Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When is traditionalism an asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Team innovation requires idea generating and idea implementing. In two studies, we examine how these team activities are affected by the extent to which members value traditionalism – that is, placing importance on preserving old ways of doing things over breaking precedent and forging new approaches. We proposed that higher average levels of team traditionalism would be negatively associated with idea generating but positively associated with idea implementing. Conversely, we proposed the opposite effects for diversity on team traditionalism. Further, we argued that these effects would be mediated by team process conflict because diversity on team traditionalism might make it more likely that members will debate what to retain versus newly adopt, and team agreement is more likely to occur when team members’ values are shared, rather than discrepant, with one another. Supporting our assertions, we found that whether traditionalism is an asset or liability for team innovation depends on whether (1) the average level (versus diversity) of team traditionalism is examined; and (2) idea generating versus idea implementing is of primary importance. Specifically, idea generating benefits from higher diversity on team traditionalism, whereas idea implementing benefits from higher average levels of team traditionalism. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.

Résumé

Une innovation dans une équipe nécessite la génération d’une idée et la mise en œuvre de cette idée. Dans deux études, nous examinons comment ces activités d’équipe sont touchées par la façon dont les membres valorisent le traditionalisme – c’est-à-dire, en accordant de l’importance à la préservation des anciennes manières de faire les choses plutôt qu’à la rupture de précédentes et à la proposition de nouvelles approches. Nous supposons que des niveaux moyens élevés de traditionalisme au sein de l’équipe soient négativement corrélés à la génération d’une idée, mais positivement associés à la mise en œuvre de l’idée. À l’inverse, nous proposons des effets opposés de la diversité sur le traditionalisme au sein d’une équipe. En outre, nous soutenons que ces effets seraient modérés par des conflits de fonctionnement au sein de l’équipe parce que la diversité du traditionalisme de l’équipe peut rendre plus probable le fait que les membres discutent de ce qu’il faut retenir et de ce qu’il faut nouvellement adopter ; et que l’accord au sein de l’équipe est plus susceptible de se produire lorsque les valeurs des membres de l’équipe sont partagées, plutôt que contradictoires. Appuyant nos assertions, nous constatons que le fait que le traditionalisme soit un avantage ou un inconvénient pour l’innovation dans une équipe dépend : (1) si le niveau moyen, ou la diversité, du traditionalisme de l’équipe est étudié ; et (2) si la génération de l’idée par rapport à la mise en œuvre de l’idée est d’importance primordiale. Plus précisément, la génération de l’idée bénéficie d’une plus grande diversité du traditionalisme de l’équipe, alors que la mise en œuvre de l’idée bénéficie de niveaux moyens élevés de traditionalisme au sein de l’équipe. Nous discutons les implications théoriques et managériales.

Resumen

La innovación en equipo requiere generación de ideas e implementación de ideas. En dos estudios, examinamos cómo estas actividades de equipo son afectadas por la medida en que los miembros valoren el tradicionalismo – es decir, el dar importancia a preservar las viejas formas de hacer las cosas sobre romper precedentes y forjar nuevos enfoques. Proponemos que unos niveles promedio más altos de tradicionalismo en los equipos sería asociada negativamente con la generación de ideas, pero positivamente asociada con la implementación de ideas. Al contrario, proponemos los efectos opuestos para la diversidad en el tradicionalismo del equipo. También, argumentamos que estos efectos serían mediados por el conflicto de procesos del equipo ya que la diversidad en el tradicionalismo de un equipo puede hacer más probable que los miembros debatan lo que deben mantener versus lo nuevo a adoptar; y, el acuerdo del equipo es más probable que ocurra cuando los valores de los miembros del equipo son compartidos, en lugar que discrepantes entre ellos. Apoyando nuestras afirmaciones, encontramos que para que el tradicionalismo sea un activo o un limitante para la innovación del equipo depende de: (1) el nivel promedio de, o diversidad de, el nivel de tradicionalismo sea examinado; y (2) la generación de ideas contra la implementación de ideas es de importancia primordial. Específicamente, la generación de idea se beneficia de mayor diversidad en el tradicionalismo del equipo, mientras que la implementación de ideas se beneficia de mayores niveles promedio de tradicionalismo en el equipo. Discutimos las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas.

