Advertisement

Abstract

The research questions in the focus of this study concern explanatory relationships between three levels: the societal context, the organisational context, and the team operating within these contexts. This chapter should dispose of any ambiguity there may be concerning these terms and related concepts. It provides a common understanding for the text by defining terms and summarising the relevant knowledge, which this study builds on.

Keywords

Organisational Context Ethical Climate Strategic Orientation Societal Context Innovative Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 20.
    Hofstede (2001), p. 10.Google Scholar
  2. 21.
    Parsons (1977), p. 6.Google Scholar
  3. 23.
    For reviews see Bond and Smith (1996) and Straub and Thomas (2003).Google Scholar
  4. 24.
    Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), p. 181.Google Scholar
  5. 25.
    Hofstede (2001), p. 10.Google Scholar
  6. 26.
    Hofstede (1980b), pp. 43 and 45; Dahl (2004), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  7. 27.
    Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 6; Straub and Thomas (2003), p. 34.Google Scholar
  8. 28.
    Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997).Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    Hofstede (2001), House et al. (2004).Google Scholar
  10. 30.
    See Hofstede (2001), p. 10.Google Scholar
  11. 31.
    Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 22; Javidan and House (2001), p. 293.Google Scholar
  12. 32.
    Adapted from Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 22 and Hofstede (2001), p. 11.Google Scholar
  13. 33.
    Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 23.Google Scholar
  14. 34.
    Hofstede (2001), p. 11–12.Google Scholar
  15. 35.
    Triandis (1994), Adler (2002), Inglehart and Baker (2000), Hofstede (2001).Google Scholar
  16. 36.
    Triandis (1994), p. 1, Triandis (1995), p. 4.Google Scholar
  17. 37.
    Inglehart and Baker (2000); Hofstede (2001), p.34.Google Scholar
  18. 38.
    This definition is based on the insights listed above and the definition by Spradley (1979), p. 5.Google Scholar
  19. 39.
    Straub and Thomas (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 40.
    Schwartz (1994), p.85.Google Scholar
  21. 41.
    Hofstede (1980) / (2001), Hofstede and Bond (1988), Schwartz (1994), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), Triandis (2004a), Triandis (2004b), House et al. (2004).Google Scholar
  22. 42.
    E. g. Hall’s (1990a) high-context and low-context cultures, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) Values Orientation Theory, Hall’s (1990b) polychronic vs. monochronic time orientation.Google Scholar
  23. 43.
    Also labelled Long-Term-Orientation vs. Short-Term-Orientation. Hofstede’s fifth dimension has not been as well received by the research community as his first four dimensions. As Fang (2003) explains, the concept is confusing to the western mind as well as the Oriental / Chinese mind. From the Chinese point of view, the dimension suffers from a philosophical flaw. Therefore, the viability of this dimension is doubted.Google Scholar
  24. 44.
    Hofstede (2001), p. 369.Google Scholar
  25. 46.
    This dimension has its roots in research conducted by Triandis (1995).Google Scholar
  26. 47.
    Gender Egalitarianism and Assertiveness were developed based on Hofstede’s (2001) discussion of the Masculinity dimension. The GLOBE researchers found it necessary to develop two separate measures reflecting these variables because Hofstede’s measure of Masculinity contains items that they considered irrelevant to the concept of masculinity.Google Scholar
  27. 48.
    This dimension is derived from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) Temporal Orientation dimension. Conceptually it is slightly similar to Hofstede’s Long-Term-Orientation. However, the GLOBE researchers like others (e.g. Fang (2003)), have serious reservations about the interpretation of Confucian work dynamics as a measure of this dimension.Google Scholar
  28. 49.
    This dimension was derived from McClelland’s (1961) work on need for achievement. It also includes the future oriented component of Hofstede and Bond’s (1988) Confucian Dynamism.Google Scholar
  29. 50.
    This dimension has its roots in Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) Human Nature dimension, as well as Putnam’s (1993) work on the civic society and McClelland’s (1985) conceptualisation of the affiliative motive.Google Scholar
  30. 51.
    Fang (2003), p. 363.Google Scholar
  31. 52.
    Kostova (1997), p. 180.Google Scholar
  32. 53.
    As stated by Parboteeah and Cullen (2003), p.138.Google Scholar
  33. 54.
    As stated by Parboteeah and Cullen (2003), p.138.Google Scholar
  34. 55.
    Jepperson (1991), Turner (1997), Ingram and Clay (2000).Google Scholar
  35. 56.
    See for example Kostova (1997) and Kostova (1999). This view is consistent with Scott’s (2001) conceptualisation of the institutional environment as comprising three central pillars or components: The regulatory component reflects the existing laws and rules in a particular national environment, which promote certain types of behaviours and restrict others. The cognitive component reflects the cognitive structures and social knowledge shared by the people in a given country. The normative component consists of social norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions about human nature and behaviour that are socially shared and carried by individuals.Google Scholar
  36. 57.
    Ingram and Clay (2000), Parboteeah and Cullen (2003).Google Scholar
  37. 58.
    Scott (2001), p. 54.Google Scholar
  38. 59.
    Hofstede (2001), p. 11–12.Google Scholar
  39. 60.
    Jepperson (1991), Scott (2001).Google Scholar
  40. 61.
    Jepperson (1991), p. 145.Google Scholar
  41. 62.
    Jepperson (1991), p. 149 with reference to Walter Buckley.Google Scholar
  42. 63.
    Schwartz (1999).Google Scholar
  43. 64.
    Schooler (1996).Google Scholar
  44. 66.
    Amabile (1988), p. 126.Google Scholar
  45. 67.
    Turniansky and Hare (1998), p. 145.Google Scholar
  46. 68.
    Amabile (1988), p. 126; Amabile et al. (1996), p. 1155; Miron et al (2004).Google Scholar
  47. 69.
    Amabile (1988), p. 126, Van de Ven (1986), p. 592.Google Scholar
  48. 70.
    Van de Ven (1986), p. 591.Google Scholar
  49. 71.
    See for example Guzzo and Dickson (1996).Google Scholar
  50. 72.
    Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Cohen and Bailey (1997).Google Scholar
  51. 73.
    Cohen and Bailey (1997), p. 241; Cohen and Bailey’s definition is based on the works of Alderfer (1977) and Hackman (1987).Google Scholar
  52. 74.
    See for example McGrath (1984), Chapter 4; Mankin et al. (1996), Cohen and Bailey (1997), pp. 241–243.Google Scholar
  53. 75.
    The term “innovation team” and its definition are adopted from Högl (1998), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  54. 76.
    Mankin et al. (1996), pp. 26–27; Cohen and Bailey (1997), pp. 242–243.Google Scholar
  55. 77.
    “Management teams” according to Mankin et al. (1996), pp. 30–31; Cohen and Bailey (1997), p. 243.Google Scholar
  56. 78.
    Chang (2003), Hagedoorn and Cloodt (2003); Czarnitzki and Kraft (2004); Vera and Crossan (2005).Google Scholar
  57. 79.
    See description of team level outcomes in Gladstein (1984), Hackman (1987), Pinto and Pinto (1990), Campion et al. (1993), Pinto et al. (1993), McGrath et al. (2000), Högl and Gemünden (2001).Google Scholar
  58. 80.
    Ernst (2001), p. 144; Hagedoorn and Cloodt (2003), p. 1367; Miron et al (2004), p. 178.Google Scholar
  59. 81.
    See for example Högl and Gemünden (2001), Högl et al. (2003).Google Scholar
  60. 82.
    Stock’s (2004) overview shows that findings on the direct impact of team design variables on team outcomes are a lot less clear than those on indirect effects via team process. She regards directly relating these characteristics to performance outcomes as a problematic research design because performance effects of team design characteristics are indirect in nature.Google Scholar
  61. 83.
    Gladstein (1984), Hackman (1987), Högl (1998).Google Scholar
  62. 84.
    Fisher (1986), p. 200–201.Google Scholar
  63. 85.
    Latham and Locke (1979), Locke and Latham (1990).Google Scholar
  64. 86.
    For more detailed explanations of the effects of goal-setting, feedback and decision-making on the team’s process see Högl (1998).Google Scholar
  65. 87.
    “Self-managing” teams, see Hackman (1987), p. 334.Google Scholar
  66. 88.
    Cusumano (1997), p. 19; Högl (1998), p. 105–107; Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006).Google Scholar
  67. 89.
    Hackman (1987), p. 326; Katzenbach and Smith (1993), p. 47.Google Scholar
  68. 90.
    Katzenbach and Smith (1993), p. 49; Högl (1998), pp. 91 and 150.Google Scholar
  69. 91.
    Katzenbach and Smith (1993), p. 48; Högl (1998), pp. 90 and 150.Google Scholar
  70. 92.
    Högl (1998), pp. 92–93, p. 150.Google Scholar
  71. 93.
    Milliken and Martins (1996), Joshi and Jackson (2003).Google Scholar
  72. 94.
    Wagner et al. (1984), Ancona and Caldwell (1992).Google Scholar
  73. 95.
    Gladstein (1984); Adler (2002), Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  74. 96.
    Campion et al. (1993), p. 828; Högl (1998), p. 95–97.Google Scholar
  75. 97.
    Högl and Proserpio (2004).Google Scholar
  76. 98.
    Van Muijen and Koopman (1994), Burton and Obel (1995), p. 43.Google Scholar
  77. 99.
    Katz and Kahn (1966), Thompson (1967), Weick (1969).Google Scholar
  78. 100.
    For a comprehensive review of institutional theory see Scott (2001).Google Scholar
  79. 101.
    E.g. House et al. (2004).Google Scholar
  80. 102.
    Scott (2001), p. 179.Google Scholar
  81. 103.
    For example, Gladstein (1984) and Hackman (1987) have already studied organisation-level constructs as antecedents of group process and stressed the necessity to study groups in context; Guzzo and Dickson (1996), p. 327 note that changes on the organisational level can affect performance on the team level.Google Scholar
  82. 104.
    Daft (2004), p. 17.Google Scholar
  83. 105.
    Contingency Theory, see Donaldson (2001).Google Scholar
  84. 106.
    See for example Daft (2004).Google Scholar
  85. 107.
    See for example Schneider and Barsoux (2000), Hofstede (2001).Google Scholar
  86. 108.
    See for example Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), Hofstede (2001), House et al. (2004), Aycan (2005).Google Scholar
  87. 109.
    See for example Horwitz (2002a), Horwitz (2002b), Jackson (2004), Aycan (2005).Google Scholar
  88. 110.
    E.g. Burton and Obel (1995), Chapters 2.4–2.8.; Daft (2004), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  89. 111.
    Pugh and Hickson (1976).Google Scholar
  90. 112.
    Pugh and Hickson (1976), p. 4–5.Google Scholar
  91. 113.
    Pugh and Hickson (1976), p. 3.Google Scholar
  92. 114.
    Jaworski and Kohli (1993), p. 63.Google Scholar
  93. 115.
    Pugh and Hickson (1976), pp. 3–4; Donaldson (2001), p. 40.Google Scholar
  94. 116.
    Denison (1996).Google Scholar
  95. 117.
    See Denison (1996), Glisson and James (2002).Google Scholar
  96. 118.
    Denison (1996), p. 624.Google Scholar
  97. 119.
    Denison (1996), p. 622; Wallace et al. (1999), p. 551.Google Scholar
  98. 120.
    Reichers and Schneider (1990), p. 18; Wallace et al. (1999), p. 553.Google Scholar
  99. 121.
    Denison (1996), p. 621.Google Scholar
  100. 122.
    Schein (1997), p. 12.Google Scholar
  101. 123.
    Collier (1998), p. 632.Google Scholar
  102. 124.
    Hofstede (2001).Google Scholar
  103. 125.
    Schein (1997).Google Scholar
  104. 126.
    Daft 2004, p. 377.Google Scholar
  105. 127.
    Collier (1998), p. 621; Daft (2004), p. 373.Google Scholar
  106. 128.
    Cullen et al. (1989), p. 50.Google Scholar
  107. 129.
    For a description of the six stages of moral development along three levels (standards), see Kohlberg (1981), Appendix.Google Scholar
  108. 130.
    Cullen et al. (1993), pp. 672–673.Google Scholar
  109. 131.
    Adapted from Cullen at al. (1989), p. 58.Google Scholar
  110. 132.
    Descriptions based on Cullen et al. (1993).Google Scholar
  111. 133.
    Jackson (2002), p. 1008, distinguishes an antithesis between an instrumental view of people in organisations that perceive people as a means to an end and a humanistic view of people, which sees people as having a value in their own right and being an end in themselves.Google Scholar
  112. 134.
    Hellriegel et al. (2004), Chapter 11.Google Scholar
  113. 135.
    Adapted from Jackson (2004), p. 17.Google Scholar
  114. 136.
    Kiggundu (1988), Kanungo and Jaeger (1990), Blunt and Jones (1997).Google Scholar
  115. 137.
    Jackson (2004), p. 23.Google Scholar
  116. 138.
    “The African Renaissance was a term coined in the 1990s to denote a patchwork of desirable outcomes: the mobilization of indigenous knowledge, values and virtues, the creation of dialogue between Africa and the West, the participation of Africa in ‘The New World Order’, liberation from corrupt regimes, the triumph of democracy and ultimately, the uplift of the continent.” (Tomaselli, 2003)Google Scholar
  117. 139.
    Jackson (2004), p. 27–30 refers, among others, to Human (1996), Dia (1996), Mbigi (1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Personalised recommendations