Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical Background

  • Chapter
Teamwork for Innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa

  • 287 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hofstede (2001), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Parsons (1977), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For reviews see Bond and Smith (1996) and Straub and Thomas (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hofstede (2001), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hofstede (1980b), pp. 43 and 45; Dahl (2004), pp. 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 6; Straub and Thomas (2003), p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hofstede (2001), House et al. (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Hofstede (2001), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 22; Javidan and House (2001), p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Adapted from Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 22 and Hofstede (2001), p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hofstede (2001), p. 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Triandis (1994), Adler (2002), Inglehart and Baker (2000), Hofstede (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Triandis (1994), p. 1, Triandis (1995), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Inglehart and Baker (2000); Hofstede (2001), p.34.

    Google Scholar 

  18. This definition is based on the insights listed above and the definition by Spradley (1979), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Straub and Thomas (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schwartz (1994), p.85.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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. 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. 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. Hofstede (2001), p. 369.

    Google Scholar 

  25. This dimension has its roots in research conducted by Triandis (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fang (2003), p. 363.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kostova (1997), p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  32. As stated by Parboteeah and Cullen (2003), p.138.

    Google Scholar 

  33. As stated by Parboteeah and Cullen (2003), p.138.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jepperson (1991), Turner (1997), Ingram and Clay (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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. Ingram and Clay (2000), Parboteeah and Cullen (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scott (2001), p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hofstede (2001), p. 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jepperson (1991), Scott (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jepperson (1991), p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jepperson (1991), p. 149 with reference to Walter Buckley.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schwartz (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schooler (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Amabile (1988), p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Turniansky and Hare (1998), p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Amabile (1988), p. 126; Amabile et al. (1996), p. 1155; Miron et al (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Amabile (1988), p. 126, Van de Ven (1986), p. 592.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Van de Ven (1986), p. 591.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See for example Guzzo and Dickson (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Cohen and Bailey (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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. See for example McGrath (1984), Chapter 4; Mankin et al. (1996), Cohen and Bailey (1997), pp. 241–243.

    Google Scholar 

  53. The term “innovation team” and its definition are adopted from Högl (1998), pp. 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mankin et al. (1996), pp. 26–27; Cohen and Bailey (1997), pp. 242–243.

    Google Scholar 

  55. “Management teams” according to Mankin et al. (1996), pp. 30–31; Cohen and Bailey (1997), p. 243.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Chang (2003), Hagedoorn and Cloodt (2003); Czarnitzki and Kraft (2004); Vera and Crossan (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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. Ernst (2001), p. 144; Hagedoorn and Cloodt (2003), p. 1367; Miron et al (2004), p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See for example Högl and Gemünden (2001), Högl et al. (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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. Gladstein (1984), Hackman (1987), Högl (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Fisher (1986), p. 200–201.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Latham and Locke (1979), Locke and Latham (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 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. “Self-managing” teams, see Hackman (1987), p. 334.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cusumano (1997), p. 19; Högl (1998), p. 105–107; Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hackman (1987), p. 326; Katzenbach and Smith (1993), p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Katzenbach and Smith (1993), p. 49; Högl (1998), pp. 91 and 150.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Katzenbach and Smith (1993), p. 48; Högl (1998), pp. 90 and 150.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Högl (1998), pp. 92–93, p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Milliken and Martins (1996), Joshi and Jackson (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wagner et al. (1984), Ancona and Caldwell (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Gladstein (1984); Adler (2002), Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Campion et al. (1993), p. 828; Högl (1998), p. 95–97.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Högl and Proserpio (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Van Muijen and Koopman (1994), Burton and Obel (1995), p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Katz and Kahn (1966), Thompson (1967), Weick (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  78. For a comprehensive review of institutional theory see Scott (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  79. E.g. House et al. (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Scott (2001), p. 179.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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. Daft (2004), p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Contingency Theory, see Donaldson (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  84. See for example Daft (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  85. See for example Schneider and Barsoux (2000), Hofstede (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  86. See for example Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), Hofstede (2001), House et al. (2004), Aycan (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  87. See for example Horwitz (2002a), Horwitz (2002b), Jackson (2004), Aycan (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  88. E.g. Burton and Obel (1995), Chapters 2.4–2.8.; Daft (2004), pp. 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Pugh and Hickson (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Pugh and Hickson (1976), p. 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Pugh and Hickson (1976), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Jaworski and Kohli (1993), p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Pugh and Hickson (1976), pp. 3–4; Donaldson (2001), p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Denison (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  95. See Denison (1996), Glisson and James (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Denison (1996), p. 624.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Denison (1996), p. 622; Wallace et al. (1999), p. 551.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Reichers and Schneider (1990), p. 18; Wallace et al. (1999), p. 553.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Denison (1996), p. 621.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Schein (1997), p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Collier (1998), p. 632.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Hofstede (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Schein (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Daft 2004, p. 377.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Collier (1998), p. 621; Daft (2004), p. 373.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Cullen et al. (1989), p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  107. For a description of the six stages of moral development along three levels (standards), see Kohlberg (1981), Appendix.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Cullen et al. (1993), pp. 672–673.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Adapted from Cullen at al. (1989), p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Descriptions based on Cullen et al. (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  111. 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. Hellriegel et al. (2004), Chapter 11.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Adapted from Jackson (2004), p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Kiggundu (1988), Kanungo and Jaeger (1990), Blunt and Jones (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Jackson (2004), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  116. “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. Jackson (2004), p. 27–30 refers, among others, to Human (1996), Dia (1996), Mbigi (1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Theoretical Background. In: Teamwork for Innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa. DUV. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-9588-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation