contextual factors affecting the influence of perceived organizational ...

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2014, 42(3), 517-528 © Society for Personality Research http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.517

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT ON TEAM INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE LINLIN JIN AND YINGHONG ZHONG Guangdong University of Technology Organizational behavior researchers and social exchange theorists recognize the important role organizational context plays in team performance, yet few researchers have systematically examined contextual variables. We investigated 127 scientific research teams in universities in China, and found that knowledge integration (KI) mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and team innovative performance (TIP). We also found that climate for innovation and organizational context moderated the positive relationship between team KI behavior and TIP. Our findings indicate that in the knowledge management process, it is important for scientific research teams within universities to build up an atmosphere of aspiration, openness, tolerance, and acceptance of differences. Keywords: perceived organizational support, knowledge integration, innovative performance, climate for innovation, organizational context.

Since the 1980s the number of organizations adopting team-based structures has been steadily increasing (Stewart, 2006). Teamwork is a major organizational form used for conducting scientific research in universities. How to improve team performance is an enduring topic of interest for management theorists and team managers. According to the heuristic framework proposed by Cohen and Bailey (1997), team effectiveness is a function of environment, design factors, internal and external processes, and psychosocial traits. To understand influences on team effectiveness, not only should researchers examine team-level drivers,

Linlin Jin and Yinghong Zhong, School of Management, Guangdong University of Technology. This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71002090) and Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (S2012010009033). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Linlin Jin, School of Management, Guangdong University of Technology, No. 161 Yinglong Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]

517

518

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

such as potency, processes, and task design, but also factors such as team composition and organizational contextual influences (Mathieu & Taylor, 2007). Unfortunately, to our knowledge, few researchers have considered factors of environment. Social exchange theorists (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) have alluded to employment as the exchange of effort and loyalty for tangible benefits and social rewards. Perceived organizational support (POS) refers to “the extent to which the organization values employees’ contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501), and is valued as an assurance that aid will be available for individual members from the organization when it is needed to carry out their job effectively. At the individual level, one’s POS is positively related to work performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002); however, this conclusion might not apply at the team level (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2013). In our study we focused on team-level relationships. From the perspective of knowledge management, we investigated the relationship between POS and team innovative performance (TIP), with team knowledge integration (KI) behavior considered as a mediating variable. KI exists within the context of organizations; therefore, it is crucial to clarify what kinds of moderators amplify or limit the effectiveness of KI in facilitating TIP, and the mechanisms by which the amplification or limitation is conducted. By identifying these, managers can determine the kinds of organizational situations in which greater innovation outcomes are facilitated. Innovative outcomes are more likely to occur when the organizational culture supports innovation and when innovative behavior is rewarded (Wei, Liu, & Herndon, 2011). We, therefore, examined the moderating effects of climate for innovation (CI) and organizational context (OC) on the KI behavior–TIP relationship. Conceptual Background and Hypotheses Perceived Organizational Support and Team Innovative Performance

According to organizational support theory, high POS tends to improve work attitudes and produce effective work behavior for two reasons (Miao, 2011). First, these beneficial effects result from a process of social exchange. People examine discretionary actions and, if they infer that they are being supported, they then seek to repay this favorable treatment. POS has been found to be positively related to evaluative and objective measures of performance in standard job activities (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), and also has a positive effect on task performance (Riggle, Edmonson, & Hansen, 2009). Miao reported a positive relationship between POS and task performance in China. Based on the above analysis, we predicted that the individual-level conclusion could be deduced to also apply at the team level, and proposed the following hypothesis:


519

Hypothesis 1: Team-level POS will be positively related to TIP. The Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Team Innovative Performance as Mediated by Knowledge Integration

In addition to the proposed direct impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables, KI may mediate this relationship. On the basis of the reciprocity norm, POS should create an obligation for the employee to care about the organization’s welfare, enhancing employees’ affective commitment to the organization. POS should also increase affective commitment by fulfilling such socioemotional needs as affiliation and emotional support. POS also influences employees’ general affirmative reactions to their job, including job satisfaction and positive mood, and might increase employees’ interest in their work by enhancing perceived competence (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The primary tasks of scientific research teams are application, creation, and dissemination of knowledge (Jin & Sun, 2010). Therefore, POS has an important effect on knowledge management processes, including knowledge sharing, communication, and integration. Previous researchers have also found that KI has a positive effect on performance (Jin & Sun, 2010); thus, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The behavior of team KI will mediate the relationship between POS and TIP. Moderating Effects of Organizational Context

