Paths to Team Success: A Configurational Analysis of Team Effectiveness

References

• Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 369–411). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204666
   Google Scholar
• Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research & Practice, 9(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403256011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudin, G., & Savoie, A. (1995). L'efficacité des équipes de travail: définition, composantes et mesures. Revue Québequoise de Psychologie, 16(1), 185–201.
   Google Scholar
• Behfar, K. J., Friedman, R., & Oh, S. H. (2016). Impact of team (dis) satisfaction and psychological safety on performance evaluation biases. Small Group Research, 47(1), 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415616865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Boak, G. (2014). Team learning and service improvements in health care. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 20(5/6), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-04-2013-0010
   Google Scholar
• Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta–analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151–1177. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, C., Pearson, C., & Entrekin, L. (2003). Examining the effects of internal and external team learning on team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 9(7/8), 174–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590310507426
   Google Scholar
• 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(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903272083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000654
   Google Scholar
• Curşeu, P. L., Boroş, S., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Posthuma, R. (2012). Task and relationship conflict in short‐term and long‐term groups. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211199331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van Den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wit, F. R. C., Scheepers, D., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). Cardiovascular reactivity and resistance to opposing viewpoints during intragroup conflict. Psychophysiology, 49(11), 1691–1699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01456.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimas, I. D., & Lourenço, P. R. (2015). Intragroup conflict and conflict management approaches as determinants of team performance and satisfaction: Two field studies. Negotiation & Conflict Management Research, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12054
   Google Scholar
• Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmondson, A. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 255–275). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Edmondson, A. (2018). The fearless organization: creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Edmondson, A., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
   Google Scholar
• Erdem, F., & Özen-Aytemur, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 9(5/6), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590310493846
   Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2021). Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 778–799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel, A. S., Campbell, J. T., Djurdjevic, E., Johnson, R. E., & Rosen, C. C. (2018). Fuzzy profiles: Comparing and contrasting latent profile analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis for Person-centered research. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 877–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117752466
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes, A. D. (1983). Novas formas de organização do trabalho e seus contextos de emergência. Psicologia, 4(3/4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.17575/rpsicol.v4i3/4.888
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. F., Burke, C. S., Wildman, J. L., & Salas, E. (2009). Team effectiveness in complex organizations: An overview. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations. Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 3–16). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). The two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set-theoretic approach. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 38, 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0000038007
   Google Scholar
• Grichanik, M. (2014). The Effects of Collaborative Critical Thinking Training on Trust Development and Effectiveness in Virtual Teams. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5030
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work team. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, J., Leblanc, P., & Cronin, M. A. (2019). Beyond separate emergence: A systems view of team learning climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1967). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25005-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022744
   Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and 27 individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/259288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/259182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques-Quinteiro, P., Ramos-Villagrasa, P., Navarro, J., Passos, A. M., & Curral, L. (2021). The rough journey to success: Examining the nonlinear dynamics of processes and performance in teams. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 25(1), 69–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
   Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the journal of applied psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J., Kukenberger, M. R., D’Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion-performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038898
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social Psychology: A brief introduction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. (2018). Challenging trends in configuration research: Where are the configurations? Strategic Organization, 16(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017729315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nellen, L. C., Gijselaers, W. H., & Grohnert, T. (2020). A meta-analytic literature review on organization-level drivers of team learning. Human Resource Development Review, 19(2), 152–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319894756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. (2014). When the recipe is more important than the ingredients a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. Journal of Service Research, 17(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670513513337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas, I. O., & Woodside, A. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
   Google Scholar
• Peralta, C. F., Lourenço, P. R., Lopes, P. N., Baptista, C., & Pais, L. (2018). Team development: definition, measurement and relationships with team effectiveness. Human Performance, 31(2), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1455685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In C. C. Ragin & B. Rihoux (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 87–122). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Marques-Quinteiro, P., Navarro, J., & Rico, R. (2018). Teams as complex adaptive systems: Reviewing 17 years of research. Small Group Research, 49(2), 135–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417713849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rebelo, T., Lourenço, P. R., & Dimas, I. (2020). The journey of team learning since “The fifth discipline”. The Learning Organization, 27(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-10-2019-0144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rico, R., De la Hera, C. M. A., & Tabernero, C. (2011). Work Team Effectiveness: A review of research from the last decade (1999-2009). Psychology in Spain, 15(1), 57–79.
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35(6), 751–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Le fonctionnement interne des équipes de travail: conception et mesure. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 38(2), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/cjbs2006002
   Google Scholar
• Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(4), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006290432594
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2014). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savelsbergh, C., Heijden, B., & Poell, R. (2009). The development and empirical validation of a multidimensional measurement instrument for team learning behaviors. Small Group Research, 40(5), 578–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409340055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savoie, A., Larivière, C., & Brunet, L. (2006). Équipes de travail en milieu de santé et efficacité. Objectif Prévention, 29(1), 20–21.
   Google Scholar
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smithson, M., & Verkuilen, J. (2006). Fuzzy set theory: Applications in the social sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984300
   Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres, P., Augusto, M., & Godinho, P. (2017). Predicting high consumer-brand identification and high repurchase: Necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Business Research, 79, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres, P., & Godinho, P. (2022). Levels of necessity of entrepreneurial ecosystems elements. Small Business Economics, 59(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00515-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasileiadou, E. (2012). Research teams as complex systems: Implications for knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams: A longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 39(6), 746–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408323569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wergin, V. V., Zimanyi, Z., Mesagno, C., & Beckmann, J. (2018). When suddenly nothing works anymore within a team – Causes of collective sport team collapse. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiese, C. W., Burke, C. S., Tang, Y., Hernandez, C., & Howell, R. Team learning behaviors and performance: A meta-Analysis of direct effects and moderators. (2021). Group & Organization Management, 47(3), 571–611. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211016928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodside, A. G. (2017). The complexity turn: Cultural, management, and marketing applications. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Woodside, A. G., Bernal, P. M., & Coduras, A. (2016). The general theory of culture, entrepreneurship, innovation, and quality-of-life: Comparing nurturing versus thwarting enterprise start-ups in BRIC, Denmark, Germany, and the United States. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, K., Sauer, S. J., & Mannix, E. A. (2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar