. However, our predictions regarding the relationship between humane-oriented and participative leadership dimensions and perceived leader warmth were only partially supported by leadership theory. We did not observe evidence of a warmth-competence trade-off effect. In contrast, perceptions of competence slightly increased as a result of emoji use across all cultural clusters. Finally, we did not find a significant overall effect of leadership emoji use on perceptions of organizational attributes. At the cultural cluster level, only Germanic Europe reported significantly higher perceived organizational attributes in the presence of emojis.

Prior research suggests that emoji intensity (Krekhov et al., 2022) and communication context (Glikson et al., 2018; Guntuku et al., 2019) may influence outcomes. Given the null findings for competence and organizational attributes in Study 1, we were interested in exploring whether more emotionally intense emojis would have a stronger impact on our outcome variables, and whether leadership style preferences would influence these effects. In line with recent research on leadership communication and emoji use (Liegl and Furtner, 2024), we conducted a second study to further investigate these relationships.

Study 2

The objective of Study 2 was to extend our investigation of perceptions of leadership emoji use by incorporating a stronger emotional signal. While Study 1 featured a conversational exchange between a supervisor and an employee, Study 2 employed a leadership introduction that included a more emotionally intense emoji, specifically, the heart-eyes emoji (). This design allowed us to test the generalizability and boundary conditions of our earlier findings using a more expressive emotional cue.

Method

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a treatment group (scenario with emojis) or a control group (scenario without emojis). The workplace scenario involved a newly appointed director delivering a virtual introductory message to team members (Appendix C). We used the same measures as in Study 1 to assess perceptions of the leader and the organization.

Participants

A total of 728 participants were recruited via Prolific, using screening filters for country and employment status. As in Study 1, we recruited only participants who were currently employed and from one of the same four cultural clusters: Confucian Asia (Korea and Japan), Germanic Europe (Germany), Latin Europe (Spain), and Sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa), with a target of approximately 200 participants per cluster. Participant demographics are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Demographics of participants in study 2.

Culture	n	Age		Treatment (n)	Control (n)	Female (n)
Culture	n	M	SD	Treatment (n)	Control (n)	Female (n)
Confucian Asia	173	34.72	8.73	86	87	107
Germanic Europe	181	32.39	6.99	94	87	48
Latin Europe	191	36.96	9.66	94	97	78
Sub-Saharan Africa	183	32.14	7.86	91	92	120
Total	728	34.08	8.60	365	363	353^a

^aGender: other n = 14.

Results

Table 5 summarizes the mean score comparisons across the four cultural clusters, comparing the effects of leadership communication with and without emojis. For each construct, the top row in each cell represents the treatment condition (with emojis), and the bottom row represents the control condition (without emojis). We used the same interpretation of Cohen’s d as in Study 1. These values were used to evaluate the effects of emoji use on each outcome variable and to test our hypotheses.

Table 5.

Mean score comparison of emoji versus no emoji across study constructs.

Culture	WarmthM (SD)	Cohen’s d	CompetenceM (SD)	Cohen’s d	Organizational attributesM (SD)	Cohen’s d
Confucian Asia	5.29 (1.00)*	.32	4.64 (1.10)	.47	3.67 (.66)	.13
Confucian Asia	4.97 (.99)	.32	5.11 (.87)**	.47	3.58 (.68)	.13
Germanic Europe	5.73 (.95)**	.71	4.62 (1.18)	.53	3.92 (.69)**	.49
Germanic Europe	4.98 (1.15)	.71	5.20 (1.02)**	.53	3.59 (.66)	.49
Latin Europe	5.71 (.93)**	.56	5.19 (.96)	.35	3.93 (.69)	.10
Latin Europe	5.18 (.95)	.56	5.52 (.91)*	.35	3.86 (.73)	.10
Sub-Saharan Africa	6.06 (.91)	.28	5.77 (1.22)	.11	4.18 (.77)	.05
Sub-Saharan Africa	5.79 (1.02)	.28	5.65 (.97)	.11	4.22 (.74)	.05
Total	5.70 (.98)**		5.06 (1.21)		3.93 (.72)*
Total	5.24 (1.08)		5.34 (.97)**		3.82 (.75)

Note. Top value in each cell represents the mean score with emojis with (standard deviation in parentheses); bottom value represents the score without emojis.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Warmth

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the effects of culture and emoji use on perceptions of warmth (α = .88). As shown in Figure 4, results revealed a significant main effect of culture, F (3, 720) = 20.56, p < .001, and a significant main effect of emoji use, F (1, 720) = 40.01, p < .001. The interaction between culture and emoji use was not significant, F (3, 720) = 2.19, p = .088.

Figure 4.

Mean warmth score comparison of emoji vs no emoji across cultures. Note. CA: Confucian Asia; GE: Germanic Europe; LE: Latin Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Simple main effects tests indicated that perceived warmth was significantly higher in the emoji condition than in the no-emoji condition for Confucian Asia (p = .035), Germanic Europe (p < .001), and Latin Europe (p < .001). The difference for Sub-Saharan Africa was only marginally significant (p = .067). These results support H1a, which predicted an increase in perceived warmth with leadership emoji use.

H1b predicted that the leadership dimensions of humane-oriented and participative leadership would strengthen the positive effect of emoji use on warmth perceptions. Our results show that this positive effect was strongest for Germanic Europe (ΔM = .75; d = .71), followed by Latin Europe (ΔM = .53; d = .56), Confucian Asia (ΔM = .32; d = .32), and Sub-Saharan Africa (ΔM = .27; d = .28). These findings offer partial support for H1b.

Competence

A two-way ANOVA assessed the effects of culture and emoji use on competence (α = .93). As shown in Figure 5, there were significant main effects of culture, F (3, 720) = 26.26, p < .001, and emoji, F (1, 720) = 16.69, p < .001. The interaction effect was also significant, F (3, 720) = 3.95, p = .008.

Figure 5.

Mean competence score comparison of emoji versus no emoji across cultures. Note. CA: Confucian Asia; GE: Germanic Europe; LE: Latin Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Simple main effects tests indicated that competence ratings were significantly lower in the emoji condition compared to the no-emoji condition for Confucian Asia (p = .003), Germanic Europe (p < .001), and Latin Europe (p = .031). No significant difference was found for Sub-Saharan Africa (p = .446). These results generally support H2a, which predicted a decrease in perceived competence following leadership emoji use.

However, while the significant interaction effect suggests cultural variation in this pattern, the observed order did not align with H2b, which predicted that the negative effect would be strongest in Confucian Asia, followed by Germanic Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin Europe. Our results indicate that the effect was strongest for Germanic Europe (ΔM = −.58; d = 53), followed by Confucian Asia (ΔM = −.47; d = .47), Latin Europe (ΔM = −.33; d = .35), and Sub-Saharan Africa (ΔM = .12; d = .11). Therefore, we reject H2b.

Organizational attributes

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of culture and emoji use on perceptions of organizational attributes (α = .81). As shown in Figure 6, results revealed a significant main effect of culture, F (3, 720) = 22.01, p < .001, and a significant main effect of emoji use, F (1, 720) = 4.78, p = .029. The interaction between culture and emoji use was not significant, F (3, 720) = 2.10, p = .099.

Figure 6.

Mean organizational attributes score comparison of emoji vs no emoji across cultures. Note. CA: Confucian Asia; GE: Germanic Europe; LE: Latin Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Simple main effects tests indicated that perceived organizational attributes were significantly higher in the emoji condition compared to the no-emoji condition for Germanic Europe (p = .002), supporting H3a in that cultural context. However, no significant differences were found for Confucian Asia (p = .370), Latin Europe (p = .493), or Sub-Saharan Africa (p = .742), offering only partial support for H3a across cultural clusters.

H3b predicted that the positive effect of emoji use would be strongest in cultures with a preference for charismatic and team-oriented leadership. Overall, our results did not fully align with these expectations. A significant positive effect of leader emoji use on organizational attributes was observed only for Germanic Europe (ΔM = .33; d = .49), where a medium effect was found. No significant effects were observed for Confucian Asia (ΔM = .09; d = .13), Latin Europe (ΔM = .07; d = .10), or Sub-Saharan Africa (ΔM = −.04; d = .49). This overall pattern provides only partial support for H3b.

Discussion

Study 2 extended our investigation of perceptions of leadership emoji use by examining its impact during a virtual leader introduction scenario, using a more emotionally intense emoji. This design allowed us to test the generalizability and boundary conditions of our earlier findings with a stronger emotional signal. Consistent with Study 1, leadership emoji use significantly increased perceived warmth across all cultural clusters. This effect was strongest for Germanic Europe and Latin Europe, while mean score differences for Sub-Saharan Africa were only marginally significant. Leadership style preferences, as predicted by cultural theory (House et al., 2013), only partially explained participant reactions to leadership warmth in response to emoji use in Study 2. In contrast, leadership emoji use significantly decreased competence perceptions across all cultural clusters except Sub-Saharan Africa. These results align with the warmth-confidence trade-off. A medium effect of emoji use on organizational attributes was observed for Germanic Europe, suggesting that in cultures where emoji use is less common (Guntuku et al., 2019; Togans et al., 2021), their presence in professional contexts may carry more weight. These findings highlight the importance of emotional intensity (Krekhov et al., 2022) and message context when integrating emojis into leadership communication. Study 2 offers a nuanced view of emojis as a potential double-edged sword in leadership communication; enhancing perceptions of warmth while potentially diminishing perceptions of competence.

General discussion

Across two experimental studies, we explored how leadership emoji use influences perceptions of warmth, competence, and organizational attributes across four cultural clusters. Our findings underscore that emojis in leadership communication can be a double-edged sword. They consistently enhanced perceptions of warmth, aligning with prior research (Aretz and Mierke, 2019; Choi et al., 2023; Liegl and Furtner, 2024) and the view of emojis as a universal visual language (Danesi, 2022). However, they also tended to diminish perceptions of competence, particularly when emotionally intense emojis were used, demonstrating the compensation effect between warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2007; Judd et al., 2005; Kervyn et al., 2009). Warmth may also signal familiarity and social closeness, potentially indicating that the recipient is viewed as part of an “in-group” relationship. However, in some cultural contexts, such familiarity may be perceived as excessive or premature, thereby contributing to concerns regarding professionalism and competence. These findings highlight the importance of context in leadership communication. Leaders should be cautious when introducing themselves using emojis that convey a playful or informal tone. Although such signals can increase warmth, they may unintentionally undermine impressions of competence (Ernst et al., 2022; Glikson et al., 2018). Effects on perceptions of organizational attributes were more nuanced, with only partial support across cultures. Together, these findings reflect the complex challenges of digital leadership, where emotional expression must be carefully balanced with perceived authority and professionalism, especially in multicultural virtual environments.

Drawing on the GLOBE framework and implicit leadership theory, our results show that cultural values and leadership style expectations shape how emoji use is interpreted. Participants from different cultures did not respond uniformly to the same leadership behavior. For example, Germanic Europe, where communication tends to be formal and direct (Hall, 1976), was surprisingly responsive to emoji use. Despite this cultural cluster’s association with autonomous, rational leadership, GLOBE also identifies a strong value placed on charismatic leadership. In this context, emojis may have been perceived as polite and emotionally attuned cues, used to avoid misinterpretation in digital messages. This could explain why only Germanic Europe responded positively to leadership emoji use in terms of organizational attributes (Kovjanic et al., 2012). These findings support the idea that even small symbolic behaviors like emoji use are filtered through culturally embedded leadership norms.

Several findings diverged from our theoretical predictions. We expected Latin Europe, often characterized by high emotional expressiveness (Sampietro, 2019), to be most receptive to emojis. However, Germanic Europe consistently showed stronger positive effects on perceived warmth and organizational attributes. In contrast, Confucian Asia showed significant warmth effects, yet had the lowest overall warmth ratings, suggesting that high familiarity with emojis may reduce their perceived emotional impact (Guntuku et al., 2019; Togans et al., 2021). We also expected that emotionally intense emojis in Study 2 would amplify effects, but instead found that they disproportionately reduced competence perceptions across cultures, underscoring the risk of overdoing emotional signaling in professional contexts.

Sub-Saharan Africa emerged as a consistent outlier across both studies. Emoji use had no significant effect on perceived warmth, competence, or organizational attributes. Interestingly, this group reported the highest mean scores for warmth, despite showing the smallest effect sizes from emoji use. This pattern may reflect an ‘acquiescent’ response style, previously observed in large-scale cross-cultural studies (Schmitt et al., 2007). The muted effects could also stem from a distinct Sub-Saharan African workplace culture that embraces more flexible and inclusive approaches to leadership communication (Kamper, 2008). High levels of cultural diversity and a strong tolerance for interpersonal differences (Robbins, 2009) may make Sub-Saharan African employees more accustomed to varied communication styles, and thus less reactive to nonverbal digital cues like emojis. Alternatively, emojis may carry different symbolic meanings in this cultural context, leading to more neutral interpretations. Relatedly, future research should examine whether variation in digital nativeness, digital literacy, or familiarity with workplace messaging platforms helps explain why Sub-Saharan African participants were less responsive to leadership emoji use.

Implications

Our findings offer several implications for theory and practice. First, we contribute to the growing literature on leadership emoji use (Choi et al., 2023; Ernst et al., 2022; Liegl and Furtner, 2024) in digitally mediated communication settings (Shachaf, 2008). As organizations increasingly rely on digital platforms for internal communication, unintended consequences often arise. Our research provides a timely examination of how leadership emojis are perceived by employees from diverse cultural backgrounds. While emojis can enhance relational dynamics in virtual settings, they should be used thoughtfully, as they may unintentionally diminish perceptions of leader competence.

Second, we advance cultural leadership theory (House et al., 2013; Lord and Maher, 1991) by proposing and empirically testing a model that links leadership style preferences to employee perceptions of leader warmth, competence, and organizational attributes in the context of emoji use. To our knowledge, this is the first study to develop and test such a framework. Our findings underscore the nuanced role emojis play in leadership communication and highlight the importance of cultural interpretation. While emojis can offer a strategic advantage by enhancing emotional expressiveness, leaders must remain sensitive to cultural norms and expectations to avoid miscommunication. Notably, although no serious negative consequences emerged in Study 1, the more emotionally intense emojis in Study 2 backfired.

Finally, our research has implications for inclusive communication and diversity management practices (Roberson, 2019). Understanding how emojis are interpreted in multicultural virtual contexts can help organizations foster more inclusive leadership communication, strengthen team cohesion, and reinforce perceptions of positive organizational attributes. As digital work environments continue to evolve, our findings highlight both the complexity and the strategic potential of managing culturally diverse communication in contemporary professional settings (Gore, 2013).

Limitations and future research

We acknowledge the following limitations of our study. First, our two-scenario design highlights that the medium of communication—whether email or chat/messenger platforms—along with situational context (e.g., performance evaluation, leadership introduction) and the emotional intensity of emojis, can significantly influence outcomes (Cavalheiro et al., 2022; Krekhov et al., 2022). Our findings suggest that different communication contexts produce nuanced effects, reinforcing the need for a more comprehensive exploration of factors that shape perceptions of leadership emoji use in intercultural communication. Moreover, the standardized scenarios used in our study may have felt more natural in some cultural contexts than in others, particularly with respect to informal wording and the use of chat-based communication between a supervisor and an employee. Although this standardization allowed us to hold message content constant and compare responses across cultural clusters, it may not fully capture local workplace norms regarding formality, hierarchy, or preferred communication channels. Future research should examine additional leadership scenarios (e.g., interviews, board meetings, employee terminations), culturally tailored communication contexts, and a broader range of emoji types. It should also examine whether reactions to leadership emoji use differ across communication media (e.g., email vs instant messaging platforms), as cultural norms regarding communication formality may vary across channels. Further, future research should examine age-related and generational differences, as younger and older professionals may differ in their expectations regarding informality, hierarchy, and appropriate workplace communication.

Second, our research sampled participants from only four of the ten cultural clusters identified in the GLOBE framework. Future research should incorporate additional cultural clusters to enhance generalizability and enable richer cross-cultural comparisons.

Third, like all cross-sectional survey designs, our study is subject to limitations related to common method bias and response styles (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). For instance, we observed a potential acquiescent response pattern among Sub-Saharan African participants, consistent with findings from large-scale cross-cultural personality research (Schmitt et al., 2007). Future studies should investigate the mechanisms behind this pattern and examine why Sub-Saharan African participants consistently emerged as outliers in our findings. Employing diverse methodological approaches, including qualitative interviews and longitudinal designs, could deepen understanding of emoji use in leadership communication and help develop best practices for leading across culturally diverse, digital contexts.

Finally, we focused only on leadership dimensions deemed most theoretically relevant to emoji use and our outcome variables. While we emphasized humane-oriented and participative leadership in relation to perceived warmth, other leadership styles, such as charismatic leadership, may also influence how emojis are interpreted in leadership contexts. Given that many of our predictions were only partially supported, future research should explore additional leadership dimensions to refine theory and advance practice in this emerging area.

Conclusion

This research examined how leadership emoji use is perceived across four cultural clusters, using two randomized experiments grounded in cross-cultural leadership theory (House et al., 2013; Lord and Maher, 1991). Our findings suggest that while emojis can enhance perceived warmth in leader communication, supporting prior work on emoji-mediated warmth cues (Liegl and Furtner, 2024), they may also reduce perceived competence, particularly when emotionally intense emojis are used. These results highlight the compensation effect between warmth and competence in impression formation (Judd et al., 2005; Kervyn et al., 2009).

Cultural context played a meaningful role: participants from Germanic Europe responded most positively to leadership emoji use, whereas those from Sub-Saharan Africa showed muted reactions across all outcome variables. These patterns point to the importance of cultural norms regarding emotional expressiveness (Hall, 1976; Sampietro, 2019), emoji familiarity (Guntuku et al., 2019; Togans et al., 2021), and leadership expectations shaped by implicit leadership theories (Lord and Maher, 1991). While our hypotheses linking GLOBE leadership dimensions to emoji responses received only partial support, the findings nonetheless illustrate the complexity of symbolic cues in global leadership communication.

As organizations continue to operate in increasingly virtual and multicultural environments, these results have practical implications. Emojis can be a strategic tool for relational leadership but must be used with cultural sensitivity to avoid unintended consequences. We recommend that leadership training and diversity management programs incorporate guidance on emoji use in digital communication, helping leaders navigate the nuances of intercultural professionalism in online workspaces (Kimura-Thollander and Kumar, 2019).

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

René Arseneault

Thomas K. B. Koo

Ethical considerations

The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee for Human Subjects at Université Laval.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author contributions

CRediT author contributions: Conceptualization: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo; Data curation: Thomas K. B. Koo; Formal analysis: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo; Funding acquisition: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo; Investigation: Thomas K. B. Koo; Methodology: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo; Project administration: René Arseneault; Resources: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo; Software: Thomas K. B. Koo; Supervision: René Arseneault; Validation: René Arseneault; Visualization: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo; Writing - original draft: René Arseneault; Writing - review and editing: René Arseneault, Thomas K. B. Koo.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Faculty Grant for Research Projects from Université Laval (#SR138344).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

References

Andersson

Pearson

(1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review 24(3): 452–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136

Aretz

Mierke

(2019) Seriously?! prevalence and motives of using emojis in job-related communication and their effect on perceived executive characteristics. Journal of Business and Media Psychology 10(1): 43–48.

Arseneault

Roulin

(2021) A theoretical model of cross-cultural impression management in employment interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 29(3–4): 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12348

Arseneault

Roulin

(2024a) Examining discrimination in asynchronous video interviews: does cultural distance based on country-of-origin matter? Applied Psychology 73(1): 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12471

Arseneault

Roulin

(2024b) Investigating impression management use in asynchronous video interviews across 10 countries. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 32(3): 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12476

Bai

Dan

, et al. (2019) A systematic review of emoji: current research and future perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 476737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221

Cameron

Webster

(2005) Unintended consequences of emerging communication technologies: instant messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior 21(1): 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.12.001

Cavalheiro

Prada

Rodrigues

, et al. (2022) Evaluating the adequacy of emoji use in positive and negative messages from close and distant senders. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 25(3): 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0157

Cavalheiro

Prada

Rodrigues

(2024) Examining the effects of reciprocal emoji use on interpersonal and communication outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 41(8): 2147–2168. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231219032

10.

Chiniara

Bentein

(2016) Linking servant leadership to individual performance: differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly 27(1): 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004

11.

Choi

Shim

Kim

(2023) The power of emojis: the impact of a leader’s use of positive emojis on members’ creativity during computer-mediated communications. PLoS One 18(5): e0285368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285368

12.

Conger

Kanungo

Menon

(2000) Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(7): 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21:7<747::aid-job46>3.0.co;2-j

13.

Coupland

Robinson

(1992) How are you?: negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21(2): 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500015268

14.

Danesi

(2022) Emotional wellbeing and the semiotic translation of emojis. In: Danesi

(ed) Exploring the Translatability of Emotions: Cross-Cultural and Transdisciplinary Encounters. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 323–344.

15.

De Vries

Bakker-Pieper

Oostenveld

(2010) Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3): 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2

16.

Den

HDN

House

Hanges

, et al. (1999) Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 219–256.

17.

Dickson

Castaño

Magomaeva

, et al. (2012) Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business 47(4): 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.002

18.

Eggins

Slade

(2004) Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Equinox Publishing.

19.

Ernst

Banks

Loignon

, et al. (2022) Virtual charismatic leadership and signaling theory: a prospective meta-analysis in five countries. The Leadership Quarterly 33(5): 101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101541

20.

Fiske

Cuddy

Glick

(2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

21.

Fritz

Morris

Richler

(2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141(1): 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338

22.

Giessner

Van Knippenberg

Van Ginkel

, et al. (2013) Team-oriented leadership: the interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(4): 658–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032445

23.

Glikson

Cheshin

Van Kleef

(2018) The dark side of a smiley: effects of smiling emoticons on virtual first impressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(5): 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720269

24.

Gore

(2013) The importance of cross-cultural communication. IUP Journal of Soft Skills 7(1): 5–14.

25.

Goulet-Pelletier

Cousineau

(2018) A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, part I: the Cohen’s d family. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology 14(4): 242–265. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.14.4.p242

26.

Gudykunst

Ting-Toomey

(1988) Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

27.

Guntuku

Tay

, et al. (2019) Studying cultural differences in emoji usage across the east and the west. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 13: 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3224

28.

Hall

(1976) Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor.

29.

Hébert

Tabler

(2019) The functions of language. In: Hébert

(ed) An Introduction to Applied Semiotics. London: Routledge, pp. 232–240.

30.

House

Hanges

Javidan

, et al. (eds) (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

House

Dorfman

Javidan

, et al. (2013) Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: The GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Hunt

(2017) Humane orientation as a moral construct in ethical leadership theories. International Journal on Leadership 5(2): 1–11.

33.

Jenifer

Raman

(2015) Cross-cultural communication barriers in the workplace. International Journal of Management 6(1): 348–351.

34.

Schultz

(1997) Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing 31(5/6): 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060636

35.

Judd

James-Hawkins

Yzerbyt

, et al. (2005) Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6): 899–913.

