Metaphors and Meaning: An Intercultural Analysis of the Concept of Teamwork

Author(s): Cristina B. Gibson and Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn

Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 274-303
Published by: Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2667088 .
Accessed: 10/01/2011 06:37

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
Meaning:An
Analysis of
Intercultural
the Concept of
Teamwork
Cristina B. Gibson
University of Southern
California
Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn
University of Minnesota
? 2001 by Cornell University.
0001-8392/01/4602-0274/$3.00.
0 this paper,we attempt to fill this gap by exploringthe under-
This research was made possible with
funding provided by the National Science
Foundation Grant #SBR 96-31748,
Carnegie Bosch Institute for Applied Inter-
national Management Research, and the
University of Wisconsin Initiative for
World Affairs and the Global Economy.
The researchers would like to acknowl-
edge the time and effort extended by all
of the respondents in this research
together with their associated staff. Spe-
cial thanks to Raoul Zapata in Puerto Rico,
Joylie Agustin and Ricardo Lim at the
Asian Institute of Management in the
Philippines, and Michael Segalla at
L'Ecole Hautes Etudes Commercials in
France. We would like to express our
appreciation for the administrative sup-
port, translations, and transcriptions pro-
vided by Paula Bassoff, Ryan Billingham,
Peter Bruhn, Florence Brunell, Joan
Donovan, Steve Gibson, KerryJung, Fran-
cisco Lloveras, Alice Mark, Rachel Ritter-
bausch, David Robinson, Patty Trinidad,
Carol Troyer-Shank,and Richard Zapata.
Finally,we gratefully acknowledge com-
ments provided on earlier drafts of this
paper by Vikas Anand, Michele Ghertman,
Pam Haunschild, Karen Jehn, Brad Kirk-
man, George Marcoulides, Anne Miner,
Craig Olson, Joseph Porac, Freek Ver-
meulen, Sri Zaheer, and three anonymous
reviewers at ASQ.
This paper develops a conceptual framework to explain
different understandings of the concept of teamwork
across national and organizational cultures. Five different
metaphors for teamwork (military,sports, community,
family, and associates) were derived from the language
team members used during interviews in four different
geographic locations of six multinational corporations.
Results indicated that use of the teamwork metaphors
varies across countries and organizations, after control-
ling for gender, team function, and total words in an
interview. Analyses of specific relationships between
national cultural values and categories of metaphor use
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
on teams lacks a comprehensive frameworkfor understand-
ing why these differences occur (Earleyand Gibson, 2001). In
lyingdifferences in the definitionof teamworkthat people
hold, represented by the metaphorsthey use to describe
their teams. Verifyingthat nationaland organizationalcultures
are sources of variancein conceptualizationsof teamwork
has the potentialto provideinsight into the differences in
preferredpracticesthat have been noted across culturalcon-
texts in other empiricalresearch and challenges scholars to
buildspecific theories of teamwork that incorporatethese dif-
ferences.
Even if the specific content of teamwork conceptualizations
varies across cultures, at a general level, most definitionsare
likelyto includewhat a team does (activityscope), who is on
the team (roles)and why (natureof membership),and why
the team exists (objectives)(e.g., see reviews of team defini-
tions in Cohen and Bailey,1997; Sundstromet al., 1999). For
example, when some people thinkof a team, they picturea
projectteam whose activityis limitedto the time during
which members work on the project,whereas others may
picturea team more like a familywhose activityis broadand
extends across a numberof domains in life (McGrath,1984).
Likewise, some concepts of teamwork may includeclearly
differentiatedroles, such as leaders and members, whereas
others may be less structured(Cohenand Bailey,1997).
When some people thinkabout teamwork they picturevolun-
274/Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (2001): 274-303
Metaphors and Meaning

tary membership,whereas for others membership is not nec-

essarily a matterof choice (Bar-Tal,
1990). Finally,some peo-
ple define teamwork by clear outcomes; others have argued
that multiple,sometimes implicitbenefits can be derived
(McGrath,1984).
Previousempiricaldemonstrationsof differences in team
processes and practices across cultures may be due to these
differentmental pictures (or definitions).Aymanand
Chemers (1983) found that sensitivityto group norms was a
more importantelement of leader behaviorin Iranand Mexi-
co than in the U.S. This may be true because team members
in Iranand Mexico had a conception of teamworkthat includ-
ed clear leader roles, while team members in the U.S. may
have had a less role-orientedconception and thus expected
the leader to pay less attentionto role-relatedelements such
as norms. Ina similarvein, Pillaiand Meindl(1998) demon-
strated that charismaticgroup leadershipis more prevalentin
collectivistic(e.g., group-oriented)cultures. This could be due
to a conception of a team as a broad,encompassing entity
that exists for multiplebenefits. Members that have these
team conceptions might be more responsive to charismatic
leadershipthat emphasizes vision and emotion. In contrast,
less collectivisticteam members may hold a task-focused
conception of teams and thus be less receptive to non-task-
oriented leader behavior.Similarly,anotherstream of
research has demonstratedthat teams high in collectivism
behave more cooperativelythan individualisticteams (Cox,
Lobel,and McLeod, 1991) and that collectivisticgroups have
fewer conflicts, more cooperatingtactics, and less competi-
tive tactics than individualisticteams (Oetzel, 1998). This may
be because of the individualistictendency to have an underly-
ing definitionof a team as a task-orientedentity,focused on
a specific activity,with formalroles and deliverables.When
teams are defined as such, team members are likelyto be
highlyconcerned with performanceand behave so as to max-
imize the accomplishmentof specific objectives.
Differentunderlyingdefinitionsof teams may help explain
findingson teams not fullyaccounted for in the past. For
example, collectivism has been positivelyassociated with
self-efficacy for teamwork (Ebyand Dobbins, 1997) and peo-
ple's receptivityto teams and team-based rewards (Kirkman
and Shapiro,2001). It may be that collectivists have a con-
cept of teamwork that is broaderand less task-focused than
that of individualists,one that assumes social motivationsfor
membership.This concept is similarto naturallyoccurring
groups in society, and thus, teams may come as second
naturefor the collectivists, while they represent a majorshift
in focus and process for individualists.If this is true, one
would expect differences in the ease with which teams are
implemented and accepted. Althoughwe do not test the
impact of these differentmental pictures (ordefinitions)of
teamwork in this study, we offer an initialattempt at identify-
ing them and sources of variancein them by examiningthe
metaphorsthat members use to describe their teams and
showing how these metaphors are based on nationaland
organizationalculture.
275/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphorsallow us to understandabstractsubject matter in
terms of more concrete, familiarterms. In a technical sense,
metaphorsare "mappingsacross conceptual domains"
(Lakoff,1993: 245), and metaphoris evoked whenever a pat-
tern of inferences from one conceptual domain is used in
another domain. Inthis way, metaphorsare a key mechanism
throughwhich we comprehend abstractconcepts and per-
form abstract reasoning. Ourbehaviorreflects our metaphori-
cal understandingof experience. The importanceof metaphor
for understandingexperience is evident in the metaphors
embedded in the following comments we heard in studying
U.S. teams: "Amongthe sales people on our team, Jack is
the star quarterback";and "Ourteam leader acts more like a
coach than a referee." One can understandthese statements
to the extent that one identifieswith the metaphor "Work-
team-as-sports-team,"which involves understandingone (tar-
get) domainof experience (workteams) in terms of a very
different(source)domainof experience (sports teams). There
are ontologicalcorrespondences between entities in the
domainof a sports team (the coach, the players,the players'
positions, the team's field position,the score, etc.) and enti-
ties in the domainof work teams (e.g., the leader,the team
members, their roles, their progress, their objectives). It is via
such mappingsthat an individualin the U.S. is likelyto pro-
ject sports-domaininferences (e.g., expectations about
sports teams) onto the work-teamdomain (Lakoff,1993:
245).
Furthermore,the metaphoris a source of cognitive primingin
that it bringsforth semantic, behavioral,and affective
responses (Blairand Banaji,1996) that are characteristicof
the source domain. Examplesof this phenomenon are evi-
dent in stories in the U.S. popularpress. At EastmanChemi-
cal, leaders are called "coaches," and their main role is to
help teams set performancegoals, assist teams in resolving
personnel problems, and manage upsets and emergencies.
At Wilson Corporation,duringthe annualrewardsand recog-
nitiondinner,gold, silver,and bronze achievement medals are
awardedto winningteams based on process improvements.
At Sabre, Inc. NorthAmerica,team trainingis administered
throughthe "Tourde Teams" program,in which teams
progress along a route of programs,pass various milestones,
and receive a "yellowjersey" if they are ahead of other
teams. These practices are consistent with the work-team-
as-sports-teammetaphor.Team members are likelyto
respond to such a metaphorto the extent that they make
sense of theirwork team in terms of a sports team.