Researchers have identified the organizational context (OC) that surrounds a team as an important consideration in the study of team effectiveness. Guzzo and Shea (1992) clearly articulated the need for researchers to broaden team research to include the relationship between teams and the organization they reside in. OC is a set of “overarching structures and systems external to the team that facilitate or inhibit its work” (Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996, p. 1006). Looking outward from within a team, both socially and physically, relevant levels of external context include the formal work unit (e.g., department), business unit (e.g., school or college), and organization (e.g., university; House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). OC can be divided into the micro and macro context. Micro aspects are often tailored to specific team needs, and change and evolve frequently, whereas macro context varies little among teams. In the teamwork literature, fewer researchers have been concerned with macro than with micro context (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006). One major reason for this may be the difficulty in data collection because macro OC variables have higher values than do micro OC variables (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Several scholars have considered macro contextual factors that influence creativity and knowledge utilization in innovation (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Perry-Smith

520


& Shalley, 2003; Sarin & McDermott, 2003). According to the interactionist approach to creativity (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between team-level KI behavior and TIP will be stronger when the OC in which the team is nested is high, compared to when it is low. Moderating Effects of Climate for Innovation

Climate has received considerable attention from both applied psychologists and organizational sociologists. In the dominant approach, climate is conceptualized as employees’ shared perceptions of organizational events, practices, and procedures. Schneider and Reichers (1983) asserted that it is meaningless to apply the concept of climate without a particular referent (e.g., climate for change, quality, and innovation). Climate for innovation (CI) is a major contextual variable that influences innovative behavior; however, little research has been conducted to investigate the effects of innovative climate in the Chinese context (Leung, Chen, Zhou, & Lim, 2012). Because CI promotes and encourages innovative behavior, we expected there to be a positive relationship between them, which has been well established in a Western context. For instance, Charbonnier-Voirin, Akremi, and Vandenberghe (2010) reported that in their sample of French participants CI moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and adaptive performance. In our research, we expected that CI would promote the positive relationship between KI and TIP at the team level. When CI is high, creativity and the tolerance of failure are emphasized (Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Team members mitigate worry about failure and are be more likely to adopt knowledge sharing, communication, and integration, leading to higher TIP (Jin & Sun, 2010). Based on the above analysis, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between team-level KI behavior and TIP will be stronger when CI at the team level is high, compared to when it is low. Method Participants and Procedure

We selected 580 scientific research teams that were funded by the China Ministry of Education from 2004 to 2011 as the sample population. Using random sampling we then selected 342 scientific research teams from 32 provinces. After 11 teams were removed because of low agreement on some constructs (see aggregation results), our final sample comprised 296 teammates from 127 teams (response rate = 40.35%). Team sizes ranging from 5 to 142 members, with 85.6% of teams having fewer than 30 people. More than 97% of


521

the participants held graduate college degrees. Participants had worked for their team for between 1 and 20 years. In each team the team leader and between one and four of its members were asked to complete questionnaires electronically via email or on paper via physical mail. Questionnaires for members and leaders were coded to ensure that responses could be matched. The survey was conducted between September 2012 and February 2013. Measures

Questionnaires for team leaders and members contained measures (see below) of KI, TIP, OC, and CI. We administered surveys in Chinese, but items from some scales were translated from English (i.e., POS, CI, and OC). We translated these items using a standard translation-backtranslation procedure. Dependent Variable TIP. In this study we examined subjective and objective performance to

measure TIP using the instrument developed by Jin and Sun (2010). Participants were asked to respond to 12 items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented to test the factorial validity. The Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales of subjective and objective performance were .83 and .90, respectively. Independent Variable POS. POS was measured using Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro’s

(1990) Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. The scale consists of eight items with scale anchors of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. It is used to assess workers’ evaluations of organizational issues that affect their well-being. Following the recommendations of Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), we used content analysis to ensure that the items encompassed the various facets of the definition of well-being. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .97. Mediating Variable KI. Lin and Wu (2005) developed a nine-item scale covering three dimensions,

used to measure KI. Jin and Sun (2010) found that only two of the three dimensions of KI achieved an acceptable level of fit. Thus, we adopted the two-factor scales with responses rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales of socialization and coordination capabilities, respectively, were .89 and .68. Moderating Variables OC. OC was measured using the Organizational Context Scale (OCS; Kline,

1999). This tool reflects the common variables corresponding to organizational

522


support systems and reward systems. Responses to the OCS are scored on a 5-point scale (1 = completely disagree and 5 = completely agree). The OCS was developed in the West, so we first had to determine whether or not the OCS was suitable for use in research with scientific research teams in China. We pretested the OCS with 47 members from 12 teams before conducting a large-scale survey. Principal components factor analysis (PCA)was conducted and the scree plot suggested a one-factor solution, accounting for 54.39% of the variance, with all the items loading strongly on the factor (> .60). The Cronbach’s alpha for the OCS at the individual level (n = 47) was .81. Therefore, we determined that the seven items of the OCS were appropriate for use in a Chinese context and established the instrument’s content validity. CI. We measured CI using a 6-item scale developed by Charbonnier-Voirin et al. (2010). A 5-point rating scale was used, with response options ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (definitely like this). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88. Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Using LISREL we performed a CFA to examine the dimensionality of constructs. Due to the small size of the final sample (N = 127), we created three-item parcels (i.e., indicators) per construct and randomly assigned items to indicators within constructs (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). Hypothesized model 1, containing three factors (KI, OC, and TIP) yielded a good fit as calculated by comparative fit index (CFI), nonnormed fit index (NNFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (2 (111) = 162.5, p < .01, CFI = .93, NNFI = .95, RMSEA = .065). Results for hypothesized model 2, containing three factors (KI, CI, and TIP) also yielded a good fit (2 (105), p < .01, CFI = .95, NNFI = .95, RMSEA = .043). These results support the discriminant validity of the measures of the variables in this study. Aggregation Results

Because we focused on the team level, but the data were collected on the individual level, we checked the appropriateness of aggregating individual responses to the team level. We examined interrater reliability coefficients (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[1]), and reliability of the mean (ICC[2]) for seven variables. The results show that rwg values were between .65 and 1. We deleted 11 teams’ data because the rwg values were less than the conventional threshold of .70 (James et al., 1993). For the remaining 127 teams, ICC[1] values ranged between .18 and .25, which is sufficiently close to, or above, the ideal of .20. The ICC[2] values ranged between .55 and .74, above the ideal of .47. Finally, we converted the individual data into the team level for the 127 scientific research teams.

523


Descriptive Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables at the team level are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables at the Team Level Variable 1. Perceived organizational support 2. Socialization capabilities 3. Coordination capabilities 4. Subjective performance 5. Objective performance 6. Organizational context 7. Climate for innovation

M

SD

1

2

3.68 4.10 3.99 3.49 3.94 3.81 3.48

.72 .57 .74 .63 .44 .31 .52

(.96) .12 .29* .32** .41* .39* .52*

(.89) .44** .14 .42** .19* .25

3

4

5

(.68) -.05 (.83) .19 .41** (.90) .17* .16* .08 .18** .23* .27**

6

7

(.81) .12

(.84)

Note. N = 127. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Alpha coefficients are reported in parentheses on the diagonal.

Hypothesis Testing

To examine Hypotheses 1 and 2, we followed the three-step procedure devised by Baron and Kenny (1986), that is, regressing the mediator on the independent variable, regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable, and, finally, regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator. The results of hierarchical multiple regression indicated that the relationship between team-level POS and TIP was significant and positive (see Models 6 and 14 in Table 2), which supports Hypotheses 1 and 2. To detect the moderator effects described in Hypotheses 3 and 4, we followed the moderated multiple regression model devised by Aiken and West (1991). In Table 2, Models 5 and 11 show the effects of the control variables on TIP; in Models 7 and 12, the equations account for the main predictor (i.e., KI) in addition to the control variables; Models 9, 11, 17, and 19 present the main effects of the moderating variables; and Models 10, 12, 18, and 20 involve the interaction terms used for testing the moderation effects of OC and CI, respectively. The results show that the interaction effect between OC and KI was positively associated with TIP. The results also indicate that CI was both positively associated with TIP and significantly enhanced the positive effect that KI had on TIP. Hence, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported. Following Aiken and West’s (1991) approach, we plotted the interaction forms to interpret significant moderated relationships. Figure 1 depicts the interaction plot for the moderating roles of OC and CI.

M1

M2

1.97*

.32

.33*

.07 .09

M4

3.81*

.14

.08 .10

M3

.26

.41**

.10 .07

M6

.29

.42* .09

.08 .04

M7

.42

.11 .41† .06

.07 .02

M8 .04 .02

M10

.34

.32*

.38

.36** -.24†

.47** .35*

.06 .04

M9 .04 .02

.51

.35** .17† -.33* .43

Objective performance

.10

.16† .09

.29

.33**

.14 .08

.47

.14 .46*

.12 .06

.50

.07 .08 .42*

.11 .02

.16

.35* .21†

.12 .04

.21

-.23†

.37* .26†

.12 .03

.11 .03

.34

.13†

-.05† .34

.15†

.55** .53**

.12 .04

M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20

.46** .52**

.06 .04

M11

Team innovative performance

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01; SC = socialization capabilities; CC = coordination capabilities; OC =

2.21† 2.67* 3.52* 6.18* 3.97** 4.68** 5.51* 6.83** 2.93* 3.52* 6.81* 9.58* 2.99* 3.43* 4.70** 4.40**

.07

.11 .07

M5

Subjective performance

Note. All coefficients are standardized. N = 127; † p < .10; organizational context; CI = climate for innovation.

F

Controls Team size .07 .07 Team age .08 .08 Independent variables POS .03 SC CC OC SC × OC CC × OC CI SC × CI CC × CI R2 .10 .26

Model

Knowledge integration SC CC

Table 2. Results of Hypothesis Testing

524 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Team subjective performance

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

0

0

1

1

2 3 4 Socialization capabilities

High Organizational Context Low Organizational Context


Figure 1. The moderating effects of OC and CI.

Team objective performance

5

5

6

6

Team subjective performance Team objective performance

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

0

1

1

2 3 4 Co-ordination capabilities

High Climate of Innovation Low Climate of Innovation


5

5

6

6


525

526


Discussion In this study we investigated the mediating effects of KI and the moderating effects of CI and OC, on the relationship between POS and TIP at the team level. Our findings provide several theoretical and empirical contributions to team management and innovation management theory. First, we examined the consequence of POS at the team level from the perspective of knowledge management. In previous studies, some consequences of POS, such as organizational commitment, job-related affect, and job involvement, were examined (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), but these consequences are not specific. Based on the attributes of knowledge intensive scientific research teams, we examined the consequences of POS from the perspective of knowledge management, factoring in team KI behavior as the mediating variable in the relationship between POS and TIP. We believe that our result will help management to explain the general rules and regulations of their organization and enhance the management effectiveness of scientific research teams. Second, consistent with our hypotheses, the analysis shows that the positive relationship between KI and TIP is more obvious when CI is high than when CI is low. This finding further suggests the importance of building up an atmosphere of aspiration, openness, tolerance, and acceptance of differences (e.g., in relation to cultural backgrounds) within universities. Third, our research results show that OC variables moderated the relationship between team KI behavior and TIP. This result indicates that OC should not be overlooked. Organizational regulations, reward systems, and other incentives should be changed as appropriate, and organization managers should update regulations according to the requirements. This finding further supports the need for additional cross-level integration investigation into organizational behavior (Mathieu et al., 2013; Mathieu & Taylor, 2007). Although meaningful results have been obtained, a few weaknesses in this study need to be addressed in the future. First, the two moderator variables in our model are correlated to some degree. Although this could not have influenced our results in this study, we will distinguish the content and dimension of these two variables in future studies. Second, we developed a new measure of TIP. Although our initial investigations indicate that the psychometrics of these measures are reasonably good (i.e., dimensionality and internal consistency) and that the measure of TIP is cross-validated, further efforts into validating our measure are warranted. Finally, our analysis was based on cross-sectional data and causality may not have been ascertained. To obtain stronger evidence for causality, a longitudinal design could be utilized in future research.


527

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 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. http://doi.org/ d6zp45 Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571-582. http://doi.org/ crgfbq Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. http://doi.org/cwx Charbonnier-Voirin, A., El Akremi, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Group & Organization Management, 35, 699-726. http://doi.org/dspbkg Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290. http://doi.org/fmt4kg Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1005-1023. http://doi.org/b239sv Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59. http://doi.org/czvmhc Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. http://doi.org/bmzkg6 Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 71-114. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. http://doi.org/cs7qd7 Jin, L., & Sun, H. (2010). The effect of researchers’ interdisciplinary characteristics on team innovation performance: Evidence from university R&D teams in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2488-2502. http://doi.org/fh9d7b Kline T. (1999). Remaking teams: The evolutionary research-based guide that puts theory into practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186-207. http:// doi.org/b626q7 Leung, K., Chen, Z., Zhou, F., & Lim, K. (2012). The role of relational orientation as measured by face and renqing in innovative behavior in China: An indigenous analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-22. http://doi.org/fzvbn6 Lin, W., & Wu, W. (2005). A study of the influence of knowledge integration and operation features on core competence with the perspective of organization learning. NTU Management Review, 15, 165-197.

528


Mathieu J. E., Tannenbaum S. I., Donsbach J. S., & Alliger G. M. (2013). A review and integration of team composition models moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1-31. http://doi.org/q2q Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 141-172. http://doi.org/ cdmv7s Miao, R. T. (2011). Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior in China. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12, 105-127. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106. http://doi.org/fskmk5 Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. http://doi.org/cdh8c7 Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1027-1030. http://doi.org/bx5bxm Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34, 707-739. http://doi.org/dfnbns Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19-39. http://doi.org/cc4gr9 Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-55. http://doi.org/brbbrt Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28, 74-92. http://doi.org/rnm Wei, L.-Q., Liu, J., & Herndon, N. C. (2011). SHRM and product innovation: Testing the moderating effects of organizational culture and structure in Chinese firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 19-33. http://doi.org/cps5fk Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321. http://doi.org/b3gtsw Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 501-518. http://doi.org/chk7q5