36.

Kamper

(2008) A profile of effective leadership in some South African high-poverty schools. South African Journal of Education 28(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n1a145

37.

Kervyn

Yzerbyt

Judd

, et al. (2009) A question of compensation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(4): 828–842.

38.

Kimura-Thollander

Kumar

(2019) Examining the ‘global’ language of emojis. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019, pp. 1–14.

39.

Kovjanic

Schuh

Jonas

, et al. (2012) How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior 33(8): 1031–1052.

40.

Krekhov

Emmerich

Fuchs

, et al. (2022) Interpolating happiness. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 April–5 May 2022, pp. 1–17.

41.

Kristof-Brown

Zimmerman

Johnson

(2005) Consequences of individuals’ fit at work. Personnel Psychology 58(2): 281–342.

42.

Liegl

Furtner

(2024) Emotional leader communication in the digital age. Computers in Human Behavior 154: 108148.

43.

Liu

Huang

, et al. (2025) My leader sent me a

. Management and Organization Review, Epub ahead of print.

44.

Lord

Maher

(1991) Leadership and Information Processing. London: Routledge.

45.

Luangrath

Peck

Barger

(2017) Textual paralanguage. Journal of Consumer Psychology 27(1): 98–107.

46.

Luor

, et al. (2010) The effect of emoticons in task-oriented communication. Computers in Human Behavior 26(5): 889–895.

47.

Malinowski

(1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: Ogden

Richards

(eds) The Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul, Supplement 1.

48.

Matthews

Pineault

Hong

(2022) Normalizing the use of single-item measures. Journal of Business and Psychology 37(4): 639–673.

49.

Men

(2014) Why leadership matters to internal communication. Journal of Public Relations Research 26(3): 256–279.

50.

Mutheu

MMM

(2023) Cross-cultural differences in online communication patterns. Journal of Communication 4(1): 31–42.

51.

Okoro

Washington

(2012) Workforce diversity and organizational communication. Journal of Diversity Management 7(1): 57–62.

52.

Porath

Gerbasi

Schorch

(2015) The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(5): 1527–1544. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000016

53.

Rindfleisch

Malter

Ganesan

, et al. (2008) Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research. Journal of Marketing Research 45(3): 261–279.

54.

Riordan

Glikson

(2020) On the hazards of the technology age. International Journal of Business Communication, Epub ahead of print.

55.

Robbins

(2009) Organisational Behaviour in Southern Africa. Cape Town: Pearson South Africa.

56.

Roberson

(2019) Diversity in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6(1): 69–88.

57.

Romiszowski

Mason

(2013) Computer-mediated communication. In: Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 402–436.

58.

Sampietro

(2019) Emoji and rapport management in Spanish WhatsApp chats. Journal of Pragmatics 143: 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.009

59.

Saputra

(2021) Leadership, communication, and work motivation. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities 1(2): 59–70.

60.

Schmitt

Allik

McCrae

, et al. (2007) The geographic distribution of big five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38(2): 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299

61.

Shachaf

(2008) Cultural diversity and ICT impacts on global virtual teams. Information and Management 45(2): 131–142.

62.

Shandilya

Fan

Tigwell

(2022) I need to be professional…. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 April–5 May 2022, pp. 1–13.

63.

Smith

Patmos

Pitts

(2018) Communication and teleworking. International Journal of Business Communication 55(1): 44–68.

64.

Steyrer

Schiffinger

Lang

(2008) Organizational commitment. Scandinavian Journal of Management 24(4): 364–374.

65.

Ter Hoeven

Van Zoonen

Fonner

(2016) The practical paradox of technology. Communication Monographs 83(2): 239–263.

66.

Togans

Holtgraves

Kwon

, et al. (2021) Digitally saving face. Journal of Pragmatics 186: 277–288.

67.

Waldman

Sully de Luque

Washburn

, et al. (2006) Cultural and leadership predictors of CSR values. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 823–837.

68.

Wang

Hou

(2022) Participative leadership. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 924357.