At the same time, metaphorsfor teamwork serve as cogni-
tive reference points for team members. They are similarto
internalizedbehavioralroutines, or scripts, and the mental
models that team members hold about team structureand
process (Cannon-Bowers,Salas, and Converse, 1993;
Orasanuand Salas, 1993). They aid members in predicting
the behavioror needs of other members and providea struc-
ture for workingtogether as a team. In particular,given their
etic nature,it is likelythat teamwork metaphors contain
essential informationabout expectations regardingscope,
roles, membership,and objectives. Forexample, the work-
276/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphors and Meaning

team-as-sports-teammetaphorconveys such expectations.

Sports teams tend to have a narrowscope, with activitylimit-
ed to the time duringwhich players practiceand compete
(andan occasional social event). Sports teams typicallyhave
fairlyclear roles and little hierarchy,and membership is highly
voluntary.Finally,objectives are specific, with clear conse-
quences (win or lose). People who describe their work team
with a sports metaphorare likelyto hold these expectations.
This implies that understandingthe use of a given metaphor
hinges on clarifyingthe expectations about scope, roles,
membership,and objectives that the metaphorrepresents
and identifyingthe context in which such expectations are
likelyto be held. Forexample, why might people hold expec-
tations about their work team that are similarto those
embedded in the sports-team metaphor,in which scope is
limited,hierarchyis minimal,membership is voluntary,and
objectives are clear and consequential?To answer this, we
must integrate linguisticsand cross-culturalpsychology to
make specific predictionsabout sources of variationin
metaphors.
VARIATION IN TEAMWORKMETAPHORS
Over the course of our lives, the requirementsfor spoken
communicationfoster selectivity in metaphors,forcing us
more frequentlyto use metaphors that have culturalcurren-
cy, so that their meaning will be intersubjectivelyshared with
those to whom we talk, and they will hence be useful in clari-
fying our point (Quinn,1997). Some experiences may be
widely shared by members of a nationalculture,while other
experiences may be limitedto members of a restricted
group, such as members of an organizationalculture.
National Culture
Individualsbringcultures of originto work (Brannen,1994)
that reflect their particularongoing histories in variouscultural
contexts, such as nationalcultures. Cross-culturalresearch
has established that nationalcultureexplains between 25 and
50 percent of variationin attitudes (see Gannonet al., 1994,
for a review) and is also relatedto social behaviorssuch as
aggression, conflict resolution,social distance, helping,domi-
nance, conformity,and obedience (see Triandis,1994, for a
review), as well as decision-makingand leadershipbehaviors
(Hofstede, 1980; Schneiderand De Meyer, 1991; Shane,
1994). In cognitive terms, nationalcultureis viewed as a set
of shared meanings transmittedby a set of mental programs
that controlresponses in a given context (Hofstede, 1980;
Shweder and LeVine,1984). The basic thesis of a cognitive
approachto cultureis that processing frameworksacquired
in one culturepersist and influence behavioreven though
contextual circumstances change. Inthis manner,culture
guides our choices, commitments, and standardsof behavior
(Erezand Earley,1993). Team collaborationrequiresinforma-
tion exchange and collective informationprocessing (Gibson,
2001) and is therefore richin cognitive content; however,
since culturalcontexts aroundthe globe are infused with very
differentcognitive frameworks,teamwork metaphorsare
likelyto varyacross nationalcultures. Based on this theory,
we propose the followinggeneral hypothesis:
277/ASQ, June 2001
H1:The use of a given metaphorfor teamworkis likelyto vary
across nations.
Contemporarycross-culturaltheorists argue that it is not
enough to observe that behaviorsdifferacross nationalcul-
tures, we must be able to understandhow and why they dif-
fer (e.g., Earleyand Singh, 1995). Cross-culturalresearchers
commonly argue that most culturaldifferences are due to
variationsin culturalvalues. Althoughvariationswithin coun-
tries do exist, people withina given countryoften share com-
mon values, and these values can be used to distinguishone
country'sculturefrom another (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Shwed-
er and LeVine,1984; Triandis,1989). Althoughthere are
numerous culturalframeworks(see Erezand Earley,1993,
for a review), the two key culturalvalues that have received
the most attention in the organizationalliteratureand are the
most likelyto influenceteamwork are power distance and
individualism.Power distance is the degree to which mem-
bers of a cultureaccept and expect that power in society is
unequallydistributed(Hofstede, 1980). Cultureslow in power
distance minimizeinequalities,favor less autocraticleader-
ship, and favor less centralizationof authority.Cultureshigh
in power distance are characterizedby a greater acceptance
of inequalitiesand preference for authoritarianism.Power dis-
tance is likelyto influence people's expectations about roles
in teams. Specifically,in high power-distancecultures, team
members are likelyto use teamwork metaphors containing
clear informationabout hierarchicalrole relationships.The fol-
lowing hypothesis captures this argument:
H2:The higherthe power distance, the more likelyit is that team-
work metaphorswith clear roles will be used.
A second importantelement of nationalculturefor teamwork
is the value of individualism,defined as the degree of social
connectedness among individuals(see Hofstede, 1980; Ear-
ley and Gibson, 1998, for reviews). Ina highlyindividualistic
society there are weak connections among individuals,the
self-concept is defined in terms of the individualor traits,and
personal identityis derivedfrom individualachievement. In
contrast, in less individualistic(i.e., collectivistic)societies,
there are many and variedstrong connections among people,
self-concept is defined with reference to a societal and cul-
turalcontext, and personal identityis derivedthroughthe in-
group and its successes (Earleyand Gibson, 1998). Further-
more, those high in individualismtend to view group
membershipas task-specificand transitory,whereas those
low in individualismview group membershipas more long
term, permanent,and far reaching.When individualismis
low, work group membership is highlyintegratedinto a per-
son's life. Forinstance, workers with extremely low individu-
alism in Asia tend to eat evening meals together as a team
and will often vacationtogether as an extension of their life
within an organization(Earleyand Gibson, 1998). Thus, in
highlyindividualisticcultures team members should be less
likelyto use metaphors involvingbroadactivityscope:
H3: Individualism decreases the likelihoodthat teamwork metaphors
that are broadin scope will be used.
278/ASQ, June 2001
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:

H5:An organizationalemphasis on performanceincreases the likeli-

hood that teamwork metaphorsimplyingclear outcomes will be
used.
The second dimension, rewards, captures the degree to
which an organizationemphasizes inducements to participate
and perform,includingremuneration,bonus, compensation,
and salary(Kabanoffand Holt, 1996). Kabanoff,Waldersee,
and Cohen (1995) found differentlevels of emphasis on
rewards across the organizationsin their sample, and an
emphasis on rewardswas relatedto the tendency to view
change as positive. In organizationsthat emphasize rewards,
team members are likelyto use metaphorsthat implymem-
bershipas induced by rewards ratherthan voluntarymember-
ship. The following hypothesis captures this idea:
H6:An organizationalemphasis on rewardsdecreases the likelihood
that teamworkmetaphors implyingvoluntarymembershipwill be
used.
A separate stream of research has identifieddifferences in
practices across organizations.Hofstede et al. (1990) identi-
fied six fundamentalpractices in organizations:results orien-
tation, degree of control,employee orientation,degree of
professionalism,openness of systems, and normativeorien-
tation. Professionalismoverlaps conceptuallywith power dis-
tance, and openness is similarto collectivism. Furthermore,
results orientationand normativeorientationare conceptually
similarto Kabanoff'sperformanceorientation.In lightof this,
we focused on two dimensions-degree of controland
employee orientation-that are clearlydistinctfrom national
culturalcharacteristics,distinctfrom Kabanoff'stwo dimen-
sions described above, and the most clearlyrelatedto con-
ceptualizationsof teamwork. Degree of controlcaptures the
extent to which people take organizationalmembershipseri-
ously and with reverence, the degree to which members of
an organizationare expected to follow rules and procedures,
the extent to which punctualityis emphasized, and the
degree to which the organizationis cost-conscious (Hofstede
et al., 1990). These practices should be relatedto concepts
of teamworkthat containclear role information.Thus, we
hypothesize:
280/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphors and Meaning

H7:An organizationalemphasis on tight controlincreases the likeli-

hood that teamworkmetaphorswith clear roles will be used.
Employee orientationconcerns the degree to which the orga-
nizationdecentralizesdecision making,focuses on the
employees as people, and shows concern for people beyond
simply the organizationalroles they play or the specific jobs
they hold (Hofstede et al., 1990). In organizationswith high
employee orientation,members should use teamwork
metaphorsthat emphasize involvementbeyond a limitedrole:
H8:The greaterthe organization'semphasis on employee orienta-
tion, the likelierit is that teamwork metaphorsthat are broadin
scope will be used.
