Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

An Asia-centric approach to team innovation: Cultural differences in

exploration and exploitation behavior
Sylvia Hubner a, *, Michael Frese b, c, Zhaoli Song d, Neha Tripathi e, Tamara Kaschner f,
Xing Le Kong d
a
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
b
Asia School of Business (in Collaboration with MIT Sloan Management), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany
d
National University of Singapore, Singapore
e
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India
f
Altran, Munich, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper analyses how cultural differences across China, India, and Singapore influence team exploration,
Team innovation exploitation, and innovativeness. Previous cross-cultural and innovation literature mainly focused on Western
Exploration cultures or East-West comparisons. In this research, we investigate innovation related cultural specifics that
Exploitation
differentiate team behavior in China, India, and Singapore (e.g., guanxi, jugaad, and kiasu), and investigate
National culture
Asia
differences in team exploration, exploitation, and innovativeness across those three cultures. We test our model
in a survey study with matched answers of team members and their supervisors in innovation teams across China,
India, and Singapore. In line with our theorizing, our findings suggest comparably high levels of team exploration
in India, and comparably high levels of team exploitation in China. Additionally, we find team exploration, more
than team exploitation, relates to team innovativeness in China, India, and Singapore.

1. Introduction
Most countries want to increase the innovativeness of their busi­
nesses. In Asia, most countries have officially stated their will to increase
national innovative performance (Dutta, Lavin, & Wunsch-Vincent,
2020). Getting to innovativeness, however, is challenging. In Asia, cul­
tural factors are often blamed for limited innovation potential (Chen,
Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Rao & Pearce, 2016; Xie & Paik, 2019). Such a
general evaluation of Asian culture, however, is not appropriate. Due to
the differences among Asian countries, a differentiated picture of
innovation processes across Asia is needed. Our research contributes to a
better understanding of differences within Asia in team innovation
processes. We investigate cultural specifics and differences in team
exploration, exploitation, and innovativeness across China, India, and
Singapore, three Asian countries that are among the most important
innovators globally.
Our Asia-centric approach to team innovation covers an important
gap in the literature; the bulk of previous cross-cultural and innovation
literature mainly focused on Western cultures and their differences from
Eastern cultures, without detecting or acknowledging differences within
Asia (Barkema, Chen, George, Luo, & Tsui, 2015). We believe it is time
to overcome the Western-centric navel gazing that focuses on the West
and seems to overlook the differences across Asia. Therefore, we intro­
duce an Asia-centric approach to innovation. Our study focuses on
China, India, and Singapore because these three countries can be
considered the most important players in Asia for the global market.
China and India have the highest populations and are successfully
increasing their innovation activities, which are also their public priority
(Gupta & Wang, 2009). Singapore is home to many ASEAN headquarters
and has shown an extraordinary journey in growing its innovation level
(Dutta et al., 2020; Yeung, 2000).
Culture-specific factors might explain why previous findings on
cultural influences on innovation processes in Asia were ambiguous
(Frese, 2015; House et al., 2004; Morris & Leung, 2010). We investigate
culture-specific mechanisms to explain differences in exploration and
exploitation behaviors in innovation teams across China, India, and
Singapore (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009; Lavie, Stettner,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sylvia.hubner@unibz.it (S. Hubner).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.009
Received 27 October 2020; Received in revised form 2 September 2021; Accepted 5 September 2021
Available online 29 September 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Hubner et al.
& Tushman, 2010; March, 1991; Rosing, Bledow, Frese, Baytalskaya,
Johnson Lascano, & Farr, 2018). Team exploration refers to activities
characterized by search, discovery, variation, and experimentation;
team exploitation refers to activities characterized by refinement, vari­
ance reduction, efficiency, production, and selection. We do not only
test the universal prediction that teams’ exploration and exploitation
behaviors predict innovation, specifically in Asia. We also apply an Asia-
centric perspective to suggest culture-specific factors for explaining
different levels of team exploration and exploitation across China, India,
and Singapore. In pilot studies, we identified cultural differences in
these three countries and tested their relationships with exploration and
exploitation. Then, we tested our model in a survey study with matched
answers of team members and their supervisors in innovation teams
across these three countries.
We argue that the national cultures in China, India, and Singapore
influence team exploration and exploitation differently. Previous
research suggests that both exploration and exploitation are needed for
successful innovation (Benner & Tushman, 2015; Bledow, Frese, &
Mueller, 2011; Lavie et al., 2010; Rosing et al., 2018). The practices that
are functional for exploration are different from and even contradictory
to the practices functional for exploitation (Bledow et al., 2011). We
propose that teams in some Asian cultures are more likely to explore,
whereas teams in other Asian cultures are more likely to exploit. In
India, for example, education valuing leela (playfulness and naughti­
ness) and the tendency toward jugaad (a form of creative adaptation for
frugal innovation) might facilitate exploration, whereas in China edu­
cation focusing on ting hua (listening to words) and yao mianzi (preser­
ving face) is likely to counteract exploration (Cappelli, Singh, Singh, &
Useem, 2015; Hossain, 2017). Guanxi (a form of dyadic social re­
lationships) might nevertheless facilitate exploitation in China (Tsang,
1998; Zhang, Li, & Brad Harris, 2015). In Singapore, kiasu (fear of losing
out) might create a tendency to avoid risky attempts and establish a
reluctance to explore (Cheng & Hong, 2017; Shin & Eom, 2014). These
cultural differences might explain why teams focus on exploration or
exploitation.
Our Asia-centric approach moves beyond previous research on cul­
ture’s influence on innovation. First, we elaborate on innovation-related
cultural differences among China, India, and Singapore. Our research
extends previous studies, which have mainly analyzed what differenti­
ates Asia from the West and neglected differences within Asia. Second,
we explore culture-specific concepts that differentiate China, India, and
Singapore and analyze how they relate to tendencies toward exploration
vs. exploitation. Thus, our research introduces an Asia-centric perspec­
tive on predictors of innovation. Third, by testing differences in team
exploration and exploitation across China, India, and Singapore on a
behavioral level, we describe pathways explaining how cultural differ­
ences shape team innovativeness in Asia. We found most team explo­
ration in Indian teams and most team exploitation in Chinese teams
when comparing teams across China, India, and Singapore, and team
exploration affected team innovativeness.
2. Literature review: Previous research on innovation and
cultural differences
In the following, we elaborate on previous literature about explo­
ration and exploitation in innovation teams, outline the impact of cul­
ture on team innovation in general, and discuss the influence of cultural
dimensions on team innovation in China, India, and Singapore. Then,
because the knowledge from previous literature does not provide clarity
regarding differences among these countries, our hypothesis develop­
ment takes a closer look at cultural specifics.
2.1. Exploration and exploitation in innovation teams
Innovation refers to the intentional generation, promotion, and
realization of new and beneficial ideas within a work role, group, or
409
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
organization (West & Farr, 1989) and contains conceptual as well as
financial aspects (Huarng, 2013). Innovation develops in a dialectic
process combining exploration and exploitation. Exploration generally
refers to activities characterized by search, discovery, variation, and
experimentation, whereas exploitation refers to activities characterized
by refinement, variance reduction, efficiency, production, and selection
activities (Bledow et al., 2009; Lavie et al., 2010; March, 1991). Both
types of activities are essential for innovation success, but they entail
contradictions, which need to be managed (Bledow et al., 2009; Lavie
et al., 2010).
Innovation is assumed to be particularly successful in teams
(Anderson & West, 1998; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Team
innovation refers to the emergence, import, or imposition of new ideas,
which are pursued toward implementation by a group, through inter­
personal discussions and successive adaptations of the original proposal
over time (Anderson & West, 1998). Team innovativeness is dependent
on various team-level factors, such as knowledge integration and team
climate (van Knippenberg, 2017). Although innovativeness requires
teams to apply both exploration and exploitation behaviors (Rosing
et al., 2018), teams are likely to focus on either exploration or exploi­
tation, depending on, for example, their emotional states (Døjbak
Håkonsson, Eskildsen, Argote, Mønster, Burton, & Obel, 2016) or team
members’ experiences (Beckman, 2006). Exploration and exploitation
were introduced as concepts at the organizational level (Gupta, Smith, &
Shalley, 2006; Lavie et al., 2010). Therefore, knowledge on influencing
factors at the team level, particularly factors explaining why some teams
emphasize exploration while others emphasize exploitation, is still
limited. One factor determining team innovation activities is national
culture (Hayton, George, & Zahra, 2002; Hülsheger et al., 2009; Shane,
1992; Stephan & Pathak, 2016; Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010).
2.2. Culture’s influence on team innovation
To define culture, we draw on the concept of descriptive norms and
focus on differences in cultural practices, i.e., differences in shared
perceptions of how individuals in a culture routinely behave (Frese,
2015; Shteynberg, Gelfand, & Kim, 2009; Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010).
Cultural differences influence the behaviors of individuals, teams, and
organizations in a society because cultural norms determine what kind
of behavior is “normal”, expected, and desirable. In this way, culture
influences whether a society considers innovation behaviors such as
creative thinking and risk-taking to be “normal”, expected, and
desirable.
Culture can influence the innovativeness level in a society (e.g.,
Hayton et al., 2002; Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 2012; Shane, 1993;
Williams & McGuire, 2010). For example, tendencies in a culture to shy
away from uncertainties may harm innovation because innovation ac­
tivity requires risk-taking (Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013; Shane, 1992).
Moreover, the extent to which a culture stresses hierarchy has been
suggested to decrease innovation because hierarchies and related lead­
ership and organizational structures reduce creative activity and op­
portunities for change (Shane, 1992; Stephan & Pathak, 2016).
Additionally, a focus on collective achievements and rewards in a soci­
ety has been suggested to decrease innovation because innovation re­
quires individual freedom, risk-taking, and the encouragement of
nonconformity (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006; Hayton et al., 2002;
Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013; Shane, 1992).
Moreover, due to differences in norms, preferences, and routines, the
conceptualizations of creativity, innovation motives, and preferred
innovation strategies are likely to differ across different cultures
(Engelen, 2010; Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2002; Nouri,
Erez, Lee, Liang, Bannister, & Chiu, 2015; Shane, Venkataraman, &
MacMillan, 1995; Tang, Chen, van Knippenberg, & Yu, 2020; Xiong
Chen & Aryee, 2007). Previous research examining such cultural dif­
ferences mainly focused on East-West differences and indicates, for
example, that innovation support in the East is focused on incremental
S. Hubner et al.
innovation and in the West on breakthrough innovation (Morris &
Leung, 2010). Moreover, recognizing and developing serendipitous
ideas seems to be facilitated in the West more than in the East , and
Western social norms seem to prioritize the novelty of ideas, whereas
Eastern norms seem to prioritize the usefulness of ideas (Morris & Leung,
2010), especially in group situations (Erez & Nouri, 2010). This paper
focuses on the idea that cultural differences can influence innovation
behavior in the way that cultures tend toward either exploration or
exploitation. We argue that the degree of team exploration vs. exploi­
tation may vary across cultures.
To explain such differences in innovation behavior, previous litera­
ture connected innovation behaviors with the cultural dimensions of
large-scale cross-cultural research, including dimensions by Hofstede &
Hofstede (1991) and the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004). Such cultural
dimensions, for example, power distance and collectivism, describe
differences in values and norms across countries (House et al., 2004).
Those dimensions indicate what kind of behavior is valued (“should be”)
and common (“is”) and, in turn, which behaviors might be particularly
effective in a culture. To generate new ideas and overcome resistance to
new ideas, innovation teams are likely to require culture-specific stra­
tegies that are tailored to societal values and norms. Previous cross-
cultural research provides comprehensive knowledge about the re­
lationships of cultural dimensions with innovation behaviors. In the
following, we first discuss which predictions follow from this cross-
cultural research stream for team exploration and exploitation and
transfer the reasoning to China, India, and Singapore. However, argu­
ments and results from this research stream, which focuses on general
cultural dimensions, on how within-Asia cultural differences influence
innovation remain ambiguous. Therefore, we will then discuss in what
way culture-specific factors may provide a more nuanced picture of
innovation across China, India, and Singapore. Four cultural di­
mensions, i.e., uncertainty avoidance, power distance, collectivism, and
cultural tightness, have been repeatedly related to innovation.
2.3. Innovation-related cultural differences: Uncertainty avoidance,
power distance, collectivism, and tightness/looseness
Uncertainty avoidance (Dwyer, Mesak, & Hsu, 2005), the extent to
which individuals in a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and
ambiguity and shy away from risky attempts (Hofstede & Hofstede,
1991), is considered a key factor for differences in innovation activity
(Efrat, 2014; Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013). Teams’ innovation activity
indeed needs to address uncertainty because innovation increases risk
and involves investments in an unknown future (McMullen & Shepherd,
2006). Uncertainty avoidance, however, produces hesitancy, indeci­
siveness, and resistance toward such risky attempts (Hayton et al., 2002;
Mueller & Thomas, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance is likely to hamper
teams’ exploration activity because, as a result of its nonlinear and
experimental nature, exploration requires tolerance for ambiguity and
risks. Thus, teams in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance are less
likely to show exploration activity. Exploitation, in contrast, involves
less uncertainty, risk, and ambiguity, such that uncertainty avoidance
may hinder only the teams’ exploration, not necessarily their exploita­
tion. As uncertainty avoidance is higher in China than in India, and in
Singapore even higher than in China (House et al., 2004), these argu­
ments may suggest higher exploration activity in Indian teams than in
Chinese and Singaporean teams.
Power distance has been suggested to hinder creativity because high
power distance cultures may not be used to taking personal initiative,
tend to maintain the status quo, and establish barriers to novelty and
change (Geletkanycz, 1997; Rauch et al., 2013; Rinne et al., 2012; Xie &
Paik, 2019). At the same time, power distance might facilitate team
exploitation by making team members adhere to leaders’ innovation
strategies. Team members’ adherence enables the leader to implement
novel ideas and strategies and to overcome resistance associated with
innovation (Rauch et al., 2013). India, China, and Singapore all score
410
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
high on power distance, with the highest levels in India. These argu­
ments suggest lower exploration and higher exploitation activity in In­
dian teams than in Chinese and Singaporean teams. It is noteworthy that
this prediction stands in contrast to the prediction following from un­
certainty avoidance differences, as outlined above.
Collectivism has been suggested to facilitate exploitation activities, as
it facilitates building stable relationships (Rauch et al., 2013), whereas
individualism has been suggested to facilitate creativity, entrepreneurial
activity, and exploration (Hayton et al., 2002; Rauch et al., 2013; Xie &
Paik, 2019). All three countries score high in collectivism, indicating
that collectivism may not explain differences in innovation activities
across China, India, and Singapore (House et al., 2004). There are dif­
ferences in two types of collectivism, in-group collectivism (focused on
the family and groups with close relationships) and institutional
collectivism (focused on the community or societal level). India scores
higher on in-group collectivism and lower on institutional collectivism
than China and Singapore. How these differences may relate to team
innovation behavior, however, remains unclear.
Cultural looseness is suggested to be beneficial for creativity (Gelfand
et al., 2006). Teams in loose societies are likely to have less order,
accountability, and sanctioning and more tolerance for organizational
change, and they have more discretion and a wider range of acceptable
behavior (Gelfand et al., 2006). A wider range of behaviors enables
higher levels of individuality and the expression of diverse ideas within
teams (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991). In loose cultures, perceptions and
ideas are openly shared, and organizational practices are not necessarily
adhered to. Such looseness facilitates flexibility and openness to change
(Gelfand et al., 2006). China, India, and Singapore are all considered
tight cultures, with the lowest score in China (Gelfand et al., 2011),
suggesting more exploration in Chinese teams. This prediction is in line
with power distance arguments but in contrast to uncertainty avoidance
arguments.
Overall, the extant theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence
based on previous cultural dimensions seem to provide contradictory
predictions about how cultures could influence innovation activity
across China, India, and Singapore. Thus, to identify the cultural dif­
ferences in innovation activity across these three countries, a closer look
at the local cultures is required. In the next section, we elaborate on local
cultural practices in China, India, and Singapore, which may be relevant
and important to differences in innovation activities.
3. Hypothesis development: A closer look at innovation-related
differences among China, India, and Singapore
To uncover differences in cultural practices across China, India, and
Singapore for our hypothesis development, we take an “insider
perspective” (known as the “emic perspective”)1 in our discussion of
innovation-relevant cultural attributes. Focusing on culture specifics
from the insider perspective helps us to understand how team explora­
tion, exploitation, and innovation differ across these cultures. We
elaborate on specific cultural practices, guanxi, ting hua, and yao mianzi
(in China), leela and jugaad (in India), and kiasu (in Singapore), and
propose that these cultural practices could influence the tendency to­
ward either exploration or exploitation activities in innovation teams.
We discuss the cultural practices of each culture in the following
sections.
1
Our theorizing is not based on an exhaustive emic analysis of the countries’
cultures (that would have gone beyond the scope of our study), but we based
our selection of these practices on a literature analysis of the three countries’
innovation literature (in preparation, anonymous for review purpose), on a
qualitative pilot study (see Study 1), on exploratory findings from a quantitative
analysis of cultural differences (see Study 2), and on frequent discussions within
our multinational research team representing all three countries of interest.
S. Hubner et al.
3.1. Chinese culture’s influence on innovativeness
The literature suggests that Chinese culture is characterized by
relationship orientation, often discussed in light of the importance of
‘guanxi’ (Chow, Harrison, McKinnon, & Wu, 1999; Tsang, 1998). Guanxi
refers to developing and maintaining long-term social relationships
based on commitment, loyalty, and obligation (Fu, Tsui, & Dess, 2006).
Guanxi extends beyond family membership, and guanxi can be devel­
oped via common experiences, preferences, and shared identity-related
characteristics (Chen & Chen, 2004). In Chinese culture, people do not
quickly establish rapport with ‘outsiders’ (Chen & Chen, 2004). How­
ever, when established, guanxi is characterized by mutual trust and
dynamic reciprocity. Therefore, guanxi and the respective network can
be considered a business resource and even a competitive advantage
(Tsang, 1998).
For an innovation task, Chinese will usually evaluate how guanxi
helps in advancing the innovation process. Guanxi makes implementa­
tion fast and efficient because, in a network of established relationships,
one can immediately and easily get a task done. Guanxi also supports
interactions with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders and thus
creates numerous opportunities for getting an innovation off the ground
quickly (Dwyer et al., 2005; Rauch et al., 2013; Wang & Chung, 2013).
Because of its strong reciprocal relationships, guanxi enables the align­
ment of people for opportunity exploitation (Tjosvold, Tang, & West,
2004). Therefore, we argue that guanxi is instrumental for exploitation.
Additionally, because guanxi can be developed between business part­
ners, we expect that using guanxi is even more beneficial for exploitation
than family-oriented relationships, which are common in India due to its
in-group collectivism.
However, guanxi also constrains the thinking. Guanxi is a system of
established relationships and shifts attention toward already established
relationships. Therefore, guanxi can create, in innovation processes, a
focus on utilizing those already established relationships (Luo & Hassan,
2009). Exploration requires going beyond what is already established
and attending to ideas that might be unacceptable in one’s guanxi circle.
Accordingly, guanxi can help speed up processes but also constrain
thinking about new ideas.
Additionally, guanxi is reflected in the Confucian system of thoughts,
which emphasizes hierarchy and status. Chinese culture appreciates
status such that Chinese people tend to care about their own status and
respect and follow others who are high in status. They tend to care, more
than other cultures, about how they are treated by others, including
friends, coworkers, supervisors, and family (Hwang, 2000). Chinese
society practices harmony, particularly in interactions across hierarchy
levels (Chuang, Hsu, Wang, & Judge, 2015). Therefore, the ideas of
guanxi and status are related; guanxi often utilizes harmonious re­
lationships with hierarchically higher individuals (Hwang, 2000).
Importantly, harmonious relationships with hierarchically higher
individuals not only imply cordial relationships but also acceptance of
order, which is emphasized in the concept of ting hua (listening to words)
(Gao, 1998; Hwang, 1987). Education in China values and focuses on
obedience and discipline and thereby cultivates a restrained attitude
(Hildebrandt, 1988). In China, a good child is usually referred to as one
who ting hua, i.e., ‘listens to the words’. Additionally, in work relation­
ships, the norm is that the superior is the one speaking, whereas the
inferior is supposed to listen (Gao, 1998). Voicing an opinion is not an
acceptable norm for a person who is not in a power position or a
recognized expert on a subject; voicing an opinion thus requires careful
and skilled communication.
Another contributor to this practice is yao mianzi, i.e., preserving
face. Mianzi refers to a person’s social standing. Social standing can be
called into question by criticism voiced by others or by one’s own
behavior that violates social norms (Liao & Bond, 2011). Preserving face
is a concern in India and Singapore, as well. However, we expect the
inhibiting nature for voicing an opinion, particularly a contradictory
opinion, to be particularly strong in China, because the coherence of
411
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
Confucian thinking, the importance of guanxi, and valuing ting hua all
emphasize the importance of social harmony.
In combination, the detrimental consequences of violations of the
reciprocity in a guanxi relationship, the cautious communication atti­
tude cultivated by the value of ting hua, and the salient concern with yao
mianzi suggest that Chinese tend to be cautious in mutual relationships.
In contrast, coming up with a new idea requires individuals to challenge
established procedures, to take individual risk (Hayton et al., 2002;
Shane, 1993), to face challenging positions and opinions of others
(Gelfand et al., 2006; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Shane, 1992), and to
openly discuss conflict (Parker, 2016). Such activities are unlikely in
teams with a highly cautious communication attitude, where chal­
lenging others is a highly risky attempt that requires tremendous social
skill (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Zhang et al., 2015). Thus, we argue that
valuing ting hua and concerns with yao mianzi (Chow et al., 1999) might
inhibit exploration activity, and we expect that exploration tends to be
comparatively low in Chinese teams.
Exploitation, on the other hand, is enhanced by the ease of
communication and the quickness of being able to get things done in a
harmonious group. Exploitation is a collective effort. Guanxi networks,
combined with the disciplining nature of the value of ting hua and
concerns with yao mianzi, thus might contradict exploration but facili­
tate exploitation in Chinese teams.
3.2. Indian culture’s influence on innovativeness
India is a very heterogeneous society in terms of religion and his­
torical influences (Panda & Gupta, 2004). As India is highly religious,
religious figures play an important role. Worshipping many different
gods is common to most religious practices. Despite India being a
constitutionally secular country, Hinduism is reflected in societal norms
and practices. Education in India is influenced by childhood stories
about Krishna, the most worshiped Hindu god in India (Sahi, 2018).
Krishna’s leelas are exemplar for the loosely argued systems of thought
in India. Krishna’s leelas characterize his playfulness and naughtiness,
and they refer to breaking social norms and discipline and being a rebel
against social dogma (Sarkar, 2011; Zaveri, 2018; Sahi, 2018). Child­
hood is considered a state in which rebellious acts are acceptable; the
child may touch, eat, and do things in a rebellious way (Sarkar, 2011).
Such beliefs from cultural-religious norms influence the educational
value system in India, such that children are allowed and encouraged to
be playful, loud, naughty, and explorative. Accordingly, the education
system in India cultivates competencies related to exploration. Educa­
tion in China and Singapore, in contrast, is more strictly focused on
disciplined learning.
Previous literature has characterized innovation activities in Indian
society as jugaad (Cappelli et al., 2015). Jugaad reflects Indian’s ten­
dency toward using the resources at hand to develop and redesign
products and processes from scratch at minimum cost (Cappelli et al.,
2015). India has produced numerous ‘frugal innovations’, referring to
just good-enough, affordable products that meet the needs of resource-
constrained consumers (Agarwal & Brem, 2012; Hossain, 2017).
Jugaad refers to new uses or new versions of existing technologies. These
innovations focus on creating social value by providing products that are
simpler and cheaper and have limited features compared to existing
products (Cappelli et al., 2015). New products are created through
bricolage, reducing time, materials and human resources, and facili­
tating self-service options for users (Hossain, 2017).
Indians’ ability to address region-specific needs in a creative and
frugal way, i.e., their ability to jugaad, is referred to as a particular
‘brilliance’ (Cappelli et al., 2015). The Indian government facilitates
skills for product development by emphasizing a high priority on state-
of-the-art education in technology (Cappelli et al., 2015). A technology-
focused mindset is likely to facilitate technological advancements and in
turn new product introductions (Ridge, Johnson, Hill, & Bolton, 2017).
Because of the limited incomes of the Indian majority and the limited
S. Hubner et al.
availability of public services, it is particularly challenging for Indian
companies to face competitors from other countries (Cappelli et al.,
2015). Additionally, the highly diverse ethnic, religious, and geographic
situation, as well as India’s complex system of regulations and licenses
(Tymon, Stumpf, & Doh, 2010), complicate innovation activity in India.
In this challenging situation, Indian companies seem to be able to
“muddle through” (Javalgi, Todd, Johnston, & Granot, 2012) and find
ways to come up with innovative, inexpensive, adapted versions of
products and services (Cappelli et al., 2015). Indians seem to have
developed a particular ability to explore new ideas and opportunities. In
China and Singapore, concepts similar to jugaad are known under
different labels but seem to be less influential than in India.
Therefore, we argue that in India the influence of leela in the
educational value system, as well as the tendency toward jugaad, suggest
an affinity toward trying out things that are creative and explorative in
nature. Because of these creative and explorative aspects in Indian cul­
ture, we suggest that there might be particularly high levels of explo­
ration in Indian teams.
3.3. Singaporean culture’s influence on innovativeness
Singaporean culture is influenced by cultures in China, Malaysia, and
the West (Li, Ngin, & Teo, 2008). Clan associations, stemming from
Chinese Singaporeans’ ancestors, coordinate and fund schools and
charitable works and thereby cultivate Chinese culture in Singapore (Li
et al., 2008). Thus, the cultural attributes explained for China above are
also influential in Singapore. Nevertheless, Singapore’s free-trade
economy, tax incentives, and attractive labor laws also attract many
foreign companies and workers. The high percentage of Western for­
eigners in Singapore, the lasting influence of British colonialization, and
the fact that many Singaporeans receive training and education in the
West and in Western companies in Singapore put a Western flavor on the
culture (Li et al., 2008; Tan, 2002). The diversity and internationality in
Singapore may support both exploration and exploitation in Singapore.
Specific to the Singaporean culture is the tendency toward kiasu.
Kiasu refers to being afraid of losing out and relates to selfish, greedy,
and inconsiderate behavior (Bedford & Chua, 2018; Tan, 2003). Being
afraid of losing out is likely to drive thrift and a prevention focus in
Singaporeans (Cheng & Hong, 2017; Low, 2006). Singaporeans’
achievement orientation (House et al., 2004) seems to stem from being
afraid to lose rather than from being keen on winning (Low, 2006).
Singaporeans also have been described as fussy, stingy, and over­
compliant (Tan, 2003), as well as rather low in openness and high in
perseverance (Scherer & Gustafsson, 2015). In Singapore, ‘going by the
books’ is considered a typical way of working. By rewarding rote
learning over creative thinking, the education system has in the past
contributed to tendencies toward strict rule following and orderliness
(Tan, 2003). Although Singapore has made strides to overcome reliance
on rote learning, the overall Singaporean culture is still portrayed as
being left-brained, preferring to work in comfort zones (Low, 2006).
Singaporeans seem to assume that the often paternalistic government
will care for them, and they can usually rely on the government for
housing, medical services, and pensions (Li et al., 2008; Low, 2006).
Strong government influence (Wang, 2018) and its authoritarian,
paternalistic, and comforting policies have been suggested to be related
to kiasu, because relying on comfort can create concerns about losing it.
Relying on a paternalistic government may refer to a culture of greedi­
ness and individual risk aversion (Li et al., 2008; Low, 2006; Tan, 2003).
For exploration, risky and courageous investments despite unknown
outcomes and without a concrete plan are necessary. As such attempts
are unlikely in a kiasu society, which is afraid to lose (Cheng & Hong,
2017; Low, 2006), kiasu is likely to counteract exploration activity.
Thus, although the international environment and talent in Singapore
may facilitate innovation, we expect a comparatively low level of
exploration activity in Singaporean teams because Singaporeans seem to
be rather risk-averse and rely on intensive planning.
412
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
3.4. Influences on innovativeness across China, India, and Singapore
In sum, we suggest that ting hua and yao mianzi may harm explora­
tion in Chinese teams, and kiasu may harm exploration in Singaporean
teams, whereas the tendency toward leela and jugaad may facilitate
exploration in Indian teams. Additionally, we expect guanxi, ting hua,
and yao mianzi to facilitate exploitation in Chinese teams. These pre­
dictions would be in line with arguments following from uncertainty
avoidance but in contrast with predictions following from power dis­
tance and cultural tightness. Comparing China, India, and Singapore, we
expect team exploitation to be highest in Chinese teams and team
exploration to be highest in Indian teams.
H1: Team exploitation activity is higher in China than in India and
Singapore.
H2: Team exploration activity is higher in India than in China and
Singapore.
We expect that both team exploration and exploitation are positively
related to the innovativeness of teams across cultures. When engaging in
exploration behavior, teams create or import new ideas (Bledow et al.,
2009). They take different perspectives, search for new information, and
exchange in networks (Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang, 2012; Li, Mag­
gitti, Smith, Tesluk, & Katila, 2013; Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, & Zhang,
2009). They do not settle on the first idea but explore a variety of
different approaches and directions and search for a novel solution that
is not yet determined (Rosing et al., 2018). When engaging in exploi­
tation behavior, teams pursue their ideas toward implementation
(Rosing et al., 2018). They focus on realizing ideas as they evaluate and
advance the ideas’ feasibility, convince supporters, and work on over­
coming resistance (Baer, 2012; Janssen, 2003). During the process of
implementation, ideas are refined, reshaped, and adapted (Bledow et al.,
2009; Rosing et al., 2018).
To reach innovativeness, teams need to generate ideas and select,
discuss, adapt, and advance ideas over time. Thus, both team behaviors,
exploration and exploitation, contribute to innovativeness (Gilson,
Mathieu, Shalley, & Ruddy, 2005). Zhao, Zong, & Zhang (2020), for
example, found in a Chinese sample that team exploration, via team
creativity, and team exploitation, via task completion, contribute to
team performance. Because of the universal nature of team innovation
processes (van Knippenberg, 2017), we suggest that even when the de­
gree of team exploration and exploitation may vary among China, India,
and Singapore, the effect of team exploration and exploitation should be
positive in all three countries. As we expect high exploitation in China
and high exploration in India, we hypothesize that team exploitation
and exploration mediate the effects of country differences on team
innovativeness (see Fig. 1).
H3: Team exploitation mediates a positive effect of Chinese culture
on team innovativeness.
H4: Team exploration mediates a positive effect of Indian culture on
team innovativeness.
4. Method and results of pilot studies
Before we tested our hypotheses in the main study, we conducted
two pilot studies. Pilot 1 built on interviews to uncover innovation-
related cultural specifics. Pilot 2 built on a survey study that analyzed
whether the cultural specifics differentiated the cultures across China,
India, and Singapore and whether the cultural specifics related to
exploration vs. exploitation.
4.1. Pilot 1: Innovation-related cultural differences in interviews
To explore what differentiates innovation across China, India, and
Singapore, we conducted 15 pilot interviews with senior executives who
S. Hubner et al.
Fig. 1. Influences of cultural differences in innovation processes.
had experience in innovation projects in one or more of the three
countries of interest. The interviews combined two different approaches
(see appendix for details on the interview questions). First, we employed
the critical incident technique. Interviewees described one very suc­
cessful and one rather unsuccessful innovation project. We deepened our
understanding of their narratives with additional open queries. Second,
we asked interviewees whether they perceived anything to be specific
for the culture or country where the innovation project took place and,
in case they had experience in more than one of the countries, whether
they perceived any differences. Thus, our interview partners shared
specific stories and experiences from innovation projects in which they
were involved and talked about their personal perceptions of the dif­
ferences among the countries. All interviews were recorded and tran­
scribed. Two of the authors independently coded the transcripts to
detect statements that indicated culture specifics and culture differ­
ences. In an iterative process of reading the transcripts and discussing
the specifics, we identified common and reoccurring themes in the
interview data.
In Table 1, we summarize innovation-related cultural differences and
show sample quotes for reoccurring themes. Our interview partners
reiterated that innovation processes in China, India, and Singapore are
very different from each other. Interviewees perceived workers in China
to be disciplined, dedicated, and focused, and to be hard-working and fast,
but also lacking in creativity. Singaporeans were also seen as hard-
working and ambitious. Singaporeans were additionally perceived to
be structured and to usually stick with the plan. Interview partners
repeatedly named dealing with failure as a big problem in Singapore.
Singaporeans were perceived to be afraid of failing. Indians were
repeatedly described as creative and having exceptional problem-solving
skills. Indians were also perceived to apply more art and individuality in
their work. Additionally, Indians were perceived to see, in contrast to
Chinese and Singaporeans, processes as more adaptable and deadlines as
more flexible. Our Indian interview partners referred to setbacks as
learning experiences rather than problems. Moreover, our interview
partners repeatedly described Indians as focusing on and valuing
frugality, while also expecting high quality levels.
In summary, in line with our theoretical arguments, Chinese were
described as disciplined and focused (which might follow from guanxi,
ting hua, and yao mianzi), Singaporeans as structured, fearing failure,
and sticking to the plan (which is related to kiasu), and Indians as cre­
ative, flexible, and frugal (which is related to leela and jugaad). These
observations again suggest high exploitation in China, high exploration
in India, and low exploration in Singapore.
4.2. Pilot 2: Cultural differences and their relation with exploration and
exploitation
In the next step, we investigated whether the identified cultural
differences differentiate the countries and whether the differences relate
to exploration vs. exploitation. To do so, we analyzed data from ques­
tionnaires that were collected as part of preparations for developing a
413
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
Table 1
Sample quotes on cultural differences in innovation projects (Pilot 1)
Sample quotes
Chinese discipline. Chinese people are very good at implementing what is once
decided. They can go ahead and, you know, replicate their process very, very well.
And the discipline levels are significantly higher in the work for central China
(Interviewee 12).
Chinese focus. I think it is a very strong plus that [Chinese] are very hard-working and
very focused. They have the target, they have the target in the front of the eye, and
they leverage if they see, for example, that you they expect a lot, they expect a lot
from the boss in the sense that they expect ideas, they expect to show them the way,
but once you have shown them the way and give them all the resources necessary for
them to achieve the target, they are extremely focused, extremely hard-working,
and they achieve, normally, they achieve the target (Interviewee 11).
Indian flexibility & adapting. The Indians are much more flexible and don‘t work
project plans as concrete as Singaporeans do. So they are constantly adapting on the
fly and adjusting (Interviewee 2).
Indians require good quality at low cost. But the Indian consumer has an additional
requirement, which is that while they expect a really low price, they also expect a
very good quality, which means that they want the product to last a really long time.
[…] Keeping a very fond commitment on the outcome needed by the consumer and
not questioning why it cannot be done in that cost and with that quality, just, it was
not done before. So the willingness to challenge the existing paradigm and believing
that it can be done in a different way, and then keeping a focus on trying frugal
changes, and attempting frugal in a very frugal manner (Interviewee 12).
Indian creativity. And with the Indian people, I actually appreciate them a lot because
they are quite intelligent. I think they are very intelligent in terms of IQ and also
really creative. I think the problem-solving skills are quite good, but not so focused
(Interviewee 11).
Indian individuality. Indian engineers and workers bring a certain degree of art to
their work. So they believe that they can do it in a different way, which is better than
the normal way prescribed. So they apply, they tend to apply a certain amount of
individual process or individual thought to what they do (Interviewee 12).
Singaporeans stick to the plan. Whereas my experience with Singapore is that they are
very quick to go to a plan, then, once they have a plan, all sort of this expectation is
ticked to it, you know. And everyone kind of just goes on and does the thing with the
expectations in mind, and everyone does exactly what he is briefed (Interviewee 2).
Singaporean structuredness. As a Singapore company, we expect the processes to be
very structured (Interviewee 5).
large-scale quantitative analysis of cultural differences. The question­
naire was answered by technology or engineering students across (i.a.)
China (N = 261), India (N = 190), and Singapore (N = 191). The items
were developed based on cross-cultural and innovation literature,
exploratory findings from our previous analyses of cultural differences,
and frequent discussions within our multinational research team rep­
resenting the countries of interest. After developing a rough taxonomy of
diverse constructs that had been suggested to be relevant to Asian cul­
ture and innovation, items were developed in two brainstorming and
discussion sessions. As recommended for cross-cultural analyses, the
wording of the items reflects concrete cultural practices or descriptive
norms (i.e., how people of a cultural background commonly think or
behave) (Frese, 2015). We used semantic differentials (Friborg, Marti­
nussen, & Rosenvinge, 2006; Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002)
because responses to semantic differentials are less affected by ten­
dencies toward extremes or the middle, which vary across countries. The
S. Hubner et al.
developed items were refined based on independent ratings by re­
searchers and cognitive interviews (on a representative set of 26 items)
with individuals from the Asian countries. Following recommendations
outlined in Brislin (1970), we engaged in back-translation procedures.
For our pilot study, we analyzed differences on items that exemplify
differences in the culture-specific concepts that we propose contrast the
three countries of interest and relate to exploration and exploitation
(guanxi, ting hua, yao mianzi, leela, jugaad, and kiasu).
The items contain responses to situation descriptions, in which par­
ticipants indicate on a semantic differential which of two practices is
more likely in their own society (see Table 2). We analyzed country
mean differences on each item and calculated correlations with two
items measuring tendencies toward exploration vs. exploitation, i.e., one
measuring preferences for applying current vs. coming up with new
solutions, and the other measuring preferences for mature vs. new
projects. In the following, we report mean differences (MDs) and their
significance in ANOVA post hoc tests to compare the cultural tendencies
in the three countries. Additionally, we report correlations with the two
measures of tendencies toward exploration vs. exploitation (rnew solution
and rnew project). As shown in Table 2, the results suggest that tendencies
toward exploration vs. exploitation might indeed differentiate the cul­
tures in China, India, and Singapore. In line with our hypotheses, Chi­
nese participants indicated stronger tendencies toward exploitation in
their society (H1) than Indian participants, who indicated stronger
tendencies toward exploration (H2) on both measures (MDnew solution =
− 0.53, p < .01; MDnew project = − 0.55, p < .01). Indians (MDnew solution =
1.05, p < .01) and Chinese (MDnew solution = 0.52, p < .01) also indicated
stronger tendencies toward exploration than Singaporeans (H2) on one
measure.
We found the assumed country differences in cultural tendencies
regarding the concepts of our theorizing: Chinese (MD = 0.79, p < .01)
and Singaporeans (MD = 0.52, p < .01) indicated a stronger tendency
toward keeping opinions to themselves (vs. pointing to problems) than
Indians (this tendency is related to practicing harmonious relationships
as suggested by guanxi and ting hua), and this tendency was negatively
correlated with exploration (rnew solution = − 0.18, p < .01; rnew project =
− 0.13, p < .01), as suggested by our theorizing. Being afraid of loss of
face (mianzi) also negatively correlated with tendencies toward explo­
ration (rnew solution = − 0.11, p < .01; rnew project = − 0.14, p < .01), as
expected, and this tendency was higher for the Chinese than for the
Indian society (MD = 0.52, p < .01) and higher for the Singaporean than
for the Indian society (MD = 0.86, p < .01). Singaporeans indicated
being afraid of loss of face as a stronger tendency in their society than
the Chinese (MD = 0.33, p < .01). Feeling insecure (vs. challenged)
when facing uncertainty (related to kiasu) was also negatively corre­
lated with exploration tendencies (rnew solution = − 0.13, p < .01; rnew project
= − 0.12, p < .01), as expected. Singaporeans indicated a stronger ten­
dency toward feeling insecure in their society compared to both Chinese
(MD = 1.35, p < .01) and Indians (MD = 0.58, p < .01); Chinese also
indicated a stronger tendency toward feeling insecure than Indians (MD
= 0.77, p < .01). The preference for being viewed as creative and
adaptive (vs. precise, reliable, and efficient) was, as expected, positively
correlated with exploration, at least one measure was significant (rnew
solution = 0.20, p < .01; rnew project = n.s.). This preference for creative and
adaptive characteristics (which is related to valuing jugaad and leela)
was indicated to be stronger for the Indian society than for both the
Chinese (MD = 0.40, p < .05) and the Singaporean society (MD = 1.23,
p < .01) and stronger for the Chinese than for the Singaporean society
(MD = 0.83, p < .01). Valuing orderliness and organization (related to
kiasu) compared to imaginativeness and creativity (related to leela) was,
as expected, negatively correlated with exploration tendencies (rnew so­
lution = − 0.11, p < .01; rnew project = − 0.10, p < .05). Tendencies toward
orderliness and organization were indicated to be stronger for the Sin­
gaporean than for both the Chinese (MD = 0.95, p < .01) and the Indian
society (MD = 0.58; p < .01) and stronger for the Indian than for the
Chinese society (MD = 0.37, p < .05).
414
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
Thus, these findings support the notion that guanxi, ting hua, yao
mianzi, leela, jugaad, and kiasu differentiate the three cultures. Jugaad
and leela appear to relate to exploration more than exploitation,
whereas yao mianzi, ting hua, and kiasu seem to relate to exploitation
more than exploration. As India scores high on the cultural attributes
that are related to exploration, these results again suggest a tendency
toward exploration in India and, vice versa, a tendency toward exploi­
tation in China and Singapore.
5. Method and results of the main study
5.1. Participants and procedures
Our main study was a survey study with innovation teams in China,
India, and Singapore. We collected multisourced team data in a one-time
online survey from team members and their formal supervisors. All
contacted teams were working on an R&D project in an engineering- or
technology-related field. Those teams were working on innovation, here
defined as embarking on anything new, including but not limited to a new
project, new product, or new restructuring process. Our aim was to contact
teams working for companies that are “typical” for each country. We
included teams consisting of at least one supervisor and two or more
team member responses. Each team was given a unique team code to
match the data. A total of 624 individuals across 138 valid teams
participated in the research2. The supervisor questionnaire took 5–10
min, and the team member questionnaire took 25–30 min to fill out.
Team innovation can be assessed either by self or supervisor ratings
(Hülsheger et al., 2009). In our main analysis, we evaluate the model
with multisource data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003),
i.e., team members’ ratings of team exploration and exploitation and
supervisors’ ratings of team innovativeness. In robustness checks, we
additionally evaluate the validity of the findings by recalculating the
model with (a) team members’ ratings of team innovativeness and (b)
supervisors’ ratings of team exploration and exploitation.
In China, we had 49 teams from six large companies in raw materials,
pharmaceuticals or research-related fields. The average team tenure was
3.75 years. The mean team size was 10.82 members. A significant
portion of team members (38%) had a bachelor’s degree, 14% had a
12th grade education, and 16% had a master’s degree. All participants
were born in China. The participants completed the survey in Chinese.
For the Chinese version of the questionnaire, the English items were
translated into Chinese and retranslated back into English by a different
person, based on back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1970).
In India, we had 40 teams from 34 companies of small to large en­
terprises, to reflect the diverse market in India. The average team tenure
was 3.27 years. The mean team size was 10.62 members. The majority of
the respondents in the Indian teams had university education, 45% had a
bachelor’s degree, 26% had a master’s degree, and 1.8% had a doctoral
degree. Except for one participant born in Nepal and another born in
Singapore, all other participants were born in India. The participants
completed the survey in English because English is the usual language to
be used in education and in most innovation companies in India.
In Singapore, we had 40 teams from 27 companies of small to large
size, including government agencies and global companies, which are
typical for Singapore. The average team tenure was 3.56 years. The
mean team size was 6.23 members. More than half of the respondents
had a university education, with 41% holding a bachelor’s degree, 16%
holding a master’s degree, and 4.1% holding a doctoral degree. Out of
196 individuals, their ethnicity included 162 Singaporeans, 11 Malay­
sians, seven Chinese, four Indians, and 10 participants from 10 other
countries. In comparison to teams in China and India, Singapore had the
highest proportion of cross-cultural teams, which reflects the city’s
2
The data was collected as part of a larger research project, with other
subprojects focusing additional research questions.
S. Hubner et al. Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421

