MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503255398 · doi:10.1108/ccm-10-2014-0114

Team performance in cross cultural project teams

2015· article· en· W1503255398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCross Cultural Management An International Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsTeam effectivenessTeam compositionContext (archaeology)Team learningPsychologyMediationModerated mediationTeamworkPsychological safetyKnowledge managementDiversity (politics)Cultural diversitySocial psychologyComputer scienceSociologyManagementCooperative learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the conditional effect of team composition on team performance; specifically, how collective team orientation, group consensus, faultline configurations and trust among team members explain the objective performance of project teams in cross-cultural contexts. Design/methodology/approach – Employing path analytical framework and bootstrap methods, the authors analyze data from a sample of 73 cross cultural project teams. Relying on ordinary least-squares regression, the authors estimate the direct and indirect effects of the moderated mediation model. Findings – The findings demonstrate that the indirect effect of collective team orientation on performance through team trust is moderated by team member consensus, diversity heterogeneity and faultlines’ strength. By contrast, high dispersion among members, heterogeneous team configurations and strong team faultlines lead to low levels of trust and team performance. Research limitations/implications – The specific context of the study (cross-cultural students’ work projects) may influence external validity and limit the generalization of the findings as well as the different compositions of countries-of-origin. Practical implications – From a practical standpoint, these results may help practitioners understand how the emergence of trust contributes to performance. It will also help them comprehend the importance of managing teams while bearing in mind the cross-cultural contexts in which they operate. Social implications – In order to foster team consensus and overcome the effects of group members’ cross-cultural dissimilarities as well as team faultlines, organizations should invest in improving members’ dedication, cooperation and trust before looking to achieve significant results, specially in heterogeneous teams and cross-cultural contexts. Originality/value – The study advances organizational group research by showing the combined effect of team configurations and collective team orientation to overall team performance and by exploring significant constructs such as team consensus, team trust and diversity faultline strength to examine their possible moderated mediation role in the process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it