METHODS
Sample and Interview Procedures
Givenour hypotheses about nationalculturalvalues, we
selected the nationalcontexts for our research-Puerto Rico,
the Philippines,France,and the U.S.-to maximizediffer-
ences on power distance and individualism(Erezand Earley,
1993; Earleyand Gibson, 1998). Previousresearch (Hofstede,
1980; Erezand Earley,1993) indicatesthat Puerto Rico is
high on power distance and very low on individualism,with
strong familialties, extended family,common values, and a
recognitionof tradition.The Philippinesis also high on power
distance and low on individualism,but the key affiliationis to
one's entire village or barrio,and social ties are often region-
al. Filipinosare also more formal,emphasizingrespect for
elders and authorityfigures. The Frenchare unique in that
they are more individualisticthan workers in Latinor Asian
countries, focusing on individualachievement, but, like Puer-
to Ricansor Filipinos,they are high on power distance and
have a strong sense of hierarchyand adherence to the chain
of command. Finally,althoughthe U.S. comprises many sub-
cultures, the dominantvalues are individualismand egalitari-
anism, with a strong tendency to circumventhierarchyand
tradition.Althougha long historyof research supports these
differences, we conducted analyses to verifythem in our
sample, as described below.
We used four guidelines to select the organizations:(1) to
controlfor industry-relatedeffects, they all are in the same
general industry;(2) they have facilities in each of our four
countrysettings; (3) they exhibitextensive use of teams; and
(4) they illustratedifferences on the organizationalculture
dimensions we identifiedin our hypotheses. We selected the
pharmaceuticaland medical products industryand used the
CorporateFamiliesand InternationalAffiliatesDirectoryto
identifyspecific organizationsand their countries of opera-
tion. Ten organizationsoperated in all four of our countryset-
tings. We contacted each organization,provideda brief intro-
ductionto the research, and screened for their use of teams.
Onlysix of the ten organizationsused a varietyof team
types, includingmanagement teams, human resource project
teams, marketingteams, sales and service deliveryteams,
productionteams, and finance teams. As demonstrated in
the descriptionstaken from the popularpress and summa-
rized in table 1, these six organizationsalso variedin terms of
281/ASQ, June 2001
 4--CD-O Wl 0

~~~-~ ~ ~ -

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

CD> *CD 0E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~a > 4

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

282/ASQ, June 2001

Metaphors and Meaning

performanceand rewardorientationsand in terms of tight

controland employee focus. We conducted an additional
analysis, described below, however, to verifythat this was
the case in our sample. Organizationsare disguised with
pseudonyms throughoutthe paper.
We contacted human resource professionals in each organi-
zation and asked for assistance in identifyingindividualsfrom
a varietyof team functions, levels in the organization,and
both high-and low-performingteams. We traveledto each
nationand conducted in-depthpersonal interviews with one
to five members in each team, ultimatelytotaling 107 individ-
uals representing52 teams, with 44 interviewees in the U.S.,
16 in France,23 in Puerto Rico, and 24 in the Philippines.A
total of 30 interviews were conducted at Photoco, 6 at
Chemco, 32 at Biomedco, 13 at Pharmco,8 at Healthco,and
18 at Medco. Rankrangedfrom hourlyemployees to general
managers. About halfwere women, and respondents' aver-
age age was 36 years; there were no significantdifferences
in age, gender, or rankacross nations or organizations.Teams
were homogeneous in terms of organizationand nationality.
We asked general questions about teamwork and examined
the interviewtexts for the languagethat our subjects natural-
ly used in the process of answering our questions. As a
result, the data can be considered more "natural"than
evoked (Kabanoff,1997). Evokeddata have a direct source
and result from transparentquestioning,while, with natural
data, the interviewees have no way of knowing how the text
data will be used. Interviewswere conducted in the native
language of the interviewees, with the assistance of a team
of bilingualinterviewers.The interviewquestions are provid-
ed in the Appendix.
Analysis
Ouranalyses had four objectives. First,we used computer-
assisted text analysis to identifymetaphoricallanguage used
by our interviewees to describe teamwork We used this
informationto create dependent variablesfor our statistical
tests. Second, we ensured that the countries dnd organiza-
tions represented in our interviewsample differedempirically
as expected in terms of nationalcultureand organizational
culture.Third,we developed a quantitativedatabase from our
interviews. Finally,we conducted statisticalanalyses to test
our hypotheses.
Ourtext analyses follow recommendationsof Strauss and
Corbin(1990), Gephartand his colleagues (Gephart,1993;
Wolfe, Gephart,and Johnson, 1993), and Kabanoff(1997).
Interviewswere tape recordedand transcribedby profession-
al transcriptionistswho were native speakers in the lan-
guages used in the study. As they transcribed,they translat-
ed the interviews into English.Any words that were not
readilytranslatedwere retainedin the native language. This
resulted in a text database consisting of over 1,000 pages of
single-spaced text. We used two content analysis pro-
grams-QSR*NUDIST (QualitativeSolutions and Research,
1997) and TACT(Bradley,1989; Popping,1997)-allowing us
to examine large amounts of text efficientlyand compare
texts from various interviews. We coded interviewees' gen-
283/ASQ, June 2001
der, team function,organization,and nation,creatinga special
text data file that contained informationabout the position
and structureof each of the 266,905 words in the database.
Next, we conducted qualitativeanalysis to identifyteamwork
metaphors, delineate examples of metaphoricallanguage
used to describe teamwork, and to develop dependent vari-
ables for hypothesis testing.
Identifyingteamwork metaphors. Forany qualitativeanaly-
sis, a key challenge is to develop a word list to capturethe
constructsof interest (Gephartand Wolfe, 1989; Gephart,
1993; Jehn and Doucet, 1997). Thus, our firststep in identify-
ing teamworkmetaphorswas to develop a list of words that
capturehow people conceptualizeteamwork.Ifthere is ade-
quate theoreticalbackground,such a list may be derivedfrom
previousresearch,extant scales, dictionarylists, and thesaurus
lists. We did not use these methods for the teamwork
metaphorsfor two reasons. First,littleextant researchexists
concerningteamworkmetaphors.Second, and more impor-
tantly,our sample was multicultural, and our researchquestion
was whether such metaphorsvaryacross cultures.Developing
word lists from U.S.-basedtheories, dictionaries,and the-
sauruses would be questionable,since these sources may
miss culturallyembedded terms and applyalternativeor inap-
propriatemeanings to words that were not intendedby non-
Englishspeakers. We thereforeused a process that captured
culturalnuances in meaning,as well as words that were not
readilytranslatedinto English.First,we created an alphabetical
list of each of the 6,661 uniquewords in the interviewdata-
base. Copies of the list were given to two ratersfrom each
countryin the sample. The full list containedmanywords that
were irrelevant(e.g., "the"or "a")and many intonations(e.g.,
"um"or "aaah"),because the databasewas transcribedver-
batimfrom interviews.To remove all irrelevantterms, we
asked each of the ratersto independentlycircleany terms they
felt were entirelyirrelevantto the questions being asked in the
interview.Across all raters,1,740 words remainedand were
deemed relevant.Eliminatingspellingvariantsof the same
word root (e.g., "family"also occurredas "families")resulted
in a list containing589 words.
Next, we printedthe words onto cards and asked five raters
from each countryinvolvedin the study to sort them into
groups they felt represented metaphors for teamwork. The
raters had themselves been members of work teams in their
native countries, had some work experience together, were
similarto each other, and resembled the interviewees in
terms of demographiccharacteristics.They were told to
define "teamwork"broadlybut were not given a definitionof
teamwork. We emphasized in our instructionsthat they were
to work collectivelyas a team:
Yourjob is to read a numberof words and work together to sort
them into piles or groups, each of which represents a different
metaphorfor teamwork.We do not have prescribedgroupingsfor
you, so please create the necessary piles on your own. Please sort
the words into piles in such a way that the words that seem similar
to each other are in the same pile, words that seem dissimilarare in
differentpiles. In case of doubt, you should create more piles rather
than fewer. Youcan redistributethe words and develop a new pile
284/ASQ, June 2001
 Metaphors and Meaning

whenever necessary. When you have arrivedat your finalset of

piles, please develop a name for each pile that captures the content.
The raters worked collaboratively for eight hours to sort the
words. Our observations of the process indicated that no one
dominated the discussion. They asked each other about why
a given word was placed into a pile and described unique
ways in which a term could be used in their native culture.
Through a process of discussion, negotiation, and elimination,
the raters arrived at five piles, each of which they character-
ized by a different metaphor: family, sports, community,
associates, and military. These five metaphor piles contained
an average of 100 unique words each and included both Eng-
lish and non-English words (i.e., words that were not translat-
able into English). The raters defined the metaphors broadly
and placed words in them that they felt elaborated the
metaphor from their native-language point of view. Before
running our main analyses, however, we needed to deter-
mine if these same words were being used to describe
teamwork in the context of our interviews, a process referred
to as "in-context verification" (Gephart, 1993; Gibson, 1994).
Identifying examples of metaphorical language. To con-
duct in-context verification, we used TACT to create a sub-
text database. TACT allows the creation of search routines
with multiple words. Each of the five metaphors was defined
with the words identified by the raters as representing that
metaphor. Five search routines were created. In each search,
TACT was instructed to pull excerpts from the text database
containing each term representing the metaphor, including
five lines of text before and five lines of text after the term.
This resulted in a subtext database consisting of approxi-
mately 400 pages. We read each excerpt to determine how
each term had been used. In some cases it was very clear
that the term was not being used in conjunction with team-
work. For example, the word "depends" was used only to
denote contingency in phrases like "it depends on. ..." As a
result, we removed the word "depends" and other words
that were clearly not being used to describe teamwork.
Table 2 displays a sample of words representing each
metaphor after we screened for in-context verification. Next,
we created five "metaphor databases" containing excerpts
of text that included any word that represented a metaphor
set. Sample excerpts appear in table 3. Finally, we produced

Table2
List of Metaphors and Sample Terms Used in Frequency Analyses
Metaphors

Military Family Sport Associates Community

alliances brother baseball circle Barrio
battle clannish Basketball clannish Baya
brigades compadre championship clique Bayan
campaign familial coach cliques Bayanihan
charged families competition council buddies
congress family Football councils community
manpower family-oriented game crews fraternity
mobilize father home run entity friend
survival mother players franchise neighborhood
survive sister soccer franchises neighbors

285/ASQ, June 2001

 C U) >
o >- cu
00
?~~~~c
C I ) -
-
Cu E
C0
4- cn co~0~ U
c 0 + 0) :3 ,, co 4-uo-
>

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

20) COco0 EouOC

-CO(DC CUU
.0co00Qa)U(a co~
2t
CO
8 -C+> a) co
CU)> U 4
5 o~
E v 8.o oon
>Q~ C
g)
~~~ .-4-~~cu
a)> ~~~~~'C0.0
U)
co co C-
o
4~~~~~~-,0 C
Cu0 4. 4-
C
-
0C.0m0. cu C/E
Eo
u
0- co CO .C 0 co E o0 >- co ~ cu0-
V -a 0) 0..C -
U). 0~~~~~C 4.a)-O -3 0 c C0

.0 cU) > :3 2 Cu0

0 4 n -V .)CO C: U) co.0 U
0 co C- cn
ocu EE C~~~~~~~4-Q
>co
cu-..0>~~~~~~~~~
D-0
.0 -> m 0 C- CI
cm -o
4. C-C :~ 0 -O :C _)4 0. =
> cuo--
~~.0U)U)4~E-4-
CUa)
co
CO4 -0U)0
00
.0
000.0 o10
> 0 04
+
~~.0-
0
~-oa)
E
-C:
o
'4- C-
Co
c
CO
Cn
C
~C Eh E
co>04
U) -4-='~~~~~~~U)0E
~~~ -O 0~~a
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
-~~~~~~E
00LU))* aC
04-

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

-+Eo 9?o O CO 0 30 0U)00. 0-

+-,_00 E -C -C
co CO 0
0)C -V -V_ 4- 0 C: 0-, 0 >0

0 0E . 0 .-UCt -.- 0>- coC4-cj

>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

286/ASQ, June 2001

Metaphors and Meaning
a
.) 0) co I

~~ 0 -~~~~- a) 3~~~0 C

Ca) (D 2 ~ . 0 co -

co0 /)- C0)o - -0 a

0
- C: co~* C
N
E c 0
> - coU
E5- E 0
o
0~) * E z
o
0~ ~0~
*-4- 0 E co) c 0a
* .- a) 00 co co)
co CU co E -o c') _ 0 j>
E Eaa 0 b co acoa$Z 0-+
0 , >

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

C)- 0 CO a)> a, c~~ao

-- U) ~~~0)co E a 0 0 +
0>
a)
00-~~E0 >,EE~ 2
U)
.
~
-> U
co0 F
>0 )a, *>E z
0 0 0E0o E H'D E
a)~ 0 c
0.
C/)a, *~-U)
~~
-
co 0?
U
a)~
0o
0)
0o
-0
Ca,
>
;z))C
co
ac
0o
co0
~,a -C co
o aa)E 0a0a- ~ aC' .
aC
,O,~g+a)o O

C/) +- " fL)- Qo oc

~ ~ ~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 >

I~.E a,~U~a~aco Eo 4U 0C->~-~~,

,
0 C)O O ~co -

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

287/ASQ, June 2001

a frequency distributionindicatinghow many times a word
representingeach metaphoroccurredin the transcriptsfor
each interviewee and used these frequencies to create a
database with entries for each of the 107 interviewees. Each
recordcontainedthe numberof times each metaphorset
was used by each interviewee.
By way of illustration,one respondent in the Philippinesdrew
a hut on a piece of paperwhen asked what mental images
come to mind regardinghis team and then explained:
The hut illustratescommunity.It's called a nipa hut. Sometimes you
do requirethat the hut be moved from one locationto another.And
in the old days, nipahuts would probablybe located along the safe
side of a riverbecause there's water there, fish would be there.
Some erosion could happenand you would need to relocate the hut
to a safer ground.Inthe Philippines,you would gather your neigh-
bors, call them and you would put handles and literallyliftthe
house-in one, big haul,the house as one big piece, and move it to
a new location.And that's called the bayanihanspirit.I thinkthat
would best describe in my culture,how teams can work.
This excerpt is an example of the communitymetaphor.The
respondent utilizedthree words from the communityword
list: community,neighbors,and bayanihan(literally,a Filipino
word for team). Illustratingthe sports metaphor,a respon-
dent in the U.S. said the following in response to a question
about rewards:
I also thinkit's easy to have individualrecognitionwithinthe team
and still have a clear direction,but the team results are what's
important.We have outstandingindividualson the team. And, very
similarto a sports team, somebody needs to hit the home run;
somebody needs to stop the ball.Youknow, somebody needs to
catch'm and drag'mout. So I thinkit's a combination,but I thinkit's
very difficultto playtogether as a team now. Youknow, we have
bench playerstoo. And we need bench players.We need the peo-
ple that can get up and go fix the equipmentevery day.
Inthis excerpt, the respondent explainedthe tendency for
teams to struggle with roles and the recognitionprocess,
using several words from the sports word list. The sports
metaphorhelps to graphicallydepict the process of "backing
each other up" on a team, similarto the support providedby
bench playersto the rest of the playerson the field in a base-
ballgame. Using a differentmetaphor(the military)to
describe a related phenomenon, a respondent in the Philip-
pines stated:
I am supposed to be an active shooter in terms of assisting and lia-
soning with the people and makingsure that [the organization's]
kindsof problemsare runat sort of a management level. At the
moment it's very [prevalentin the] rankand file. We have not really
gone to the reductionof a lot of employees. So I'm helpingto do
that. Rightnow we're havingto thinkin terms of manpowerin the
trenches....
Here, the respondent illustratedwhat he viewed as the bene-
fits of a militaristicapproachto using teams, in that responsi-
bilitiesand directionare clear.A respondent in the U.S.
expressed a contrastingexpectation using the associates
metaphor:
288/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphors and Meaning

The responsibilitieswhich we ask of each team make them function

as if they were a franchiseorganization,a groupof franchiseassoci-
ates. They are given as much autonomyand freedom and empow-
erment as we possibly can, to make decisions at the local level.
Inthis excerpt, the respondent used two words from the
associates word list-franchise and associates-to convey
the practiceof allowingteams the autonomyto make their
own decisions. As yet anothercontrast, a Puerto Rican
respondent said, "Everyfamilyhas to take care of the team
work. Everyfamilyhas to work together. If we consolidate
that feeling.... A team is a family." Using the family
metaphor,this respondent capturedthe expectation that
teamwork involves elements of nurturingand support.
Constructing dependent variables. We used the results of
our text searches for the five metaphors to create the depen-
dent variablesfor our hypothesis tests. The level of analysis
for our hypothesis tests is the metaphor.Eachoccurrence of
a metaphoris considered an event, for a total of 462 occur-
rences. The metaphors-sports, military,family,community,
and associates-represent five options from which a given
interviewee could choose when discussing teamwork.Thus,
our first dependent variable,choice of metaphor,has five
possible values (sports, military,family,community,or associ-
ates). This variablewas used in tests of H1 and H4 described
below.
Each of the five metaphors both illustratesthe mental picture
the respondent has of teamwork and expresses certain
expectations of team practices, particularlywith regardto
roles, scope, objectives, and membership.To test our
hypotheses about these expectations, we created four addi-
tional dependent variables,one for each category of expecta-
tions (roles, scope, objectives, and membership).We inde-
pendently comparedthe content of the excerpts for each
metaphorto better understandthese expectations and then
categorizedthe familyand militarymetaphors as containing
more informationabout hierarchicalroles than the communi-
ty, associates, or sports metaphors. Forexample, the family
metaphorexcerpts contained informationabout identifiable
roles, like mother,father,brother,and sister, each with vary-
ing levels of authority.We used this informationto create a
dependent variablecalled roles, which was coded 1 in our
analysis if the metaphoroccurrence was familyor military,or
o for any other metaphor.
We categorizedthe familyand communitymetaphors as
broaderin scope than the sports, military,and associates
metaphors, primarilybecause many of the familyand com-
munityexcerpts expressed far-reachingboundaries,sugges-
tive of broaderactivitydomains, such as a culturalcommuni-
ty or entire province.We used this informationto create the
variablescope, which was coded 1 in our analysis if the
metaphoroccurrence was familyor community,or 0 for any
other metaphor.
We categorizedthe sports and associates metaphors as
implyingmore voluntarymembershipthan the family,military,
or communitymetaphors. In excerpts using sports and asso-
ciates language, respondents frequentlymentioned that
289/ASQ, June 2001
 members have the choice to participateon teams; this rarely
occurredin conjunctionwith the other metaphors.Thus, we
used this informationto create the variablemembership,
which was coded 1 in our analysis if the metaphorwas
sports or associates, or 0 for any other metaphor.
Finally,we categorizedthe sports and militarymetaphors as
containingmore informationabout objectives than the family,
associates, or communitymetaphors, due to the common
presence of concepts such as winning, losing, performance,
goals, and survivalin the militaryand sports excerpts; these
were rarein the other excerpts. We used this informationto
create the variableobjectives, which was coded 1 in our
analysis if the metaphorwas sports or military,or 0 for any
other metaphor.
Confirming national and organizational differences in cul-
ture. Before testing the hypotheses, we verifiedthat the
nations and organizationsin our sample differedalong the
dimensions of culturewe anticipatedand developed the inde-
pendent variablesfor power distance, individualism,perfor-
mance emphasis, rewardemphasis, tight control,and
employee orientation.
Nationalculturedimensions. Fornationalculture,we con-
firmed differences on power distance and individualismby
first developing a list of search terms for each. Althoughno
previouslydeveloped lists exist, there is a long historyof
research examiningthese values that includes definitionsand
survey measures (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Triandis,1995; Earley
and Gibson, 1998), and we used these to informour list
development. Table4 contains some sample terms.
Using procedures similarto those described earlierto capture
metaphors,we identifiedinterviewtext segments including
the terms and conducted in-contextverification,then coded
the frequency with which terms for each value occurredin

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)

Individualism The degree of social connectedness Individual,self-interest, own,

(Earley and Gibson, 1998) personal freedom, independence,
self-reliance, self-emphasis, alone

Employee orientation (based on A concern for people Employees, individuals, union,

survey items from Hofstede et al., community, personal
1990)

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

Performance (Kabanoff, Waldersee, Concern with performance Achievement, performance, service,

& Cohen, 1995) efficiency

290/ASQ, June 2001

Metaphors and Meaning

each country. Because the total number of text segments dif-

fered across countries, we divided the frequency of finds for
each dimension by the total number of text segments in
each national text database. Rank ordering the number of
excerpts for each dimension per total number of excerpts,
this analysis demonstrated that, consistent with previous
research, interviewees expressed greatest power distance in
the Philippines, followed by Puerto Rico, France, and the U.S.
Respondents articulated these differences very clearly in the
course of our interviews. For example, illustrating high power
distance in France, one respondent stated:

We're a type of society that is very hierarchical.Youhave to obtain

certaindiplomasto move from the level where you start to another
level. Youcan't have an autonomous councilwhen the system has
always been established on the premise of you occupy a certain
level, certainposition,and you obtainsocial mobilityaccordingto
these ways. You'renot rewardedfor lateralmoves. Onlyfor the ver-
tical moves.
In contrast, illustrating low power distance in the U.S., a
respondent commented, "In the American culture, you have
the diversity and understanding of women and minorities,
and they are all equal and can all contribute to the team, as
opposed to Japan or India, where you don't." Confirming pre-
vious research regarding individualism, the second national
cultural value we examined, interviewees expressed greatest
individualism in the U.S., followed by France, the Philippines,
and Puerto Rico. The high level of individualism in the U.S.
was clearly evident in statements such as the following,
depicting Americans as lacking community:

The American,cowboy, lone rangerattitudeor stereotype.... How

can that compare to globalsociety? I get caught up in my own little
world and my own set of problemsand challenges and you know, I
struggle to get out of here at a decent hourat night. Ifyou look at
an Americanneighborhood,you go home, in general, everybody
goes into their own house, shuts the door and that's it, very individ-
ual. Ifyou go to Europeor Japan,the houses are much closer.
Everyoneknows everybody.
Alternatively, the following excerpt very graphically illustrates
the pressure against individualism apparent in the Philippine
culture:

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

I rewardemphasis, tight control,and employee orientation.As
Special thanks to Professor Philip Bromi-
ley, University of Minnesota, for suggest-
ing this procedure.
Metaphors and Meaning
Finally,interviewees expressed the greatest emphasis on
employee orientationin Biomedco and Pharmcoand the least
in Chemco. Forexample, indicativeof employee orientation
is an emphasis on social harmony,as described by this
Pharmcorespondent: "Ourcompany is culturally,I should
say, very involvedin social harmony;it's something which is
very importantin our company,and it's something which has
always pushed people to work in teams. So we have this
kindof culture."
We used the results of these text searches to create four
independentvariablesfor organizationalculture-perfor-
mance emphasis, rewardemphasis, tight control,and
employee orientation-which we used in the regression
models described below.
Hypothesis testing. Intesting H1 and H4, that the use of a
given metaphoris likelyto varyacross nations and organiza-
tions, the dependent variableis the choice of metaphorfrom
five possible types, and each occurrence of a metaphorin
the interviews is treated as one event. Because the depen-
dent variablecan take on multipleforms that are not ordered,
we used multinomiallogit (Aldrichand Nelson, 1984) to test
these hypotheses. Multinomiallogit estimates the probability
of choice among a set of J - 1 categories in a dependent
variable(in our case J - 1 = 4); the omitted category is like an
omitted dummy variableand serves as the comparison.The
independentvariablesin this model are three dummy vari-
ables for countryand five dummy variablesfor organization.
We also includeda numberof controlvariables.First,we
controlledfor gender, which may affect how people think
about teams and the languagethey use to describe them.
Genderwas coded 1 for female and 0 for male. Second,
team function may also influence metaphorchoice. From
self-reportsof function in the interviews, we created five
dummy variablesto capture six categories of function:
finance, production/engineering,marketing,human
resources, management, and sales/service. Finally,because
interviewsvaried in length, we includedthe total numberof
words in the interviewas a finalcontrol. Upon entering these
variables,we conducted a Waldtest (Judge et al., 1985) to
examine the joint hypothesis across all equations that the
countrydummies (H1)taken together are statisticallysignifi-
cant and the joint hypothesis across all equations that the
organizationdummies (H4)taken together are statisticallysig-
nificant.
We used logistic regression to test the hypotheses on the
relationshipbetween dimensions of nationaland organization-
al cultureand the use of metaphors containingcertainexpec-
tations about clarityof roles, breadthof team scope, the
natureof membership,and objectives.1The four metaphor
category variables-roles, scope, membership,and objec-
tives-served as dependent variablesin four separate regres-
sion equations. The independentvariablesfor these models
were power distance, individualism,performanceemphasis,
in the model above, we includedgender, function,and num-
ber of words as controls.
293/ASQ, J une 2001
The logistic procedureconsiders each occurrence of a
metaphorcategory (scope, roles, membership,and objec-
tives) as an event. The regressions estimated how particular
culturaldimensions changed the likelihoodthat the respon-
dent chose a specific metaphorcategory ratherthan other
possible metaphorcategories. Forexample, the first equation
used roles (occurrenceof either the militaryor family
metaphor)as the dependent variableand regressed roles on
the six culturaldimensions (two nationaland four organiza-
tional)detailed in our hypotheses. The logistic procedureesti-
mated whether these culturaldimensions increased the likeli-
hood of occurrence of the role category comparedwith use
of any category. Statisticallysignificantcoefficients in the pre-
dicted directionprovidesupportfor the hypotheses.
RESULTS
Variation in Teamwork Metaphors
Mean frequencies for each metaphorby countryand organi-
zation appear in table 5. Parameterestimates and model sta-
tistics are presented in table 6. The Waldtest for the effect
of countryon choice of metaphorwas statisticallysignificant
(X2= 42.80, p < .001), supportingH1, that the use of a given
metaphoris likelyto varyacross countries. The Waldtest for
the effect of organizationon choice of metaphorwas also
statisticallysignificant(%2= 47.98, p < .001), supportingH4,

Table 5
Mean Frequency of Occurrence of Metaphors by Organization and
Country*

Organization

Metaphor Photoco Chemco Biomedco Pharmco Healthco Medco

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.

294/ASQ, June 2001

 Metaphors and Meaning

Table 6
Multinomial Regression Results (N = 462)*

Variable Sports Family Military Community

Gender .53 1.42w 0.74 1.22g

(.40) (.44) (.66) (.41)
Number of words 0.00 0.00 -.00 0.00
(.00) (.00) (.00) (.00)
Finance (omitted function = Sales & Service) -.97 -.94 .99 .51
(1.53) (1.63) (.17) (1.42)
Production/engineering -1 .72w -1 .68* -1 .65 -1 .06
(.60) (.64) (.92) (.75)
Marketing -.90 -.54 -.86 .05
(.70) (.74) (1.1 0) (.82)
HR -.72 -2.35** -.96 -.48
(.56) (.64) (.91) (.72)
Management -1.40 -2.91 -0.44 -0.26
(.72) (1.22) (1.08) (.84)
Puerto Rico (omitted category = U.S.) 2.09w 2.55* 2.31- 2.84
(.79) (.86) (1.10) (.80)
Philippines 0.10 1.91 * 0.39 1.51
(.50) (.56) (.79) (.50)
France .76 .49 -1.53 .77
(.54) (.65) (1.23) (.59)
Photoco (omitted org. = Medco) 3.04w -.84 .83 2.33w
(.93) (.91) (1.29) (.89)
Chemco 2.61 * .37 .12 2.35*
(.98) (.85) (1.29) (.91)
Biomedco 2.15" -1.49 .66
(.98) (.88) (1.15) (.93)
Pharmco 1.54 -.93 -.60 .50
(.90) (.80) (1.57) (.87)
Healthco 2.1 1 -.07 .89 1.00
(.86) (.74) (1.21) (.83)
Log likelihood -620.23
Model x2 162.75w
HIt (country) x2 42.80*
H4O(organization) x2 47.98*"
*p< .10; Up < .05; Amp< .01; Amp < .001 based on Wald chi-square test.
* Standard errors are in parentheses. The omitted category for metaphors is associates.
t Test for Hi is Wald test for the joint hypothesis for the country dummy variables across all equations.
*
Test for H4 is Wald test for the joint hypothesis for the organization dummy variables across all equations.

that the use of a given metaphoris likelyto varyacross orga-

nizations.
National and Organizational Culture and Metaphor Use
H2 predictedthat greater power distance would increase the
likelihoodthat metaphors containingclear role content would
be used. Contraryto this, the logistic regression results in
model 1 presented in table 7 show that the coefficient for
power distance is negative and statisticallysignificant.H3
predictedthat individualismwould decrease the likelihood
that metaphorsthat are broadin scope would be used. In
support of this hypothesis, the coefficient for individualism
was negative and statisticallysignificantin model 2, in which
scope is the dependent variable.
H5 predictedthat the emphasis an organizationplaces on
performancewould increase the likelihoodthat metaphors
containingclear objectives and outcomes would be used.
This hypothesis was supported.The coefficient for perfor-
mance emphasis in model 3 was positive and statisticallysig-
295/ASQ, June 2001
Table7
Logistic Regression Results (N = 462)*
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable Clear roles Broad scope Clear objectives Voluntarymembership
Gender -.66rn -.99 .38'6 97*
(.30) (.27) (.28) (.28)
Numberof words -.00 .00 -.00 -.00
(.00) (.00) (.00) (.00)
Finance -.38 .20 -.30 -.61
(.97) (.95) (.95) (.97)
Production/engineering -.65 -.50 -.64 .62
(.45) (.44) (.43) (.43)
Marketing -.24 .20 -.76 -.02
(.53) (.51) (.52) (.51)
Humanresources -1 .37w -.95w .04 1.01*1
(.45) (.43) (.41) (.42)
Management -1 .38" -.32 -.28 .25
(.67) (.55) (.52) (.52)
National culture
Power distance -1 .72w -1 .71 .99" 2.06G
(.57) (.48) (.50) (.48)
Individualism -52.64m -87.30 36.85" 86.36
(18.71) (17.86) (18.14) (17.66)
Organization culture
Performanceemphasis -.15 -.12 .36m .05
(.15) (.13) (.14) (.13)
Rewardemphasis -.26 1.12" .28 -.88
(.66) (.60) (.70) (.61)
Tightcontrol 19.22" 19.22m -17.97 -1 9.83"
(8.23) (7.47) (9.12) (7.51)
Employeeemphasis -1.41 -1.89 .87 1.88-
(.93) (.81) (.83) (.80)
LikelihoodratioX2 (d.f. = 13) 37.53 72.98 25.40w 70.88m
op< .10; "p < .05; Up < .01; '*p < .001; one-tailedand based on Waldchi-squaretests.
* Standarderrorsare in parentheses.

nificant,using objectives as the dependent variable.H6, pre-

dictingthat an organization'semphasis on rewardswould
decrease the likelihoodof using metaphors concerningvolun-
tary membershipwas marginallysupported, as shown by the
results of model 4. H7, predictingthat the extent to which an
organizationemphasizes tight controlwould increase the like-
lihoodof using metaphors containingclear roles, was sup-
ported (model 1). Finally,H8 predictedthat the extent to
which an organizationemphasizes employee orientation
would increase the likelihoodthat metaphors broadin scope
would be used. Contraryto this hypothesis, the relationship
in model 2 was negative and significant.
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrated that people aroundthe globe hold
differentdefinitionsof teamwork, as indicatedby the
metaphorsthey use when they talk about their teams. Fur-
thermore,this varianceis systematic across nations and
organizations,with several predictabledifferences based on
values, orientations,and practices. If the nationalcontext is
individualistic,for example, then sports or associates
metaphorsare likelyto resonate. Ifthe organizationempha-
sizes tight control,then a militaryor familymetaphoris likely
to resonate. Because they represent mappingsfrom a source
domain (e.g., military)to a target domain (e.g., the work
296/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphors and Meaning

team), these metaphorscarrywith them expectations for

how teams will be managed and how team processes will
unfold. Forexample, employees who use the military
metaphorare likelyto have strong expectations about clarity
of objectives and performanceindicators.
Ouruse of in-depthinterviews coveringa varietyof topics
concerningteamwork broadenedour analysis, and we made
every attempt to be sensitive to interculturalvariation.Had
we not conducted our analyses with the assistance of
researchersfrom each nation,our results may have repre-
sented a NorthAmericanbias. Instead,througha careful,cul-
turallysensitive process, we were able to identifymetaphors
that are relevantacross cultures and organizations.Further-
more, we used an iterativeprocess, moving back and forth
between qualitativeand quantitativedata, as has been rec-
ommended for early stages of research (e.g., Kabanoff,
Waldersee, and Cohen, 1995).
The strengths of our study must be tempered with a recogni-
tion of its limitations.Conceptually,a frequent criticismof
attempts to capturethe gestalt of a phenomenon as richand
full as nationalor organizationalcultureis that the
researchers may be "guilty"of using or promotingstereo-
types. Fromthe perspective of cognitive psychology,applying
the concept of stereotypes to our understandingof the
impact of cultureis indeed appropriate(Gannonet al., 1994);
more recently,however, the term stereotype has been used
in a pejorativeway. Adler(1991) argued persuasivelythat it is
legitimateto use stereotypes in cross-culturalcontexts if
they are descriptiveratherthan evaluative,substantiated,and
subject to change when new informationmerits it. Thus,
while this study supports the linguisticapproachto describ-
ing the impact of culture,clearly,culturallydetermined
metaphorsshould be used with caution.They do not pertain
to every individualor even to every subgroupwithin a soci-
ety. Rather,they highlightculturaldifferences in an easily
understoodway that providesa richvocabularyfor discus-
sion.
On a related note, we add a caveat to the interpretationof
metaphors.A given metaphoris likelyto convey complex
meaning best comprehended alongside a richunderstanding
of the context. Forexample, we found no empiricalsupport
for a relationshipbetween power distance and metaphors
that implyhierarchicalroles (e.g., family)but, instead, found
the opposite to be true. This may be because these
metaphors implymuch more than just roles. In some con-
texts, the familymetaphormay implya long-termcommit-
ment, a traitthat could be an emphasis in both high-and low-
power-distancecultures. Likewise,we found no supportfor
the hypothesis that employee orientationpositivelyinflu-
ences the use of metaphorsthat are broadin scope (e.g.,
familyand community)and instead found the opposite to be
true. Perhapsthis was because an employee orientationalso
coincides with empowerment and a flat hierarchy,which
encourage the use of sports and associates metaphors, both
of which are narrowin scope. Thus, metaphorsare complex
bundles of meaning that have multipleimplicationsand need
297/ASQ, June 2001
to be carefullyexamined for the meaning they convey in a
given context.
Anotherlimitationis that our sample of interviewees was rel-
atively small. This is a common trade-offin qualitative
research. The methods we used were appropriate,since our
intent was to capturedepth of understandingratherthan
breadthat this exploratoryphase. Despite the restrictionsof
the method, our sample of words generated by the intervie-
wees (266,905 words) was largeand thus increased the
robustness of the metaphoranalyses. A related limitationis
that we collected data from only four nations, althoughthe
cultures were diverse. Futureresearch should examine
metaphors in a more extensive sample of countries, using
additionallanguages. We focused on two nationalculturalval-
ues. A potentialexplanationfor our lackof stronger support
for the specific links between nationalculturalcharacteristics
and metaphoruse may be that we should have includedaddi-
tional nationalculturaldimensions, such as uncertaintyavoid-
ance or universalism-particularism (see Erezand Earley,
1993). Finally,althoughour sample contains a diverse set of
teams, we did not includean exhaustive varietyof organiza-
tions and team types, which may have limitedthe number
and varietyof metaphorswe uncovered. Futureresearch
should includeteams from organizationsin other industries
and with non-U.S.ownership.
These limitationsand questions aside, our findings extend
theory in at least three domains:team behavior,intercultural
management, and language-basedcategories. First,our
research extends theories attemptingto explaindifferences
in basic team-relatedprocesses. Forexample, researchers
have recently demonstratedthat team psychologicalsafety
predicts innovationin teams (Edmondson,1999). Perhapsdif-
ferent conceptualizationsof teamwork, evidenced by the
metaphorsthat members use to talk about their team, give
rise to more or less psychologicalsafety. A family,for exam-
ple, may represent a safer environmentthan the military.If
metaphorsare malleable,encouragingthe use of the family
metaphormay increase the team's psychologicalsafety and
subsequent innovation.Futureresearch could explore this
possibility.Ina relatedvein, our findingsextend theory on
team composition. Research has demonstratedthat hetero-
geneity (e.g., in terms of functionalarea or nationalorigin)
affects performanceand that heterogeneous teams need col-
laboratingmechanisms such as shared understandingof the
team's product(Dougherty,1992) or strong norms in a hybrid
team culture(Earleyand Mosakowski,2000) to performwell.
We help demystify the "blackbox" (Lawrence,1997) through
which heterogeneity may affect teams by illuminatingan
importantmechanism by which culture may influenceteam
processes: the culturallycontingent definitionsof teamwork
that members have. These definitionshelp us understand
expectations for behaviorsin teams. In essence, teamwork
metaphors capturean intermediateoutcome of heterogene-
ity that may mediate findings in the conventionalheterogene-
ity literatureand offer an explanationfor how culture influ-
ences teamwork.
298/ASQ, June 2001
Metaphors and Meaning

In a second domain,our research has implicationsfor inter-

culturalmanagement. Our results shed new lighton cultural
contingency theory, which predicts that managerialinitiatives
must be implemented in a mannerconsistent with the cultur-
al context in which each of a multinationalorganization'sfacil-
ities are embedded (Hofstede, 1980; Shackletonand Ali,
1990; Newman and Nollen, 1996). Insupport of this argu-
ment, Newman and Nollen (1996) found that work units man-
aged in a mannerconsistent with the values of the external
cultureare more profitablethan work units in which this fit is
less well achieved. If this is true, then we might expect that
teams' effectiveness will be higherin multinationalorganiza-
tions that adapt teamwork metaphorsacross nationalcon-
texts. We also provideclues as to why internationalexperi-
ence among multinationalmanagers is importantfor
organizationalperformance(e.g., Carpenter,Sanders, and
Gregersen, 2001). Teamworkmetaphors are a form of tacit
knowledge-knowledge that is not easily discerned. As a
result, the best way to gain understandingis to interactwith
people who have differentdefinitionsof teamwork. This is
likelytrue for other practices beyond teamwork and suggests
that researchers should consider the potentialpredictive
value of culturallycontingent definitionsmanagers discover
throughtheir internationalexperience.
On a similarnote, our research also speaks to theories of
person-organizationfit that recommend selecting members
who match the organization'sstrategic objectives so as to
increase commitment and job satisfaction (e.g., O'Reilly,
Chatman,and Caldwell,1991). Our research suggests an
additionalfacet to consider in selection: expectations regard-
ing teamwork expressed in metaphors.These metaphors
consist of what each member understandsabout teamwork
and what he or she expects in terms of team process. If local
culturaladaptationis not possible or is strategicallyinappro-
priate,selection of members based on fit with team-based
initiativesis an alternative.An intriguingpath for future
research is to investigate the meaning of teamwork as a key
source of person-organizationfit.
Finally,our research extends language-basedtheories of cul-
turalcategories. Previousorganizationalresearch examining
the content of culturalcategories has focused on the organi-
zationalor industrylevel. Forexample, Kabanoff,Waldersee,
and Cohen (1995) analyzedorganizationalvalue systems and
how they relate to perceptions of organizationalchange,
while Abrahamsonand Hambrick(1997) examined attentional
homogeneity within industriesbased on the extent to which
common words are used in the industry.Our research begins
with individuals'language use, capturedin teamwork
metaphors,that can be grouped into categories and have pre-
dictive value and practicalimplicationsbecause of systematic
variationat the organizationaland nationallevel. Teamwork
metaphors demonstrate the usefulness of analyzinglanguage
to access and study underlyingindividualmeaning structures
that are based on nationaland organizationalculture.
Our research also has direct practicalapplication.A strong
implicationof these findings is that multinationalmanagers
cannot assume that their own conceptualizationof teamwork
299/ASQ, June 2001
 will be shared. Team members in differentnations or organi-
zationalcontexts are likelyto have differentexpectations for
how the team will be managed. Imaginea scenario in which
team members define teamwork using a familymetaphor
that includes clear parentalroles. A managerwho defines
teamwork more like a communityor a circle of associates is
not likelyto meet the members' expectations for parental
guidance and support. Or imagine a situationin which team
members picturetheirteam like a sports team, with clear,
competitive objectives for a specific task. If their manager
holds a conception of teamwork similarto a familythat is
less task focused, he or she is likelyto be deemed ineffec-
tive in accomplishingobjectives. A similarscenario could play
out in a cross-organizationalteam, such as one representing
a merger among two very differentorganizationalcultures. If
some of the team members picturetheir team as doing bat-
tle with fierce competitors, while others view the team as a
loosely connected open community,conflict regardinga pre-
ferred structure,process, and deliverablesis likelyto ensue.
Inthese scenarios, it would be helpfulfor those involvedto
identifythe language being used to talkabout their team,
share the expectations that map to the target domainfrom
the source domain,and negotiate to resolve the potentially
conflictingpreferredpractices in a mutuallyagreeable man-
ner. Metaphorprovidesa very potent and graphictool for
doing so. Takenas a whole, our results do not suggest that
any given metaphoris good or bad but, rather,that metaphor
use varies across culturalsettings and should be considered
explicitlyby managers and researchers.While differentteam-
work metaphorsamong team members or between mem-
bers and the organizationcould be a source of conflict,
metaphoricalassessment may also help facilitategreater
understandingamong coworkers when the metaphorsare
discussed and explainedand can be used to manage effec-
tively in multinationals.
In conclusion, our research challenges the assumption that
the meaning of teamwork is commonly held across contexts
and thus represents a first step toward a culturalcontingency
frameworkfor the meaning of teamwork. Because empirical
research on teams across cultures has been limited,leaders
within multinationalorganizationshave been forced to make
educated guesses about the most appropriatemethods to
manage teams across geographicfacilities.This research pro-
vides insight into variationin teamwork metaphorsthat can
help team members, managers, and researchers identify
their common understandingsas well as their culturaldiffer-
ences.
REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E., and D. Hambrick
1997 "Attentional homogeneity in
industries: The effect of dis-
cretion." Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 18: 513-532.
Adler, N. J.
1991 International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior, 2d
ed. Boston: PWS Kent.
Aldrich, J. H., and F. D. Nelson
1984 Linear Probability, Logit, and
Probit Models. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Ayman, R., and M. M. Chemers
1983 "Relationship of supervisory
behavior ratings to work
group effectiveness and sub-
ordinate satisfaction among
Iranianmanagers." Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68:
338-341.

300/ASQ, June 2001


Bar-Tal, D.
1990 Group Beliefs. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Bartunek, J. M.
1984 "Changing interpretive
schemes and organizational
restructuring: The example of
a religious order." Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 29:
355-373.
Blair, I. V., and M. R. Banaji
1996 "Automatic and controlled
processes in stereotype prim-
ing." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70:
1142-1163.
Bradley, J.
1989 TACT,Version 1, User's
Guide. Toronto: University of
Toronto Computing Services.
Brannen, M. Y.
1994 "Yournext boss is Japanese:
Negotiating cultural change at
a Western Massachusetts
paper plant." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., E. Salas,
and S. Converse
1993 "Shared mental models in
expert team decision mak-
ing." In N. J. Castellan (ed.),
Individualand Group Decision
Making: 221-246. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carpenter, M. A., W. G. Sanders,
and H. B. Gregersen
2001 "Bundling human capital with
organizational context: The
impact of international assign-
ment experience on multina-
tional firm performance and
CEO pay." Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 44:
493-512.
Chatman, J., and K. Jehn
1994 "Assessing the relationship
between industry characteris-
tics and organizational culture:
How different can you be?"
Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 522-553.
Cohen, S. G., and D. E. Bailey
1997 "What makes teams work:
Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the
executive suite." Journal of
Management, 23: 239-290.
Cox, T. H., S. A. Lobel, and R S.
McLeod
1991 "Effects of ethnic group cul-
tural differences on coopera-
tive and competitive behavior
on a group task." Academy of
Management Journal, 34:
827-847.
Metaphors and Meaning
Dougherty, D.
1992 "Interpretive barriers to suc-
cessful product innovation in
large firms." Organization Sci-
ence, 3: 179-202.
Earley, P. C.
1994 "Self or group? Cultural
effects of training on self-effi-
cacy and performance."
Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 39: 89-117.
Earley, P. C., and M. Erez
1987 "Comparative analysis of
goal-setting strategies across
cultures." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72: 658-665.
Earley, P. C. and C. B. Gibson
1998 "Takingstock in our progress:
100 years of solidarity and
community." Journal of Man-
agement, 24: 265-304.
2001 Multinational Teams: A New
Perspective. Lawrence Earl-
baum.
Earley, P. C., and E. Mosakowski
2000 "Creating hybrid team cul-
tures: An empirical test of
transnational team function-
ing." Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 43: 26-50.
Earley, P. C., and H. Singh
1995 "International and intercultur-
al management research:
What's next?" Academy of
Management Journal, 38:
327-340.
Eby, L. T., and D. H. Dobbins
1997 "Collectivistic orientation in
teams: An individual and
group-level analysis." Journal
of Organizational Behavior,
18: 275-295.
Edmondson, A.
1999 "Psychological safety and
learning behavior in work
teams." Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
Erez, M., and P. C. Earley
1993 Culture, Self-identity, and
Work. New York:Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Erez, M., and A. Somech
1996 "Is group productivity loss
the rule or the exception?
Effects of culture and group-
based motivation." Academy
of Management Journal, 39:
151 3-1 537.
Gannon, M. J., and Associates
1994 Understanding Global Cul-
tures: Metaphorical Journeys
Through 17 Countries. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
301/ASQ, June 2001
Gephart, R. P.
1993 "The textual approach: Risk
and blame in disaster sense-
making." Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 36:
1465-1 514.
Gephart, R. P., and R. Wolfe
1989 "Qualitative data analysis:
Three microcomputer-sup-
ported approaches." Acade-
my of Management Best
Paper Proceedings: 382-386.
Gibson, C. B.
1994 "The implications of culture
for organization structure: An
investigation of three per-
spectives." In J. L. C. Cheng
and R. B. Peterson (eds.),
Advances in International
Comparative Management, 9:
3-38. Greenwich, CT:JAI
Press.
1999 "Do they do what they
believe they can? Group-effi-
cacy beliefs and group perfor-
mance across tasks and cul-
tures." Academy of
Management Journal, 42:
138-1 52.
2001 "From knowledge accumula-
tion to transformation: Phases
and cycles of collective cogni-
tion in workgroups." Journal
of Organizational Behavior,
22: 121-134.
Gundry, L. K., and D. M.
Rousseau
1994 "Criticalincidents in commu-
nicating culture to newcom-
ers: The meaning in the mes-
sage." Human Relations, 46:
1063-1087.
Hofstede, G.
1980 Culture's Consequences:
International Differences in
Work-related Values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D. D.
Ohayv, and G. Sanders
1990 "Measuring organizational
cultures: A quantitative study
across twenty cases." Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly,
35: 286-316.
Jehn, K. S., and L. Doucet
1997 "Analyzing hard words in a
sensitive setting: American
expatriates in communist
China." Unpublished working
paper, the Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania.
Judge, G. G., W. E. Griffiths, R. C.
Hill, H. Lbtkepohl, and T. C. Lee
1985 The Theory and Practice of
Econometrics, 2d ed. New
York:Wiley.
Kabanoff, B.
1997 "Computers can read as well
as count: Computer-aided text
analysis in organizational
research." Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 18:
507-511.
Kabanoff, B., and J. Holt
1996 "Changes in the espoused
values of Australian organiza-
tions 1986-1990." Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17:
201-219.
Kabanoff, B., R. Waldersee, and
M. Cohen
1995 "Espoused values and organi-
zational change themes."
Academy of Management
Journal, 38: 1075-1104.
Kirkman, B. L., and D. L. Shapiro
2001 "The impact of cultural values
on job satisfaction and organi-
zational commitment in self-
managing work teams: The
mediating role of employee
resistance." Academy of
Management Journal, 44:
557-569.
Kirkman, B. L., C. B. Gibson, and
D. L. Shapiro
2001 "Exporting teams: Enhancing
the implementation and effec-
tiveness of work teams in
global affiliates." Organiza-
tional Dynamics, vol. 29 (in
press).
Lakoff, G.
1993 "The contemporary theory of
metaphor." In A. Ortony (ed.),
Metaphor and Thought:
202-252. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Langfeld-Smith, K.
1992 "Exploringthe need for a
shared cognitive map." Jour-
nal of Management Studies,
29: 349-368.
Laukkanen, M.
1994 "Comparative cause mapping
of organizational cognitions."
Organization Science, 5:
322-343.
Lawrence, B. S.
1997 "The black box of demogra-
phy." Organization Science, 8:
1-22.
McGrath, J. E.
1984 Groups: Interaction and Per-
formance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Newman, K. L., and S. D. Nollen
1996 "Culture and congruence: The
fit between management
practices and national cul-
tures." Journal of Internation-
al Business Studies, 27:
753-779.
Oetzel, J. G.
1998 "Culturallyhomogeneous and
heterogeneous groups:
Explaining communication
processes through individual-
ism-collectivism and self-con-
strual." International Journal
of InterculturalRelations, 22:
135-161.
Orasanu, J., and E. Salas
1993 "Team decision making in
complex environments." In
G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R.
Calderwood, and C. E. Zsam-
bok (eds.), Decision Making in
Action: Models and Methods:
327-345. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
O'Reilly, C. A., III.,J. Chatman,
and D. F. Caldwell
1991 "People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing per-
son-organization fit." Acade-
my of Management Journal,
34: 487-516.
Pillai, R., and J. R. Meindl
1998 "Context and charisma: A
Imeso' level examination of
the relationship of organic
structure, collectivism, and
crisis to charismatic leader-
ship." Journal of Manage-
ment, 24: 643-671.
Popping, R.
1997 "Computer programs for the
analysis of text transcripts."
In C. W. Roberts (ed.), Text
Analysis for the Social Sci-
ences: 209-221. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Qualitative Solutions and
Research
1997 QSR*NUDIST. Scolari Sage
Publication Software. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Quinn, N.
1997 "Research on shared task
strategy." In C. Strauss and
N. Quinn (eds.), A Cognitive
Theory of Cultural Meaning:
137-189. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Sackman, S. A.
1992 "Culture and subcultures: An
analysis of organizational
knowledge." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37:
1L40-1 62.
302/ASQ, June 2001
Schein, E. H.
1993 Organizational Culture and
Leadership, 2d ed. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, S., and A. DeMeyer
1991 "Interpreting and responding
to strategic issues: The
impact of national culture."
Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 12: 307-320.
Shackleton, V. J., and A. H. Ali
1990 "Work-related values of man-
agers: A test of the Hofstede
model." Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 21:
307-320.
Shane, S.
1994 "The effect of national culture
on the choice between licens-
ing and direct foreign invest-
ment." Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 15: 627-642.
Shweder, R. A., and R. A. LeVine
1984 Culture Theory: Essays on
Mind, Self, and Emotion. New
York:Cambridge University
Press.
Smirich, L., and M. Calas
1987 "Organizational culture: A crit-
ical assessment." In F. M.
Jablin, L. L. Putnam, and
L. W. Porter (eds.), Handbook
of Organizational Communica-
tion: 228-263. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin
1990 Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sundstrom, E., and Associates
1999 Supporting Work Team Effec-
tiveness. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Triandis, H. C.
1989 "The self and social behavior
in differing cultural contexts."
Psychological Review, 96:
506-520.
1994 "Cross-cultural industrial and
organizational psychology." In
H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dun-
nette, and L. Hough (eds.),
Handbook of Industrialand
Organizational Psychology, 2d
ed., 4: 103-172. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
1995 Culture and Social Behavior.
New York:McGraw-Hill.
Trice, H., and J. Beyer
1993 The Cultures of Work Organi-
zations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Metaphors and Meaning

Wolfe, R. A., R. P. Gephart, and

T. E. Johnson
1993 "Computer-facilitated qualita-
tive data analysis: Potential
contributions to management
research." Journal of Man-
agement, 19: 637-660.

APPENDIX: Interview Protocol

1. Could you tell us a little about what you do and the teams you work
with?
2. Who is on the teams? How are these members selected? How are
responsibilities divided?
3. What is the function of the teams [what outputs do they provide]?
4. Who is the team's "customer" [internal or external]?
5. Who receives the teams' work [who is directly downstream in the
process]?
6. How is performance monitored and rewarded?
7. What kind of feedback do teams receive about performance?
8. How do you know when you have done a good job?
9. Do you believe the teams are effective? Why or why not?
10. Do the teams have leaders? What are the responsibilities of the leader?
11. Who does the team report to? Does it interact with other teams?
12. Would the teams benefit from more direction? Who should provide it?
In what format?
13. What are the key factors that contribute to and/or inhibit the success of
the teams?
14. How are practices shared in this organization?
15. To what extent does headquarters dictate practices?
16. Is individual achievement or collective achievement more important in
this organization?
17. Is individual achievement or collective achievement more important in
this country?
18. What facets of the culture here impact teams, either positively or nega-
tively?
19. What mental images do people use for teams in this country?
20. Do you have anything else you would like to add?

303/ASQ, June 2001