Table 2
Cultural differences and their relation with exploration vs. exploitation (Pilot 2)
Culture specific Measure M M M MD MD MD Correlation with
concepts, assumed China India SG China China India exploration vs.
country differences –India –SG –SG exploitation

new new
solution project

1 Preference for applying current solutions vs. coming up 2.25 2.78 1.72 − 0.53** 0.52** 1.05**
exploitation vs. with new solutions. (new solution)
2 exploration Preference for a mature project vs. a new project. (new 1.45 2.00 1.69 − 0.55** − 0.23 0.33
project)
3 guanxi/ting hua In case of disagreement, directly pointing out the 3.26 2.46 3.01 0.79** 0.27 − 0.52** − 0.18** − 0.13**
high in China problems vs. keeping their opinion to oneself.
4 mianzi People are not afraid of loss of face vs. afraid of loss of 3.71 3.18 4.05 0.52** − 0.33** − 0.86** − 0.11** − 0.14**
high in China face.
5 kiasu Uncertainty feels challenging vs. insecure. 3.08 3.86 4.44 − 0.77** − 1.35** − 0.58** − 0.13** − 0.12**
high in SG
6 jugaad/leela Preference for being viewed as precise, reliable, efficient 3.17 3.57 2.36 − 0.40* 0.83** 1.23** 0.20**
high in India vs. creative, adaptive, approaching tasks from
unsuspected angles.
7 leela vs. kiasu Most important characteristics are believed to be 2.59 2.96 3.53 − 0.37* − 0.95** − 0.58** − 0.11** − 0.10*
India < SG imaginativeness and creativity vs. orderliness and
organization.

Note. N = 642; *p < .05; **p < .01; M = Mean; MD = Mean Difference; SG = Singapore; for each item, lower values are closer to the option mentioned first (e.g.,
current solution/mature project), higher values are closer to the option mentioned second (e.g., new solution/new project).

cosmopolitan outlook. The participants completed the survey in English,
which is an official language in Singapore.
5.2. Measurements
Team exploration/exploitation activity. Team members reported
team exploration and exploitation for the main model. We used five
items to measure team exploration, e.g., “We tested new methods and
ways of working”, and six items to measure team exploitation, e.g., “We
relied on well-established routines”, based on scales by He and Wong
(2004). Participants rated whether they agreed to each item, thinking
about the last month, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 5 (absolutely), with an internal consistency of α = 0.85 for exploration
and α = 0.82 for exploitation. We aggregated team members’ ratings to
obtain team measures based on rwg (both variables reported rwg >
0.80). We aggregated the individual scores to team level (exploration
ICC(1) = 0.54, ICC(2) = 0.85; exploitation ICC(1) = 0.43, ICC(2) =
0.82).
Team innovativeness. Innovativeness requires creating something
that is new, has practical use, and is of quality. To produce ideas and
solutions that are novel, useful, and of high quality, both the team’s
creativity and its ability to implement is needed. In line with innova­
tiveness conceptualizations (Amabile, 1983; Anderson, Potočnik, &
Zhou, 2014; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; West & Farr, 1989), we
assessed the supervisors’ perception of the novelty, usefulness, and
quality of the team’s innovation output. Using Rosing et al.’s (2018)
items with a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, the team’s direct super­
visors rated the innovation’s novelty from “a usual and conventional
solution” to “completely novel and hardly relies on conventional and
usual solutions”, its usefulness from “a useless solution” to “a completely
useful solution”, and its quality from “an insufficient solution” to “a
much better than standard solution”. The alpha coefficient for team
innovativeness was 0.86.
Control Variables. In the main analysis, we calculated the model
controlling for company size (reported by team members on a 5-point
scale with size categories) because the size of the company might in­
fluence how important creativity, efficiency, and innovativeness is, and
how much influence a team has on a particular innovation, and mean
company size varied between the countries. In robustness checks, we
calculated the model without controls and with other controls. Team
size and team conflict determine the communication and motivation in a
team, which can influence whether a team can productively work
together in an innovation process. The educational level can be related
to team members’ innovation ability (Fasko, 2001). Therefore, we ran
the analyses again while controlling for team size (team members re­
ported the number of members in their team), team conflict (reported by
team members on a 5-point Likert scale), and education level (whether
the majority of team members had a university degree, as reported by
team members). We do not discuss the details of those effects because we
assume that company size, team size, conflict, and education similarly
influence innovation processes across cultures, such that they are
beyond the scope of our analysis. The results of our model that tests
country differences remained stable in the analyses with additional
controls.
5.3. Analyses and results
Table 3 presents the correlations among the main study variables.
Team exploration was positively correlated with team exploitation (r =
0.22, p < .05) and team innovativeness (r = 0.62, p < .001) among the
team ratings, and among the supervisor ratings also positively correlated
with team exploitation (r = 0.28, p < .01) and team innovativeness (r =
0.37, p < .001). Company size correlated negatively with team explo­
ration (r = -0.31, p < .001). Team ratings correlated positively with
supervisor ratings for team exploration (r = 0.18, p < .05), team
exploitation (r = 0.25, p < .01), and team innovativeness (r = 0.45, p <
.001), indicating measurement validity.
In the first step, we evaluated country differences by calculating
country means and conducting an ANOVA. Table 4 presents the means
and standard deviations for the variables in our model by country. The
means provide a first indication for country differences in team explo­
ration and exploitation, as suggested by Hypotheses 1 and 2. China has
the highest mean for team exploitation, and India has the highest mean
for team exploration. Table 5 shows the results of an ANOVA that tests
country mean differences. The results show that there are significant
country-level differences in the predicted directions. Team exploitation
(H1) was significantly higher in China than in Singapore (MD = − 0.36,
p < .01) and India (MD = − 0.24, p < .05). Team exploration (H2) was
significantly higher in India than in Singapore (MD = − 0.30, p < .05).
These differences also indicate that in Singaporean teams, both team
exploration and team exploitation were significantly lower than those in
Chinese and Indian teams. Team innovativeness was significantly higher
in India than in China (0.33, p < .05).
Next, we tested the direct and indirect effects on team exploration,

415
S. Hubner et al. Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421

Table 3
Correlations (main study)
Team ratings Supervisor ratings

Team exploration Team exploitation Team innovativeness Team exploration Team exploitation Team innovativeness Company size Team size

Team ratings
Team exploration —
Team exploitation 0.22 * —
Team innovativeness 0.62 *** 0.13 —

Supervisor ratings
Team exploration 0.18 * -0.12 0.23 * —
Team exploitation 0.22 * 0.25 ** 0.16 0.28 ** —
Team innovativeness 0.34 *** 0.01 0.45 *** 0.37 *** —
0.16

Controls
Company size -0.06 0.08 -0.14 -0.31 *** -0.15 —
0.06
Team size 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.13 —
0.09 0.05
Conflict 0.03 -0.04 -0.15 0.19 * 0.01 -0.04
-0.00 -0.16

Note: N = 138 teams; * p < .5, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 4 India, indicating that higher levels of team exploration in India may feed
Descriptives by country (main study) forward into team innovativeness (β = 0.13; p = .045). Thus, the data
Country Mean SD SE support Hypothesis 4, indicating that team exploration activities, which
were highest in India, positively relate to team innovativeness.
Team exploration Singapore 3.09 0.55 0.09
India 3.38 0.59 0.09 Robustness checks and additional analyses. As previous research
China 3.19 0.51 0.07 suggested an interaction effect between exploration and exploitation
Team exploitation Singapore 3.06 0.50 0.08 (ambidexterity), we ran an additional analysis that included the inter­
India 3.18 0.45 0.07 action; however, the interaction was nonsignificant. Moreover, we reran
China 3.42 0.46 0.07
Team innovativeness Singapore 3.76 0.67 0.11
our model without controls and reran it with other control variables, i.e.,
India 3.95 0.69 0.11 team size, team conflict, and team education level. In those additional
China 3.62 0.58 0.08 models, the pattern remained stable. As a validity check, we also
recalculated the mediation model with the team members’ ratings for all
variables of the model (team exploration, exploitation, and innova­
exploitation, and innovativeness in a regression analysis (Table 6).
tiveness) instead of using the supervisors’ ratings for team innovative­
Dummy coded variables for the country effects were the independent
ness; in this analysis, the relationships had the same directions as in the
variables, team member-rated team exploration and exploitation were
main analysis and were even stronger. In an analysis with the supervi­
the mediators, and supervisor-rated team innovativeness was the
sors’ ratings for all variables, we found positive effects on team explo­
outcome variable. In this analysis, we controlled for company size (see
ration and exploitation for India and a negative effect on exploration for
also our robustness checks in which we report the results without this
China. These findings are also in line with our prediction that China is
control and with other controls). Mediation effects were calculated with
more focused on exploitation than exploration.
1000 bias-corrected bootstraps. As we tested whether we would find
higher levels of team exploitation in China and higher levels of team
6. Discussion
exploration in India, we used Singapore as the “baseline”.
Supporting Hypothesis 1, we found a positive effect for China on
We investigated differences in team exploration and exploitation
team exploitation (β = 0.35; p < .001), indicating more exploitation
across China, India, and Singapore and analyzed whether those differ­
activities in Chinese teams. Supporting Hypothesis 2, we also found an
ences explained differences in team innovativeness among the three
effect for India on team exploration (β = 0.33; p = .013), indicating more
countries. Our findings indicate that teams focus more strongly on either
exploration in Indian teams. Hypothesis 3 predicted that team exploi­
exploration or exploitation, depending on national culture. We elabo­
tation mediates the effect of Chinese culture on team innovativeness.
rated on innovation-related culture specifics in China, India, and
Hypothesis 4 predicted that team exploration mediates the effect of In­
Singapore and suggest that those culture specifics explain differences in
dian culture on team innovativeness. In our data, team exploration was
team exploration, exploitation, and innovativeness. Our Asia-centric
significantly positively related to team innovativeness (β = 0.38; p <
perspective on innovation expands the theoretical scope of factors that
.001), but team exploitation was not. Therefore, the indirect effect for
may influence innovativeness.
China on team innovativeness via team exploitation was not significant,
We found in an interview pilot study that Chinese were described as
and Hypothesis 3 was not supported. We did find an indirect effect for

Table 5
ANOVA post hoc results (main study)
Team exploration Team exploitation Team innovativeness

India China India China India China

Singapore (MD) -0.30* -0.10 − 0.13 -0.36** -0.18 0.14

India (MD) — 0.19 — -0.24* — 0.33*

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; MD = Mean Difference.

416
S. Hubner et al. Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421

Table 6
Regression analysis (main study).
DV: Team Exploration

95% C.I.

Estimate SE Lower Upper β df t p

India a 0.33 0.13 0.07 0.60 0.28 125 2.52 0.013

China a 0.05 0.12 − 0.19 0.29 0.04 125 0.40 0.693

DV: Team Exploitation

95% C.I.

Estimate SE Lower Upper β df t p

India a 0.13 0.11 − 0.09 0.35 0.13 125 1.16 0.249

China a 0.35 0.10 0.15 0.55 0.36 125 3.41 < 0.001

Mediation model 95% C.I.

Estimate SE Lower Upper β z p

Components
India a ⇒ exploration 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
India a ⇒ exploitation 0.13 0.12 − 0.12 0.40 0.13 1.08 0.282
China a ⇒ exploration 0.05 0.12 − 0.17 0.28 0.04 0.42 0.677
China a ⇒ exploitation 0.35 0.10 0.15 0.54 0.36 3.44 < 0.001
exploration ⇒ innovativeness 0.38 0.10 0.21 0.58 0.33 3.91 < 0.001
exploitation ⇒ innovativeness − 0.01 0.13 − 0.28 0.23 − 0.01 − 0.11 0.914

Indirect effect

India a ⇒ exploration ⇒ innovativeness 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.30 0.09 2.00 0.045

Note. a In this model, we included two dummy variables to differentiate the countries. The two dummies, “India” and “China”, compare to Singapore as a baseline.
Confidence intervals are calculated with bias corrected bootstrap. In this model, we control for company size.

disciplined and focused in innovation projects, Singaporeans as struc­
tured, fearing failure, and sticking to the plan, and Indians as creative,
flexible, and frugal. These differences relate to the concepts of guanxi,
ting hua, yao mianzi, leela, jugaad, and kiasu, which we suggest influ­
ence innovation in China, India, and Singapore. An additional survey
pilot indicated that jugaad and leela, which we found to be particularly
influential in India, related to exploration more than exploitation. In
contrast, yao mianzi, ting hua, and kiasu, which we found to be
particularly influential in China and Singapore, related to exploitation
more than exploration. In our main study, which analyzed survey data
from innovation teams and their supervisors, we found that Indian teams
showed higher team exploration, and Chinese teams higher team
exploitation, when comparing China, India, and Singapore. Moreover,
we found that the differences in exploration shaped the teams’ inno­
vativeness. Our findings hold contributions to the innovation and cross-
cultural literature.
6.1. Contribution
First, elaborating on the cultural differences among China, India, and
Singapore, three Asian countries that are among the most important
innovators globally, goes beyond previous research, which mainly
focused on Western cultures or East-West differences. Such traditional
East-West comparisons have strongly influenced cross-cultural innova­
tion research. East-West comparisons suggest lower exploration in the
East, because of the importance of status and higher power distance
levels (House et al., 2004; Shane, 1992; Xie & Paik, 2019). This previous
research predominantly drew on established cultural dimensions (Gel­
fand et al., 2011; House et al., 2004), which may neglect differences
across Asia. Our Asia-centric perspective provides a more nuanced pic­
ture, which is needed to understand innovation in Asia (Gupta & Wang,
2009). Our research demonstrates the necessity for more research that
considers the variability of cultures within Asia and opens up new av­
enues for future research.
Second, we elaborated on culture-specific concepts to explain why
Indian teams may tend toward exploration and why Chinese teams may
tend toward exploitation. We explored how far culture-specific factors
differentiate cultural tendencies in China, India, and Singapore and how
such culture-specific factors relate to tendencies toward exploration vs.
exploitation. We suggest considering guanxi, ting hua, yao mianzi, leela,
jugaad, and kiasu when analyzing team innovation in China, India, and
Singapore. Our findings support our reasoning and are in line with un­
certainty avoidance arguments, which would also suggest higher
exploration in India because of lower uncertainty avoidance in India
than in China and Singapore (House et al., 2004). However, our findings
are in contrast to power distance and cultural looseness arguments,
which would suggest lower exploration in India because of higher power
distance and cultural tightness (Gelfand et al., 2011; 2006; House et al.,
2004). Our research addresses calls for a nuanced investigation of cul­
tural differences by innovation research (Lavie et al., 2010; van Knip­
penberg, 2017), and complements previous cross-cultural research
(Gelfand et al., 2011; House et al., 2004) by introducing Asian culture-
specific factors as predictors of innovation.
Third, we tested differences in team exploration and exploitation as
pathways explaining how cultural differences shape innovativeness in
innovation teams across China, India, and Singapore. Previous research
suggested that both exploration and exploitation are needed for suc­
cessful innovation, but most of this research focused on the organiza­
tional level. Our study investigated exploration and exploitation at the
team level and suggests that team exploration relates to team innova­
tiveness in China, India, and Singapore. We did not find an influence of
exploitation and did not find an influence of ambidexterity, the inter­
action between exploration and exploitation (Bledow et al., 2011). Thus,
future research is needed to better understand the process of combining
exploration and exploitation at the team level in different cultures
(Yang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2015). Our findings suggest that the assumption
that the interaction of exploration and exploitation predicts innovation
across countries needs to be reconsidered.

417
S. Hubner et al.
6.2. Limitations and avenues for future research
Although our multisource data collection holds advantages, our
study design also has limitations. The teams in our sample differed not
only in national culture but also in other criteria, e.g., gender and age
composition, education level of team members, team size, tenure, and
team climate, which might also influence team innovativeness. For
example, there could be differences in exploration behavior due to ed­
ucation level because education could determine the creative ability of
team members (Fasko, 2001). Although we did not find an influence of
these controls in our data, future research should investigate additional
influence mechanisms in more detail. Moreover, we did not investigate
differences among different regional areas within each country, which
would provide an even more accurate picture.
More research is needed to better understand the mechanisms of the
influence of culture-specific aspects on innovation. Our findings are in
line with our prediction that exploration is particularly high in India and
exploitation is particularly high in China; however, future research is
needed to test the mediating role of the culture-specific factors under­
lying our theorizing.
Our measures of team exploration and exploitation as well as team
innovativeness were based on perceptions. However, our findings of
country differences could be influenced by differences in perceptions.
For example, Singaporeans could be particularly critical with them­
selves, and being critical could negatively influence their perceptions of
team innovation processes and outcomes; then, exploration, exploita­
tion, and innovativeness might actually not be lower but rather
perceived lower than in the other countries. Moreover, tendencies to­
ward higher values, lower values, or the middle might differ across
countries and thereby bias our analyses of cross-cultural differences.
These limitations are common in cross-cultural research. Our design has
some advantages in this regard, because of reduced common source bias,
because team members reported team activities and team supervisors
reported team innovativeness.
We analyzed differences among China, India, and Singapore. This
comparison is of course just a first step toward an Asia-centric
perspective. Future research is needed that includes other Asian coun­
tries and additional comparisons. Nevertheless, several of the cultural
specifics, which we considered in our conceptual model, also are influ­
ential in other Asian countries. For example, guanxi, which we consid­
ered for China, is related to inhwa in Korea, and yao mianzi, also
considered for China, is also a concern in Japan, translated as tuk muk.
Knowledge on how cultural specifics are distributed across Asia,
particularly how they shape innovation across different Asian countries,
is limited. We call for more research on cultural specifics and differences
across all Asian countries and their influence on innovation processes.
In this study, we did not focus on one particular kind of innovation.
Although all teams in our sample were working in R&D projects in a
technology- or engineering-related field, the innovations included
different kinds of innovations. Innovations can focus on particular
knowledge or technology (Huarng, Mas-Tur, & Moreno, 2018) and can
include product, service, and process innovations. Some cultural aspects
might be tailored to a specific kind of innovation. For example, jugaad
might be particularly helpful for product innovation, whereas kiasu,
with its attention to detail, could be critical for process innovations.
Since different countries tend to attract different industries, it is difficult
to disentangle national and subject matter effects. Such differences are
not covered in our analyses and need attention in future research.
Our study focused on the influence of national culture on team
innovation. However, also the innovation situation in the local market,
and support from industry and government, influence innovation ac­
tivity. Additionally, the economic situation in a country influences
innovation processes (Wang, Yu, & Liu, 2013). China, India, and
Singapore all have become increasingly successful in recent years but
are very different from one another, not only in terms of culture.
Considering the market situations in the countries opens up avenues for
418
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
future research:
In China, innovation is considered a national priority, and the gov­
ernment intends to push a transition from a ‘catch-up’ to an ‘innovation
leadership’ orientation (Vinig & Bossink, 2015). Although the govern­
ment’s extensive influence and preference for state-owned enterprises
might harm innovation efficiency (Chung & Tan, 2017), several factors,
such as an advanced financial market, facilitate innovation in China (Li,
Lee, & Ko, 2017). Chinese companies seem to effectively iterate between
external and internal knowledge generation, which helps them reduce
costs and speed up product development (Williamson & Yin, 2014). The
Chinese innovation system seems to gradually move from a public-
centered approach to a firm-centered approach (Vinig & Bossink,
2015). Future research is needed for a better understanding of how
much this situation might also contribute to China’s innovation success
(Dutta et al., 2020).
In India, the highly diverse ethnic, religious, and geographic situa­
tion, resource constraints, and India’s complex system of regulations and
licenses (Tymon et al., 2010) complicate innovation activities. Despite
these difficulties, India has been classified as an innovation achiever in
recent innovation rankings and ranks among the best for quality in
innovation in middle-income economies (Dutta et al., 2020). Our find­
ings suggest cultural tendencies to be drivers of exploration activity in
India. Future research could aim for a better understanding of how
cultural tendencies and market dynamics work together.
In Singapore, economic relationships are largely coordinated by
market competition with strong government interventions (Wang,
2018). The government has (indirect) control over all major local banks
and runs powerful organizations, boards, and companies in most in­
dustries. The government fosters entrepreneurship, and innovation in
Singapore is often policy-driven. Additionally, large foreign multina­
tional companies (MNCs) influence the innovation system (Wang,
2018). Thus, most innovation activities in Singapore are coordinated
and focused on only a few fields selected by the government or MNCs.
Nevertheless, international talent and multinational headquarters in
Singapore are likely to facilitate innovation. Rankings report lively
innovation and entrepreneurship activities in Singapore, and Singapore
continues to rank among the leading innovation-driven nations (Dutta
et al., 2020). More research is needed to show how Singapore overcomes
the cultural tendencies that we found to counteract exploration activity.
6.3. Conclusion
Our research indicates that, because of differences in national cul­
ture, some innovation teams may focus on exploration and others on
exploitation. Previous literature primarily examined innovation in
Western cultures and East-West comparisons. With an Asian-centric
approach, we found culture to differentiate team innovation behaviors
across three Asian countries. While cultural factors are often blamed for
limited innovation potential in Asia (Chen et al., 2011; House et al.,
2004; Rao & Pearce, 2016), a differentiated picture of innovation pro­
cesses across Asia is missing. Previous research at the intersection of
culture and innovation focused on cultural dimensions such as uncer­
tainty avoidance, collectivism, power distance, and cultural tightness,
but the findings from this research remain mainly inconclusive (Hayton
et al., 2002; Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013). Our research contributes to a
better understanding of cultural influences on innovation, particularly
regarding team innovation processes across Asia.
Our Asia-centric approach to innovation introduces culture-specific
factors that can explain culture-specific mechanisms in China, India,
and Singapore. We suggest that the relevance of ting hua (‘listening to
words’) and the need for yao mianzi (preserving face) may harm
exploration in Chinese teams. Nevertheless, ting hua and yao mianzi, as
well as guanxi (strong dyadic social relationships), may facilitate
exploitation activity in Chinese teams. In Singaporean teams, high levels
of kiasu (fear of losing out) may harm exploration. In Indian teams,
tendencies stemming from valuing leela (playfulness and naughtiness)
S. Hubner et al. Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421

and jugaad (creative adaptation for frugal innovation) may facilitate
exploration. Thus, going beyond the factors that were considered in
previous literature, we suggest additional predictors of innovation ac­
tivities, which may explain why teams may focus on exploration in some
cultures and on exploitation in others.
Drawing on empirical analyses across China, India, and Singapore,
our research suggests that managing innovation in teams requires
considering culture specifics. Knowledge about cultural tendencies can
help organizations and managers leverage the strengths of their inno­
vation teams and compensate for weaknesses (Bledow et al., 2011). For
example, considering the tendencies toward exploration in India, mak­
ing sure that the project moves toward implementation appears to be
particularly important. In China and Singapore, in contrast, it appears to
be more important to create a trustful atmosphere in which team
members dare to bring up their own ideas. Moreover, cross-border
innovation projects could aim to leverage the strengths of each cul­
ture. We believe that continuous research efforts may help innovation
managers better understand how to manage innovation across Asia.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by funding of the Singapore Ministry of
Education Social Science Research Thematic Grant under MOE2017-
SSRTG-022. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommenda­
tions expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
reflect the views of the Singapore Ministry of Education or the Singapore
Government.

Appendix A

Additional information about pilot 1 (interview study)

Interview partners

In a first step, we contacted potential interviewees via e-mail, based on the network of the authors. Then, we applied a snowball system, i.e., we asked the managers whom we
interviewed to introduce us to additional managers. All interviewees had several years of experience in innovation projects, in one or more of the countries of interest.

Interview questions for the positive critical incident

Situation Please think of one recent situation at your workplace in China/India/Singapore in which one of your team innovations went particularly well (i.e., was
successfully implemented).
Try to remember as many details as possible – what you were thinking and feeling; when it happened; where it took place. Try to place yourself back in that
moment.
Innovation Tell me about that innovation project from your point of view. What was the innovation project about?
Innovation Please describe the innovation process in more detail. How was the innovation achieved? How were ideas generated? How were ideas implemented?
process
Success factors What was most essential to why it went well? Which factors were beneficial for the process?
Challenges Which challenges did you face? How did you deal with these challenges?
Culture In what way do you think the described innovation process was typical for China/India/Singapore? Which cultural factors could have influenced the innovation
process?
Ending question Is there anything else that we didn‘t talk about that appears relevant to you?

Interview questions for the negative critical incident

Situation Now, think of one situation at your workplace in China/India/Singapore in which one of your team innovations did not work out (i.e., was not successfully
implemented). Again, try to remember as many details as possible – what you were thinking and feeling; when it happened; where it took place. Try to place
yourself back in that moment.
Innovation Tell me about that innovation project from your point of view. What was the innovation project about?
Innovation Please describe the innovation process in more detail. Why did the innovation not work out? How were ideas generated? How were ideas implemented?
process
Detrimental What was most essential to why it went wrong? Which factors were detrimental for the innovation process?
factors
Positive aspects Despite the failed implementation, what went well in that innovation process?
Culture In what way do you think the described innovation process was typical for China/India/Singapore? Which cultural factors could have influenced the innovation
process?
Ending question Is there anything else that we didn‘t talk about that appears relevant to you?

References Barkema, H. G., Chen, X.-P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West meets east:
New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 460–479.
Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm
Agarwal, N., & Brem, A. 2012. Frugal and reverse innovation - Literature overview and
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741–758.
case study insights from a German MNC in India and China. Conference proceedings
Bedford, O., & Chua, S. H. (2018). Everything also I want: An exploratory study of
of the 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and
Singaporean Kiasuism (fear of losing out). Culture & Psychology, 24(4), 491–511.
Innovation, Munich, Germany, publisher: IEEE.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 Decade
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential
Award—“Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity
conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.
Dilemma Revisited” Ten Years Later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4),
Anderson, N. R., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in
497–514.
organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
Bledow, R., Frese, M., & Mueller, V. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership for innovation: The
framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
influence of culture. In W. H. Mobley, M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in Global
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
Leadership (Vol. 6, pp. 41–69). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective
Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.
on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119.

419
S. Hubner et al.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Cappelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J., & Useem, M. (2015). Indian business leadership: Broad
mission and creative value. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 7–12.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J.-L. (2011). Motivating
and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership
and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557.
Chen, X.-P., & Chen, C. C. (2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese Guanxi: a process
model of Guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 305–324.
Cheng, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2017). Kiasu and creativity in Singapore: An empirical test
of the situated dynamics framework. Management and Organization Review, 13(4),
871–894.
Chow, C. W., Harrison, G. L., McKinnon, J. L., & Wu, A. (1999). Cultural influences on
informal information sharing in Chinese and Anglo-American organizations: An
exploratory study. Accounting. Organizations and Society, 24(7), 561–582.
Chuang, A., Hsu, R. S., Wang, A.-C., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Does west “Fit” with east? In
Search of a Chinese model of person-environment fit. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(2), 480–510.
Chung, L., & Tan, K. H. (2017). The unique Chinese innovation pathways: Lessons from
Chinese small and mediuem sized manufacturing firms. International Journal of
Production Economics, 190, 80–87.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural
differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of
Management Journal, 34(4), 827–847.
Dutta, S., Lavin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S., 2020. The Global Innovation Index 2020: Who
Will Finance Innovation? Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva: Cornell University,
INSEAD, and WIPO.
Døjbak Håkonsson, D., Eskildsen, J. K., Argote, L., Mønster, D., Burton, R. M., & Obel, B.
(2016). Exploration versus exploitation: Emotions and performance as antecedents
and consequences of team decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 985–1001.
Dwyer, S., Mesak, H., & Hsu, M. (2005). An exploratory examination of the influence of
national culture on cross-national product diffusion. Journal of International
Marketing, 13(2), 1–27.
Efrat, K. (2014). The direct and indirect impact of culture on innovation. Technovation,
34(1), 12–20.
Engelen, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation as a function of national cultural
variations in two countries. Journal of International Management, 16(4), 354–368.
Erez, M., & Nouri, R. (2010). Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work
contexts. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 351–370.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4),
317–327.
Frese, M. (2015). Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 46(10), 1327–1330.
Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J. H. (2006). Likert-based vs. semantic
differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric
comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40(5), 873–884.
Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The dynamics of guanxi in Chinese hightech
firms: Implications for knowledge management and decision making. Management
International Review, 46(3), 277–305.
Gao, G. (1998). ‘“Don’t take my word for it”.’—understanding Chinese speaking
practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 163–186.
Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of ‘culture’s consequences’: The effects of
cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(8), 615–634.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of
cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., et al. (2011).
Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033),
1100–1104.
Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and
standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?
Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 521–531.
Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive
process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information
exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38(5),
1611–1633.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
Gupta, A. K., & Wang, H. 2009. Getting China and India right: Strategies for leveraging
the world’s fastest growing economies for global advantage. John Wiley & Sons.
Hayton, J. C., & Cacciotti, G. (2013). Is there an entrepreneurial culture? A review of
empirical research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9–10), 708–731.
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A
review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the
ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-
cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 82(6), 903.
Hildebrandt, H. W. (1988). A Chinese managerial view of business communication.
Management Communication Quarterly, 2(2), 217–234.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, J. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. USA:
McGrawHill.
Hossain, M. (2017). Mapping the frugal innovation phenomenon. Technology in Society,
51, 199–208.
420
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage Publications.
Huarng, K. H. (2013). A two-tier business model and its realization for entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2102–2105.
Huarng, K. H., Mas-Tur, A., & Moreno, F. C. (2018). Innovation, knowledge, judgment,
and decision-making as virtuous cycles. Journal of Business Research, 88, 278–281.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of
innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.
Hwang, K. (1987). Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game. American Journal of
Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
Hwang, K. (2000). Chinese Relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological
considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(2), 155–178.
Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and
less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 76(3), 347–364.
Javalgi, R. (Raj) G., Todd, P. R., Johnston, W. J., & Granot, E (2012). Entrepreneurship,
muddling through, and Indian Internet-enabled SMEs. Journal of Business Research,
65(6), 740–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.010.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and
across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.
Li, H.-C., Lee, W.-C., & Ko, B.-T. (2017). What determines misallocation in innovation? A
study of regional innovation in China. Journal of Macroeconomics, 52, 221–237.
Li, J., Ngin, P. M., & Teo, A. C. Y. 2008. Culture and leadership in Singapore:
Combination of the East and the West. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House
(Eds.), LEA’s organization and management series. Culture and leadership across the
world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies (pp. 947–968). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Li, Q., Maggitti, P. G., Smith, K. G., Tesluk, P. E., & Katila, R. (2013). Top management
attention to innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product
introductions. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 893–916.
Li, J., Ngin, P. M., & Teo, A. C. (2007). Culture and leadership in Singapore: Combination
of the East and the West. In In Culture and Leadership Across the World (pp.
981–1002). Psychology Press.
Liao, Y., & Bond, M. H. (2011). The dynamics of face loss following interpersonal harm
for Chinese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 25–38.
Low, K. C. P. (2006). Cultural obstacles in growing entrepreneurship: A study in
Singapore. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 169–182.
Luo, X., & Hassan, M. (2009). The role of top management networks for market
knowledge creation and sharing in China. Journal of Business Research, 62(10),
1020–1026.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of
uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1),
132–152.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, J. B., Morse, E. A., Seawright, K. W., Peredo, A. M., & McKenzie, B.
(2002). Are entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial
cognitions across cultures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 9–32.
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. (2010). Creativity East and West: Perspectives and parallels.
Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 313–327.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to
initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine
country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16
(1), 51–75.
Nouri, R., Erez, M., Lee, C., Liang, J., Bannister, B. D., & Chiu, W. (2015). Social context:
Key to understanding culture’s effects on creativity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36(7), 899–918.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.
Panda, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2004). Mapping cultural diversity within India: A meta-
analysis of some recent studies. Global Business Review, 5(1), 27–49.
Parker, H. (2016). Team effectiveness and open discussion of conflict in collaborative
new product development: A cross-national study. Journal of Business Research, 69
(11), 4757–4762.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Rao, A. N., & Pearce, J. L. (2016). Should management practice adapt to cultural values?
The evidence against power distance adaptation. Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management, 23(2), 257–286.
Rauch, A., Frese, M., Wang, Z.-M., Unger, J., Lozada, M., Kupcha, V., et al. (2013).
National culture and cultural orientations of owners affecting the innovation–growth
relationship in five countries. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9–10),
732–755.
Ridge, J. W., Johnson, S., Hill, A. D., & Bolton, J. (2017). The role of top management
team attention in new product introductions. Journal of Business Research, 70, 17–24.
Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2012). Hofstede and Shane revisited: The role of
power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success. Cross-Cultural
Research, 46(2), 91–108.
Rosing, K., Bledow, R., Frese, M., Baytalskaya, N., Johnson Lascano, J., & Farr, J. L.
(2018). The temporal pattern of creativity and implementation in teams. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 798–822.
S. Hubner et al.
Sahi, J. H. (2018). Bala Krishna: A paradigm of childhood relevant to the present time. In
T. S. Saraswathi, S. Menon, & A. Madan (Eds.), Childhoods in India (chapter 6). New
York: Routledge.
Sarkar, T. (2011). Holy infancy: Love and power in a ‘low caste’ sect in Bengal. South
Asian History and Culture, 2(3), 337–351.
Scherer, R., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2015). The relations among openness, perseverance, and
performance in creative problem solving: A substantive-methodological approach.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18, 4–17.
Shane, S. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business
Venturing, 7(1), 29–46.
Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(1), 59–73.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in innovation
championing strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931–952.
Shin, Y., & Eom, C. (2014). Team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team
creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team
creative performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(2), 89–114.
Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M. J., & Kim, K. (2009). Peering into the “magnum mysterium”
of culture: The explanatory power of descriptive norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40(1), 46–69.
Stephan, U., & Pathak, S. (2016). Beyond cultural values? Cultural leadership ideals and
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 505–523.
Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs socially supportive culture:
A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41(8), 1347–1364.
Tan, B. L. B. (2002). Researching managerial values: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal
of Business Research, 55(10), 815–821.
Tan, K. P. (2003). Sexing up Singapore. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(4),
403–423.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., van Knippenberg, D., & Yu, B. (2020). Antecedents and consequences
of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team
capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 551–566.
Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China:
The contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 29(5),
540–559.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1998). Can guanxi be a source of sustained competitive advantage for
doing business in China? Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(2), 64–73.
Tymon, W. G., Stumpf, S. A., & Doh, J. P. (2010). Exploring talent management in India:
The neglected role of intrinsic rewards. Journal of World Business, 45(2), 109–121.
van Knippenberg, D. (2017). Team Innovation. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 211–233.
Vinig, T., & Bossink, B. (2015). China’s indigenous innovation approach: The emergence
of Chinese innovation theory? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(6),
621–627.
Wang, C. L., & Chung, H. F. L. (2013). The moderating role of managerial ties in market
orientation and innovation: An Asian perspective. Journal of Business Research, 66
(12), 2431–2437.
Wang, D. H. M., Yu, T. H. K., & Liu, H. Q. (2013). Heterogeneous effect of high-tech
industrial R&D spending on economic growth. Journal of Business Research, 66(10),
1990–1993.
421
Journal of Business Research 138 (2022) 408–421
Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore
and Hong Kong. Research Policy, 47(2), 399–412.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social
behaviour, 4(1), 15–30.
Williams, L. K., & McGuire, S. J. (2010). Economic creativity and innovation
implementation: The entrepreneurial drivers of growth? Evidence from 63
Countries. Small Business Economics, 34, 391–412.
Williamson, P. J., & Yin, E. (2014). Accelerated innovation: The new challenge from
China. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(4), 27.
Xie, G., & Paik, Y. (2019). Cultural differences in creativity and innovation: Are Asian
employees truly less creative than western employees? Asia Pacific Business Review,
25(1), 123–147.
Xiong Chen, Z., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An
examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(1), 226–238.
Yang, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhang, P. (2015). Discipline versus passion: Collectivism,
centralization, and ambidextrous innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32
(3), 745–769.
Yeung, H. W. C. (2000). State intervention and neoliberalism in the globalizing world
economy: Lessons from Singapore’s regionalization programme. The Pacific Review,
13(1), 133–162.
Zaveri, P. (2018). The Legend of Krishna. In Wall Paintings of Gujarat and Rajasthan ((2018
edition.).). Bhopal: New Delhi, India: Niyogi Books.
Zhang, X., Li, N., & Brad Harris, T. (2015). Putting non-work ties to work: The case of
guanxi in supervisor–subordinate relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 37–54.
Zhao, K., Zong, B., & Zhang, L. (2020). Explorative and exploitative learning in teams:
Unpacking the antecedents and consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2041.
Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. X. (2009). Social networks,
personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1544.
Sylvia Hubner is an Assistant Professor at Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy.
Michael Frese is a Professor at Asia School of Business (in collaboration with MIT Sloan
Management), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and at Leuphana University of Lüneburg,
Germany.
Zhaoli Song is an Associate Professor at National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Neha Tripathi is an Assistant Professor at Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad,
India.
Tamara Kaschner conducted her BA and MA studies at Ludwig-Maximilians-University
Munich and she is now a HRM professional at Altran, Munich, Germany
Xing Le Kong conducted her BA studies at National University of Singapore, Singapore.