Resumo

A inovação em equipes requer a geração e a implementação de ideias. Em dois estudos, examinamos como essas atividades em equipe são afetadas pela medida em que os membros valorizam o tradicionalismo - ou seja, dão importância para a preservação de formas antigas de fazer as coisas ao invés de abrir precedentes e forjar novas abordagens. Propusemos que valores médios mais altos de tradicionalismo de equipe estariam negativamente associados à geração de ideias, mas positivamente associados à implementação de ideias. Por outro lado, propusemos os efeitos opostos para a diversidade no tradicionalismo de equipe. Além disso, argumentamos que esses efeitos seriam mediados pelo conflito de processo em equipe porque a diversidade no tradicionalismo de equipe poderia tornar mais provável que os membros debatam o que manter versus o que adotar de novidade; e concordância na equipe é mais provável de ocorrer quando os valores dos membros da equipe são compartilhados do que quando são discrepantes. Apoiando nossas afirmações, descobrimos que o tradicionalismo ser um ativo ou um passivo para a inovação em equipe depende se: (1) o nível médio de, ou a diversidade no tradicionalismo de equipe é examinado; e, (2) a geração versus implementação de ideia é de importância primordial. Especificamente, a geração de ideias se beneficia da maior diversidade no tradicionalismo de equipe, enquanto a implementação de ideias se beneficia de níveis médios mais altos de tradicionalismo de equipe. Discutimos implicações teóricas e práticas.

