Search results

This study investigates how the maximum cultural intelligence (Max CQ) within a team – defined as the highest cultural intelligence level of an individual member – affects intra-team communication, conflict dynamics and, ultimately, team satisfaction and performance in global virtual teams (GVTs).

Utilizing quantitative research methods, this investigation draws on a dataset comprising 3,385 participants, which forms a total of 686 GVTs.

The study reveals that MaxCQ significantly enhances team communication, which in turn mitigates conflict, increases satisfaction and improves performance. It is noteworthy that the influence of MaxCQ on GVT success is more significant than the average cultural intelligence (CQ) of team members, providing critical insights for effective GVT management strategies.

The findings suggest that managers may optimize team dynamics not by uniformly increasing each member’s CQ but by concentrating on maximizing the CQ of one individual who can act as an influencer within the team. Strategically placing individuals with high CQ in GVTs can enhance overall team function.

While existing literature primarily examines the individual effects of CQ on communication and conflict management, this study sheds light on the collective interplay between MaxCQ, communication and conflict. It highlights the importance of MaxCQ, along with the frequency of team communication and conflict, in influencing team satisfaction and performance in GVTs.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory.

The primary objective of this paper is to characterize sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory.

Analytical dimensions were related to establishing three proposals, which represent possible theoretical routes for characterizing sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory. A framework which illustrates the theoretical route taken to develop these proposals is presented at the end of the theoretical-analytical discussions.

This paper considers that discussion about sustainable development, sustainability and comparative management theory, as interesting themes for organizational studies, lack epistemological clarity and theoretical depth. Such shortcomings are identified based upon the difficulty in identifying ontological postures, epistemological perspectives, dominant paradigms and conceptual approaches that enable greater coherence to analysis of these themes, and also support the undertaking of research that can contribute to enriching proposals related to comparative management theory.

This is an innovative paper as it relates comparative management theory approaches with structural concepts from sustainable development and sustainability developed using contributions from organizational theories, sociological reflections, and political science. The proposed characterization is intended to blaze new and alternative epistemological paths for adding greater rigor to empirical research focussed on the relationship investigated here in a theoretical context.

The purpose of this paper is to propose styles of reasoning for the characterization of sustainable development and sustainability as quasi‐objects of study for management.

This proposition occurs in three primary dimensions: the first deals with ontological postures, the second with epistemological perspectives, and the third with supplementary conceptualizations (dominant paradigms, the meanings of sustainable development and sustainability, and the approaches to classifying sustainability).

After the theoretical‐analytical discussion the authors present a framework that classifies different possibilities for framing sustainable development and sustainability as interesting research themes for management studies.

The paper considers that discussions about sustainable development and sustainability as concerns management studies need a deeper conceptual and theoretical scrutiny. This deficiency is expressed in the difficulty in identifying ontological postures, epistemological perspectives, dominant paradigms, and conceptual approaches that might allow these themes to have a greater coherence so that they may be researched within the scope of management studies.

Sustainable development and sustainability are discussed using various analytical perspectives, a consequence of the fact that these phenomena are understood and discussed by various social collectives, which contributes to an interpretive and conceptual oscillation of these themes for management. The relationship between sustainable development, sustainability, and social factions justifies their characterization as quasi‐objects of study for management. Via this characterization the authors intend to create a space for discussion aimed at presenting statements that are candidates for truth, but not as absolute or unquestionable truths.