Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Concept of Teamwork
Concept of Teamwork
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Metaphorsand This paper develops a conceptual framework to explain
Meaning:An different understandings of the concept of teamwork
across national and organizational cultures. Five different
Analysis of
Intercultural metaphors for teamwork (military,sports, community,
the Concept of family, and associates) were derived from the language
Teamwork team members used during interviews in four different
geographic locations of six multinational corporations.
Cristina B. Gibson Results indicated that use of the teamwork metaphors
varies across countries and organizations, after control-
University of Southern ling for gender, team function, and total words in an
California interview. Analyses of specific relationships between
Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn national cultural values and categories of metaphor use
University of Minnesota and between dimensions of organizational culture and
categories of metaphor use revealed patterns of expecta-
tions about team roles, scope, membership, and objec-
tives that arise in different cultural contexts. We discuss
the implications of this variance for future research on
teams and the management of teams in multinational
organizations.*
The past two decades have witnessed a steady increase in
research investigatingdifferences in teamwork across cul-
tures. This research has identifiedvarianceacross cultural
contexts in team processes, such as social loafingand con-
flict (Cox, Lobel,and McLeod, 1991; Earley,1994; Oetzel,
1998), team leadership(Aymanand Chemers, 1983; Pillaiand
Meindl,1998), goal setting (Earleyand Erez, 1987; Erezand
Somech, 1996), teams' beliefs about performance(Gibson,
1999), and employees' receptivityto workingin teams (Kirk-
man and Shapiro,2001; Kirkman,Gibson,and Shapiro,2001).
Takentogether, these studies suggest importantdifferences
in teamwork across cultures,yet the cross-culturalliterature
? 2001 by Cornell University. on teams lacks a comprehensive frameworkfor understand-
0001-8392/01/4602-0274/$3.00. ing why these differences occur (Earleyand Gibson, 2001). In
0 this paper,we attempt to fill this gap by exploringthe under-
lyingdifferences in the definitionof teamworkthat people
This research was made possible with
funding provided by the National Science hold, represented by the metaphorsthey use to describe
Foundation Grant #SBR 96-31748, their teams. Verifyingthat nationaland organizationalcultures
Carnegie Bosch Institute for Applied Inter- are sources of variancein conceptualizationsof teamwork
national Management Research, and the
University of Wisconsin Initiative for has the potentialto provideinsight into the differences in
World Affairs and the Global Economy. preferredpracticesthat have been noted across culturalcon-
The researchers would like to acknowl-
edge the time and effort extended by all texts in other empiricalresearch and challenges scholars to
of the respondents in this research buildspecific theories of teamwork that incorporatethese dif-
together with their associated staff. Spe- ferences.
cial thanks to Raoul Zapata in Puerto Rico,
Joylie Agustin and Ricardo Lim at the
Asian Institute of Management in the
Even if the specific content of teamwork conceptualizations
Philippines, and Michael Segalla at varies across cultures, at a general level, most definitionsare
L'Ecole Hautes Etudes Commercials in likelyto includewhat a team does (activityscope), who is on
France. We would like to express our
appreciation for the administrative sup- the team (roles)and why (natureof membership),and why
port, translations, and transcriptions pro- the team exists (objectives)(e.g., see reviews of team defini-
vided by Paula Bassoff, Ryan Billingham, tions in Cohen and Bailey,1997; Sundstromet al., 1999). For
Peter Bruhn, Florence Brunell, Joan
Donovan, Steve Gibson, KerryJung, Fran- example, when some people thinkof a team, they picturea
cisco Lloveras, Alice Mark, Rachel Ritter- projectteam whose activityis limitedto the time during
bausch, David Robinson, Patty Trinidad,
Carol Troyer-Shank,and Richard Zapata. which members work on the project,whereas others may
Finally,we gratefully acknowledge com- picturea team more like a familywhose activityis broadand
ments provided on earlier drafts of this extends across a numberof domains in life (McGrath,1984).
paper by Vikas Anand, Michele Ghertman,
Pam Haunschild, Karen Jehn, Brad Kirk- Likewise, some concepts of teamwork may includeclearly
man, George Marcoulides, Anne Miner, differentiatedroles, such as leaders and members, whereas
Craig Olson, Joseph Porac, Freek Ver-
meulen, Sri Zaheer, and three anonymous
others may be less structured(Cohenand Bailey,1997).
reviewers at ASQ. When some people thinkabout teamwork they picturevolun-
274/Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (2001): 274-303
Metaphors and Meaning
Organizational Culture
A second importantforce likelyto shape teamwork
metaphors is organizationalculture,defined as an identifiable
set of beliefs and norms shared by members of an organiza-
tion or subunit (Schein, 1993; Triceand Beyer, 1993). Organi-
zationalcultureis a source of shared understandingand
sensemaking and shapes the behaviorsof organizational
members (Smirichand Calas, 1987; Schein, 1993;Triceand
Beyer, 1993). A numberof researchers have demonstrated
that organizationaland nationalcultures are not simply paral-
lel constructs at two levels of analysis;rather,they have dis-
tinct contents and influences (e.g., Bartunek,1984; Hofstede
et al., 1990; Sackman, 1992; Chatmanand Jehn, 1994). For
example, Hofstede et al. (1990) found evidence for this dis-
tinctionin a combined qualitativeand quantitativestudy
across 20 Danishand Dutch organizationalunits. Nationalcul-
ture was a source of pervasive underlyingvalues that guided
priorities,whereas organizationalculturewas more context-
specific, pertainingto preferredpractices and orientations.
Because language is an element of organizationalculture
(Triceand Beyer, 1993), organizationalcultureis likelyto play
a role in the development of common teamwork metaphors
in an organization.Empiricalevidence indicatesthat organiza-
tionalcultureaffects meaning structures in the form of per-
ceptions about behavioralnorms held by organizationalmem-
bers (Gundryand Rousseau, 1994). Withoutcommon
language and cognitive views among at least some members
of the organization,the linkbetween comprehensionand
action would have to be continuallyrenegotiated (Langfield-
Smith, 1992; Laukkanen,1994). Giventhat organizationalcul-
tures are likelyto influence members' preferences and
expectations, we propose:
H4:The use of a given metaphorfor teamworkis likelyto vary
across organizations.
It is not enough to simply suggest that concepts varyacross
organizationalcultures;it is also importantto examine sys-
tematic variationdue to specific aspects of culture.
Researchers have demonstratedthat patternsof orientations
(O'Reilly,Chatman,and Caldwell,1991; Kabanoff,Waldersee,
and Cohen, 1995; Kabanoffand Holt, 1996) and practices
(Hofstede et al., 1990) can be used to explaindifferences in
organizationalcultures. Kabanoffand colleagues (Kabanoff,
Waldersee, and Cohen, 1995; Kabanoffand Holt, 1996) iden-
tified a set of nine orientations-performance, reward,
authority,leadership,teamwork, commitment, normativeori-
entation, participation,and affiliation-that can be discerned
from organizationaldocuments such as annualreportsand
demonstratedthat differentpatternsof orientationswere
associated with differentways of portrayingand communi-
cating change. Several of the nine orientationsprovidedin
Kabanoff'swork overlapconceptuallywith nationalculture,
however, and many researchers recommend distinguishing
between nationalcultureand organizationalculture (e.g., Hof-
stede et al., 1990). Forexample, the authority,leadership,
normative,and commitment dimensions capturecontent
similarto power distance, and teamwork, participation,and
279/ASQ, June 2001
affiliationare conceptuallysimilarto collectivism. In lightof
this overlap,we focus here on two orientationsidentifiedby
Kabanoffand colleagues-performance and rewards-that
have the least conceptual overlapwith nationalculturalval-
ues as portrayedin the interculturalliteratureand thus allow
clear distinctionsbetween the two constructs. Inaddition,
these two dimensions have strong implicationsfor the ele-
ments of teamworkthat are embedded in metaphors.The
first dimension, performance,captures the degree to which
an organizationemphasizes achievement, service, and effi-
ciency and has been relatedto differences in attitudes
toward change across organizations(Kabanoffand Holt,
1996). This dimension is likelyrelatedto the extent to which
members of the organizationwill define teamwork in terms
of clear consequences of activityin teams; thus, we propose:
~~~-~ ~ ~ -
C: ao 0
) :
E.?~~~3rj 0~~~ 0) 0 0 E LO
a)DC EF3D a D0
D -
CO E 4- O
4-~~~~0 0>>E~C
- *t' O- -Cl 4E 0 ~C) D CD C/ a
CD
ui
-
0
co
a'
Co co
*~~~~~~c _r_-
Cl)
0E~~~~0 __ -C
' O0 ~ 0
C: 0 D) o a) 5 CD>
zh3
OCD 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cl)CDD)CD E E--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~a'Cl~~~~~~~
1aC' ()C
C-
~~~~~~~ ~~-a' Q~ 0 O
-
0 0()() 0-F
co E E O +,0 OE2 C 0 c
O
5 L D- 0 0> CUQ) a' -- - cEo0 L- 0
0 ) D) DO D) 0
CD CD ~~~~~-.
- OcoD -
-
0) -
0
- --Z -
0
-O
_ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
-
a) E
0) r
a
0)0 "co c
D" D co C
O -0
a
co + a) a)
0)E *~~~~'
Q I
0~-
0
-j
_
-j o- ,c
0
E0O I0
0~~~~~~~~~~~~0
~~~
~~~o. -
O 0 a)
~ C: 0
D)co)>0
a
0 c
co :a
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00+
oco 0 -~
N ~~~~~O-
0 0 0
C -
0
0
--
0
a' 0E E E - EO -00
-~yO
:5 a'~~0 a' 0
Table2
List of Metaphors and Sample Terms Used in Frequency Analyses
Metaphors
00+-, = co *0 =3E 0 4 co
0 co a) Cy.o *- co Ua3UC
.- 0
0 co
C U -c.20 /0 u o .0
4-4 O - O c -V 4-
C- 0O u-
U)
- 'O 0.
0~~4-co -co> ~-' cu 00 ~-0 .~
~~-o E~~~~~~~~~~VC Q ~ -
-0
4E0.40 4- cocu
a) a) 0C
0
~.C~~~- '~c Eo
oC
co<
Coo.- 0Co0Cn a)
E
+
cu * 0 0.0 _ 3 -
.0
4CC -
c -T-E
cch
C- co4-
004-
4.n
-VC .- 4-)~
_
.cu
o
4-
~coU <
2
0)
0
C
CU..
V
C
~ )cuoC
2~~~~~*4~~~a)~~~0 co-
C)
c C 0m
0C 0+-
C,
a) 0
a E -
.C >3 CU) C. c 0- 4
co E0 n"E i> - U 2
a)
0
?U0
4.
5:- 5~
+-~
C L-C: 0 Cu.C co~. 0 C:
CV U) :
0co O -C w 0> 0
0.00 04 C0-
4
~ +-
- 0
O>0.0. a) 4-.C: '.-C
0)0C
~co o u0 . o.CCUU)4-
.: 0E U) -C c4-oCV
a)>
;U.0)4
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)0
0
0
4- o
0
co
0t-o--)
'0.co
oco 00
>.0t .0
V- 0)" N C C0 -U -o
U)C U) co U) 0C C: EO'. CO
- )4-4
co FO ,.OE~ -E0
co
C 0cn
>0..~~~CC0
+
~~~~~~ 0 0 ~ OO O U)- .u ))-
CO0-
(U ~~~
0)~~0U)U)0.00~'4
o>.~~~~~U
CU)
0
:300.0
0a)->- - ~ ) C
)
U)CO.0 0.00
c- 4-
.
4-0:3~U)
: .00UOo.4
0c.0n COC
CU)
O)U) 0
:c
0)0~~~~~~~-
.0 V -A)0 .0~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
c =c0
C 0C
0. E-~~~ .0~E V C 0. .0 0
~ EC Eco 0 C
0E
C
>
EC
"O- 0
E U)--
0
U) u- ~ 0
VCD CC-
(.~~~
H .0 0 0
08~~~C
CO E 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
-04P04 E.0
coc0
0 C V~,
z
C4) 0) .c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
C~~~~
0
)0-
C -
t~co)C -0a 0o
/)4- aE 4
0 C: 0.~~~~~~~~00
EO-0 :E 0
+w +, r
~~ 0 -~~~~- a) 3~~~0 C
Ca) (D 2 ~ . 0 co -
U) a,-0 0 0 Co0
E~ .EaO' ~ ~
(D0 U) E -'0 20)
0
>)
) co ~
_0 a)
a
coa
x3 0
cota E
coi 0 coc.t, co U ~C: K
~0 0- c a,-+- a
*~~~~)~~a Co coU 0E
oag3).a) 0 +
L-E
C: 0 ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ ~ -00C >-
CU cn> ) F )
o
)-)o a)a~~ C:~eE 0) Co~
co 00 ) 0
c0 > a, -Q) co >~co
~~.2 c~~--0 >: 0
co
oL 0 a) a, E0
00 a,'0 c0 o co
~ ~ ~0)~~ ~
a,40 ) 0a,0 C
a, a) .~ > a a) a) CM
00Ea)aCo 0 a-o
+, 0 +_ co,0 0
co c
00C 0)>a a, >AeC? , 00a,)U >
Co
C) ) 0 0 0 0o
0
0
aE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
C
co
+1 .0 co0co 0
- -
co . -0 0 CM co--a
a) ) > 0a,) a, 0oC
a) TZ
C 0U> - 0
)Q) = a 0-o
Table 4
Search Terms for Cultural Values
Dimension Definition Sample search terms
Power distance The degree to which members of a Hierarchy, respect, control, rank,
culture accept and expect that subordinate, superior, authority,
power in society is unequally stratified, reverence
distributed (Hofstede, 1980)
Tight control (based on survey items Amount of internal structuring in the Tight, cost conscious, punctual,
from Hofstede et al., 1990) organization well-groomed, serious
Rewards (Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Concern with organizational rewards Bonus, compensation, salary,
Cohen, 1995) reward
We also have some traits.We have one that's called crab mentality.
You'veheardof that, I'msure. It's like a crab,when you see them
all in a tank, and when one crab gets to go higher,the other crabs
grab it and bringthat person down ... one person should not really
stick out so loudly,such that the rest feels like they are not doing
better than that person. Ifthere's somebody who comes off very
strongly,then the team would not likethat. The crab mentalityis
very intrinsicto the Filipino.
We used the results of these text searches to create two
independent variables for national culture-power distance
and individualism-which we used in the regression models
described below.
Organizational culture dimensions. Having found evidence of
national cultural differences, we verified differences in organi-
zational cultures, this time conducting a content analysis of
291/ASQ, June 2001
annualreportdata. Followingpriorresearch (Kabanoff,
Waldersee, and Cohen, 1995; Kabanoffand Holt, 1996), we
obtained electronic copies of the annualreportsfor each firm
from Lexis/NexisAcademic Universefor the three years up
to and includingthe year we conducted our interviews,
removingall purelyfinancialsections of the reports.We
obtainedthe value definitionsand search terms for perfor-
mance and rewardsfrom Kabanoffand developed search
terms for employee orientationand tight controlfrom the sur-
vey items reportedin Hofstede et al. (1990).
We again used content analysis software (QSR*NUDIST) to
search for the terms in each organization'sannualreport
database and reviewed text segments to verifythat the
terms were used in the way suggested by the organizational
culturedimension. Forexample, when we searched for the
term "performance,"we excluded cases in which the term
was used to describe loan performancein capitaland finan-
cial descriptions.To controlfor differences in the numberof
text units, we dividedthe frequency of occurrences for each
dimension by the total numberof text segments in each
organizationaldatabase. Rankorderingorganizationsbased
on this statistic demonstrated that employees in our sample
expressed orientationsand practices similarto characteriza-
tions of their organizationsthat appeared in the popularpress
(as summarizedin table 1, above). Forexample, interviewees
expressed the greatest emphasis on rewards in Biomedco
and Pharmcoand the least in Chemco. Illustratingthis, one
Biomedco respondent stated,
Here, acknowledgingcontributionsof people and makingthat public
is an incentive in itself.... they need to be rewardedseparately,
especially in a monetaryway, for accomplishingwhat they need to
be doing in the first place. The focus of expectations is the reward
ratherthan the contribution.
Likewise consistent with externalcharacterizations,intervie-
wees expressed the greatest emphasis on performancein
Pharmcoand Photoco and the least in Healthco.Forexam-
ple, one Photoco respondent had this to say about how the
focus on performancesometimes runs contraryto other ini-
tiatives:
It'sthat concept of cross-regionalteaming that just doesn't go yet.
It'sall drivenby performancedriversand the local "score" club, and
so we keep on reinforcingthat behavior,which is reallyfocused on
the localteam as opposed to an understandingfor creatinga broad-
er team. I can tell you that nothinghas changed since 1975. So
from that perspective, the regional,even the countryautonomy,is
drivenlargelyby these performancedrivers.I thinkit's been there
for a very long time.
With regardto organizationalpractices, the greatest empha-
sis on controlwas expressed in Biomedco and Chemco and
the least in Healthco. Forexample, illustratinga cultureof
tight control,one Chemco respondent articulatedhow power
is distributed:"Thereare certainrules of the game that are
stated. Everything'sin the process in this company.There are
very formal procedures ... anybody with a very strong per-
sonalitywould have a hardtime adaptinghere because
things are very well laidout."
292/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphors and Meaning
Table 5
Mean Frequency of Occurrence of Metaphors by Organization and
Country*
Organization
Sports
Puerto Rico .00 .50 .00 2.33 NA NA
Philippines 1.50 NA .33 1.33 .75 1.33
France .00 .00 NA NA 3.25 2.33
U.S. .64 NA 1.06 .86 NA 2.44
Military
Puerto Rico .00 .50 .00 1.00 NA NA
Philippines .13 NA .17 .33 .25 1.33
France .25 .00 NA NA .00 .00
U.S. .27 NA .12 .29 NA .67
Family
Puerto Rico .00 2.50 .33 .33 NA NA
Philippines .50 NA 1.5 1.33 .75 3.67
France .00 1.50 NA NA 1.75 .50
U.S. .18 NA .76 .57 NA 1.33
Community
Puerto Rico .14 .50 .56 .67 NA NA
Philippines 1.13 NA 2.33 3.0 .50 4.33
France .00 .50 NA NA 1.75 .83
U.S. 1.09 NA 1.23 .29 NA .44
Associates
Puerto Rico .29 .75 .11 .00 NA NA
Philippines .13 NA 1.0 1.33 3.50 1.67
France 1.50 4.50 NA NA 1.25 1.33
U.S. .91 NA .53 1.14 NA 4.56
*The total number of interviewees included 30 from Photoco, 6 from Chemco,
32 from Biomedco, 13 from Pharmco, and 18 from Medco. "NA" indicates
countries in which we conducted no interviews for a particular organization.
Table 6
Multinomial Regression Results (N = 462)*
Abrahamson, E., and D. Hambrick Aldrich, J. H., and F. D. Nelson Ayman, R., and M. M. Chemers
1997 "Attentional homogeneity in 1984 Linear Probability, Logit, and 1983 "Relationship of supervisory
industries: The effect of dis- Probit Models. Newbury Park, behavior ratings to work
cretion." Journal of Organiza- CA: Sage. group effectiveness and sub-
tional Behavior, 18: 513-532. ordinate satisfaction among
Iranianmanagers." Journal of
Adler, N. J.
Applied Psychology, 68:
1991 International Dimensions of
338-341.
Organizational Behavior, 2d
ed. Boston: PWS Kent.