No abstract

Knowledge integration in diverse teams depends on their integrative capacitythe social and cognitive processes, along with emergent states, that shape a team's ability to combine diverse knowledge. We argue that integrative capacity represents the potential that a team has to overcome various compositional, team, and contextual barriers to generating integrated and novel knowledge. This article focuses specifically on the unique challenges facing diverse science teams that have the goal of generating novel knowledge at the intersection of disciplinary, practice, and organizational boundaries. The integrative capacity of a science team is argued to help facilitate the social and cognitive integration processes necessary for effective team processes that enhance the likelihood of innovative team outcomes. Implications of our theoretical framework for practice and research on fostering innovation in diverse science teams are discussed.

These findings indicate that the training intervention was partially effective, but more work needs to be done to determine the conditions under which training is most effective, and the ways in which to sustain improvements. Future research is needed to confirm its generalizability to additional OB units and departments.

Scholars have argued that if psychologists are to gain a true understanding of human behavior, culture should be central to research and theory. The research on teams is an area where better integration between the mainstream and cross-cultural literatures is critically needed, given the increasing prevalence of multicultural teams. The purpose of this article is therefore to demonstrate how research focused on culture's influence on teams advances current mainstream theoretical understanding of team effectiveness. Guided by widely accepted frameworks of team effectiveness (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005) and culture (Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015), we extract several key assumptions from the mainstream literature that have also been examined within the cross-cultural literature. Through a process of comparing and contrasting, we determined which components of current models are upheld and debunked when seeking to generalize these models to other cultural contexts outside of North America. Although we found some consistent results across the two literatures, most of our analyses reveal there are important boundary conditions surrounding common team effectiveness assumptions when culture is considered. By anchoring our analyses around fundamental aspects of teams, including how they form, function, and finish, we then revised these assumptions according to the integration of the teams and cross-cultural literatures. Taken together, we provide a rich foundation for future research, and facilitate a more nuanced understanding of human behavior within the team context. (PsycINFO Database Record

This paper examines how national culture relates to the ways that individuals define career success. Data are drawn from interviews with 269 professional services employees in 15 countries. Interviews are content coded and linked with country‐level Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness measures of cultural values. We test our hypotheses using a multilevel multinomial logit model. The results demonstrate that the ways in which employees define career success vary across countries, due in part to differences in cultural values after controlling for gender, occupation, job level, and national economic development. We find that employees from countries high in future orientation, uncertainty avoidance, and performance orientation are more likely to define career success in terms of interpersonal outcomes, and those from countries high in collectivism (institutional and in‐group), humane orientation, and gender egalitarianism are more likely to prefer intrapersonal outcomes. We find that employees from countries that are high in assertiveness, uncertainty avoidance, and performance orientation are more likely to define career success in terms of achievement‐oriented outcomes. Finally, we find that employees from countries high in power distance report career success definitions in terms of safety and security outcomes. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of cultural differences in careers across countries.