概要

团队创新需要创意的生成和创意的实施。在两项研究中,我们研究团队活动是如何受成员们重视传统主义的程度影响的– 也就是说,重视保留老的做事方法,而不打破先例及建立新方法。我们提出,团队传统主义平均水平较高与创意生成负相关,但与创意实施正相关。另一方面,我们提出了多元性对团队传统主义的相反影响。此外,我们认为,这些影响将由团队过程冲突来调节,因为团队传统主义多元性可能会使成员们更可能地去辩论该保留什么对照该新采用什么;并且,当团队成员们的价值观彼此是共享的而不是有差异的时候,团队协议更可能达成。我们的主张得到了支持,我们发现,传统主义对团队创新有利或不利取决于是否:(1)团队传统主义的平均水平或多元性被检查;并且,(2)创意生成对照创意实施是最重要的。具体来说,团队传统主义多元性较高对创意生成有益,而团队传统主义平均水平较高对创意实施有益。我们讨论了对理论和实践的启示。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. 2006. Organizations evolving. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1102–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 62–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M. 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 741–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. K. 2011. Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42: 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. 2012. The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., Tinsley, C. H., Shapiro, D. L., & Okumura, T. 2007. Intervening in employee disputes: How and when will managers from China, Japan and the USA act differently? Management and Organization Review, 3(2): 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinckmann, J. 2008. Competence of top management teams and success of new technology-based firms. Berlin: Springer Fachmedien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 343–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4): 823–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caprar, D. V., Devinney, T. M., Kirkman, B. L., & Caligiuri, P. 2015. Conceptualizing and measuring culture in international business and management: From challenges to potential solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): 1011–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. 2013. The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5): 732–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, P. S. 2012. A study of scale construction for the measurement of traditionality and modernity in the Asian American/Pacific Islander population. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. 2005. Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 231–263). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. 2014. An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organization Science, 25(4): 1056–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M. A., Bezrukova, K., Weingart, L. R., & Tinsley, C. H. 2011. Subgroups within a team: The role of cognitive and affective integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 831–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. 2007. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3): 628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1191–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. 2010. The myth of the ethical consumer hardback with DVD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, R., & Gibson, C. B. 2013. Collaboration for the common good: An examination of challenges and adjustment processes in multicultural collaborations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34: 764–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow, S. P., Fortuna, J., Schwartz, D., Altringer, B., Schwartz, D. L., & Klemmer, S. R. 2012. Prototyping dynamics: Sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds), Design thinking research (pp. 47–70). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. 2001. Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2): 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. 2001. Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 716–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. 1997. The transplanted executive: Why you need to understand how workers in other countries see the world differently. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. 2002. Multinational work teams: A new perspective. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. 2006. Learning from successful and failed experience: The moderating role of kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 669–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K. 2010. Applied missing data analysis. London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. 1993. Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farr, J. L., Sin, H. P., & Tesluk, P. E. 2003. Knowledge management processes and work group innovation. International Handbook of Innovation, 1171: 574–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gann, D. 2000. Building innovation: complex constructs in a changing world. London: Thomas Telford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. K., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. 2012. Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 998–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review Psychology, 58: 479–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B. 1997. Do you hear what I hear? A framework for reconciling intercultural communication difficulties arising from cognitive styles and cultural values. In M. Erez & P. C. Earley (Eds), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 335–362). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Dibble, R. 2013. Excess may do harm: Examining the diminishing returns of external adjustment in team-based collaborations. Organization Science, 24(3): 687–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 451–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. 2014. Where global and virtual intersect: The value of examining both in 21st century teams. Annual Review Organizational Psychology, 1(1): 217–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & McDaniel, D. M. 2010. Moving beyond conventional wisdom: Advancements in cross-cultural theories of leadership, conflict, and teams. Perspectives in Psychology Science, 5: 450–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., McDaniel, D., & Szkudlarek, B. 2012. Tales from the (multicultural) field: Toward developing research conducive to proximal theory building. In A. M. Ryan, F. L. Oswald, & F. T. L. Leong (Eds), Conducting multinational research projects in organizational psychology: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 9–28). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Vermeulen, F. 2003. A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 202–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. 2001. Metaphor and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of team-work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 274–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. 2002. Minding your metaphors: Applying the concept of teamwork metaphors to the management of teams in multicultural contexts. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2): 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 65(5): 959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M., & Sahlman, W. A. 1989. What do venture capitalists do? Journal of Business Venturing, 4(4): 231–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajro, A., Gibson, C. B., & Pudelko, M. 2017. Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural teams: Linking organizational diversity climates to teams’ effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. When collections of creatives become a creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17: 484–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm, E. 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4): 15–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. 2008. Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2): 615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javidan, M., & Carl, D. E. 2005. Leadership across cultures: A study of Canadian and Taiwanese executives. Management International Review, 45(1): 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 189–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3): 599–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3): 285–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2017. A retrospective on Culture’s Consequences: A 25-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Shapiro, D. L., Lu, S., & McGurrin, D. P. 2016. Culture and teams. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8(April): 137–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. 2006. Adaptation-innovation in the context of diversity and change. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. 2005. Innovation implementing: Overcoming the challenge. Current directions in psychological science, 14(5): 243–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, T., & Levinthal, D. A. 2007. Two faces of search: Alternative generating and alternative evaluation. Organization Science, 18(1): 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotter International. 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2013/08/21/googles-best-new-innovation-rules-around-20-time/(accessed March 18, 2017).

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12: 333–375. New York: Wiley.

  • Kwan, K. 2009. Collectivistic conflict of Chinese in counseling: Conceptualization and therapeutic directions. Counseling Psychologist, 37(7): 967–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwang, N. A., & Rodrigues, D. 2002. A Big-Five personality profile of the adapter and innovator. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36: 254–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, D., & Straus, S. 1997. Putting your company’s whole brain to use. Harvard Business Review, 75: 110–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. 2005. Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. 2011. Beyond national culture and culture-centricism: An integrating perspective on the role of culture in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 42: 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 356–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, D., & Gibson, C. B. 2012. Emergent ideas in emerging markets: The process of discovery in organizational research. In C. L. Wang, D. Ketchen Jr., & D. Bergh (Eds), Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 39–59). Bingley: Emerald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2004. Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2): 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. 2011. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 116(2): 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J. A., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of Experiment. Social Psychology, 47(2): 494–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. 2001. Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36: 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. 2003. Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40: 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. 2010. A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2: 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. 2000. Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 82: 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. 2004. A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2): 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry-Smith, J. E., & Coff, R. W. 2011. In the mood for entrepreneurial creativity? How optimal group affect differs for generating and selecting ideas for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(3): 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. 2004. Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4): 525–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 2004. Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohner, R. P. 1984. Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15: 111–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H., & Carter, N. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociology Review, 68(2): 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, J. E., Houlette, M. A., & Yealey, E. L. 2006. Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1990. Individualism–collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21: 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4): 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. 1984. Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. 2010. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research in multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 690–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanko, T., & Gibson, C. B. 2009. The role of cultural elements in virtual teams. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds), Handbook of culture, organizations, and work (pp. 272–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Organizations and social structure. Handbook of Organizations, 44(2): 142–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggar, S. 2001. Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35: 261–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. 2010. Examining the impact of Culture’s Consequences: A three-decade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal Applied Psychology, 95: 405–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. 2016. Does country equal culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural boundaries. Management International Review, 56(4): 455–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teal, E. J., & Hofer, C. W. 2003. The determinants of new venture success: strategy, industry structure, and the founding entrepreneurial team. Journal Private Equity, 6(4): 38–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. 2012. Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4): 969–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. 2003. Cracks in diversity research: The effects of faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12: 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. C. 1999. Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2): 242–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. 2008. The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1): 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. H. 1998. Riding the waves of culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turetgen, I. O., Unsal, P., & Erdem, I. 2008. The effects of sex, gender role, and personality traits of leadership emergence: does culture make a difference? Small Group Research, 39(5): 588–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., & Eden, D. 1985. Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal Applied Psychology, 70(1): 85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uitdewilligen, S., Waller, M. J., & Pitariu, A. H. 2013. Mental model updating and team adaptation. Small Group Research, 44: 127–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kamp, M., Jehn, E., & Tjemkes, B. 2015. Faultline deactivation: Dealing with activated faultlines and conflicts in global teams. In J. L. Wildman & R. L. Griffith (Eds), Leading global teams: Translating multidisciplinary science to practice: 269–294. New York: Springer Science + Business.

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K., & Homan, A.C., 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N. & Jegers, R. A. 2006. Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2): 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., 2001. How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5): 559–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. 1993. Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. 1990. The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3): 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal Applied Psychology, 81(6): 680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Wallace, M. 1991. Innovation in health care teams. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21: 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. 2010. Indigenous innovation for sustainable growth. In R. Garnaut, J. Golley, & L. Song (Eds), China: The next twenty years of reform and development (pp. 341–362). Canberra: ANU E Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K. S. 2003. Methodological and theoretical issues on psychological traditionality and modernity research in an Asian society. Asian Journal Social Psychology, 6: 262–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, X., Hu, W. Plucker, J. A., & McWilliams, J. 2013. Is there a developmental slump in creativity in China? The relationship between organizational climate and creativity development in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1): 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuki. M., Maddux, W. W., Brewer, M. B., & Takemura, K. 2005. Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality Sociology Psychology Bulletin, 31: 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., & Falbe, M. 1990. Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. 1999. Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., Maloney, M. M., Bhappu, A. D., & Salvador, R. B. 2008. When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 107(1): 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Zheng, X., & Wang, L. 2003. Comparative research on individual modernity of adolescents between town and countryside in China. Asian Journal of Sociology Psychology, 6: 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2000 Steinberg-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Laura Huang

  2. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Cristina B Gibson

  3. Poole College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Bradley L Kirkman

  4. Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Debra L Shapiro

Authors
  1. Laura Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina B Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bradley L Kirkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Debra L Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Huang.

Additional information

Accepted by David C. Thomas, Area Editor, on March 4, 2017. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, L., Gibson, C.B., Kirkman, B.L. et al. When is traditionalism an asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination. J Int Bus Stud 48, 693–715 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0075-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0075-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation