teamwork measures and organizational performance

0 downloads 0 Views 847KB Size Report
WIESŁAW MATWIEJCZUK, JOANNA SAMUL. USING Z-SCORE IN ... Polish companies from the public and private sectors. The survey was conducted ..... Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness ...
Smart and Efficient Economy: Preparation for the Future Innovative Economy 21st International Scientific Conference

Proceeding of Selected Papers

May 19–20, 2016 Brno, Czech Republic

21st International Scientific Conference

Smart and Efficient Economy: Preparation for the Future Innovative Economy

Proceeding of Selected Papers

May 19–20, 2016 Brno, Czech Republic

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management CONTENT

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................. 3 CONTENT ............................................................................................................................ 4 ABOUT CONFERENCE ................................................................................................... 10 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... 11 REVIEWERS ..................................................................................................................... 12 ORGANISING COMMITTEE .......................................................................................... 13 SECTION 1 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS AND CORPORATING FINANCE .................................................................................... 14 RELIABILITY OF MODELS PREDICTING FINANCIAL DISTRESS – NATIONAL AND TRANSITION APPROACHES ......... 15 DAGMAR ČÁMSKÁ COMPARISON BETWEEN INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES OF FAMILY BUSINESSES IN POLAND AND IN OTHER E UROPEAN COUNTRIES.................................................................................................................................................. 24 JUSTYNA KOGUT, KATARZYNA BROŻEK REDUCING TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT BY BROADENING CAPITAL OWNERSHIP.................................. 32 ZDENĚK KONEČNÝ, TOMÁŠ MELUZÍN COMPETING AROUND THE BALTIC SEA: PRICING DIFFERENCES OF BANKING SERVICES ................................... 40 ENN LISTRA, GERT KULLA UPGRADING THE LIQUIDITY AND ACTIVITY RATIOS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS .................................................................................................................................................... 47 NINO LOMIDZE TEAMWORK MEASURES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: SOME EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS .................. 56 WIESŁAW M ATWIEJCZUK, JOANNA SAMUL USING Z-SCORE IN DETECTION OF REVENUE MANIPULATIONS ....................................................................... 62 IGOR PUSTYLNICK SUCCESS FACTORS OF LOAN AND GUARANTEE FUNDS SUPPORTING SMES IN POLAND .................................... 70 HALINA WANIAK-MICHALAK

SECTION 2 CHALLENGES OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN THE WORLD WITHOUT BORDERS .......................................................................................................................... 79 TOPSIS ANALYSIS OF CHANGES OF QUALITY OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN E UROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES ............ 80 ADAM P. BALCERZAK, MICHAŁ BERNARD PIETRZAK A COMPARISON OF COGNITIVE LOAD IN CLOCK AND TIME TYPES ................................................................. 86 CHRISTOPHER M. CONWAY INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS: ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTED OUTCOMES ....................................... 94 OKSANA LENTJUSENKOVA, JELENA TITKO, INGA LAPINA TALENT MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: LOCAL AND EXPATRIATE PERSPECTIVES. ...............102 ASHLY PINNINGTON, ABDULLAH ALSHAMSI, MUSTAFA OZBILGIN, AHU TATLI AND JOANA VASSILOPOULOU THRIVING AND JOB SATISFACTION IN MULTICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTS OF MNCS ........................................111 MALGORZATA ROZKWITALSKA, BEATA A. BASINSKA

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

4

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management

TEAMWORK MEASURES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: SOME EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS Wiesław Matwiejczuka, Joanna Samulb* a b

Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland

Abstract Purpose of the article There has been many studies focus on the effectiveness of teamwork, the factors determining it and the impact on the results of the organization. However the variability of the nature of team caused new challenges in this field. The purpose of the article is a review of existing indicators of teamwork effectiveness and to determine the used of the teamwork measures and to test if these indicators are correlated with the applied assessment of organizational performance. Methodology/methods The study was conducted using a paper and pencil questionnaire. The final sample consisted of 161 Polish companies from the public and private sectors. The survey was conducted in 2014. Senior executives were approached to respond to a survey. Scientific aim The main aim is to carry out an evaluation in terms of use the teamwork measures in the practice of the enterprises and to determine the relation between the dimensions of team effectiveness: member behavior, team attitudes, team productivity and organizational performance like output measures and competitiveness. Findings The research results indicate the use of teamwork measures and the existence of relations between the dimensions of measuring teamwork effectiveness. In addition, the relations between the measurement of the dimensions and the measurement of organizational results are also significant, but analysis does not indicate any links between the used indicators of team effectiveness and the measures of competitive position. Conclusions The research results indicate the direction of improving the existing indiactors for team measurement, which should not be unnecessarily extended with many measures, but should focus on the most important indicators for the organization like output measures. Further studies should take into consideration the process approach to determine the relations between measuring the team effectiveness and the competitiveness. Keywords: team effectiveness, organizational performance, teamwork measures. JEL Classification: M12, M5

* E-mail address: [email protected]

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

56

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management Introduction From the 90s interest in the theme of teamwork has been reflected in numerous studies and scientific publications. It is associated with an increase in the importance of team in an organization, resulting from the new challenges of competitiveness and the needs of the organization in terms of flexibility and adaptability. It is believed that the team plays a key role in the success of organization in a global, changeable and client-oriented economy (Mathieu et al., 2006). It may contribute to the effectiveness of an organization or cause problems and limit opportunities for success. However, for the proper management of team it is necessary not only to govern it effectively, but also to measure it, because you cannot manage what you cannot measure. Therefore, all sorts of ways - methods, tools and indicators - become important to measure and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of teamwork management. Teamwork management is traditionally considered to be effective when it allows to increase the organizational performance and to increase its adaptability vital for the survival and development of the organization and if it leads to gain the organizational objectives. The use of suitable, precisely targeted indicators help to shape the approach towards the management of team. Nowadays employees are treated as a valuable capital, not a resource. The main purpose of employees management is to use various kinds of measures to prove that better personal strategies and processes allow getting better results (Baron & Armstrong, 2008, p. 35). Although there has been many studies carried out in this area, the variability of the nature of team caused by the metamorphosis of the environment in which it must operate in today's organizations raises new challenges in the field of team management theory and practice (Tannenbaum et al., 2012). One of the pressing challenges in this field is measurement of team effectiveness and defining its reflections in the results of the organization to prove that better strategies and team management processes enable organizations to achieve better results. However, the relationship between team management and its efficiency as well as between team effectiveness and results of the organization are extremely difficult to explain. Assessment of actions undertaken to team management is not easy and poses many methodological and practical difficulties, because both quantitative and qualitative measures are used. It should be emphasized that certain complications arise in the measurement from the definition of this term itself. Firstly, the concept is heterogeneous and includes many elements of team: skills, knowledge, competence, experience, motivation which are also difficult to measure. People are variable, diverse and extremely far from accounting concepts of assets (Mayo, 2001, p. 41). Thus, the purposes of this study is:  to determine the used indicators for measuring teamwork effectiveness in practice of the enterprises,  to test if the methods used for measuring the team effectiveness (such as member behaviour, team attitudes, team productivity) are correlated with the applied assessment of organizational performance (like customer satisfaction, innovativeness, market share or sales volume). 1 Dimensions of teamwork measures Many studies conducted so far have focused on understanding the effectiveness of teamwork, the factors determining it and the impact on the results of the organization. Researched were the relationships between team efficiency and the attitudes and behavior of its members, such as satisfaction (Doolen et al., 2003; Tata & Prasad, 2004; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), organizational engagement (Stewart & Barrick, 2000), trust (Lin et al., 2010; DeOrtentiis et al., 2013), interdependence in the team (Beersma et al., 2003), sharing the knowledge and learning (Edmondson et al., 2001; Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006; Chen et al., 2011). The relations between team effectiveness and the results of organization were also studied (Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Robbins et al., 2001; Thompson, 2004; Kirkman et al., 2001). Many studies have also focused only on defining the effects of teamwork which resulted in existence of several approaches in this regard. The most widely used classification, which the current research are based on, was proposed by Cohen & Bailey (1997), who defined three areas of teamwork effectiveness:  performance effectiveness (productivity, efficiency),  attitudinal outcomes (satisfaction, commitment, trust),  behavioural outcomes (absenteeism, turnover, safety). Within each of the area several dimensions and measures can be distinguished (Table 1). Adams et al. (2002, p. 5) presented this functional relationship symbolically as: Team Effectiveness = f (Performance, Behaviour, Attitude) (1) The current studies on teamwork search also for the answer to a question of what makes some teams more efficient than others (Ilgen et al., 2005). And here it is pointed out that the perception of effectiveness of the

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

57

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management team is associated with faith in the skills and abilities of its members, that contribute to the success of the whole team. Table 1. Dimensions and measures of teamwork effectiveness Performance Productivity (Cohen et al., 1997; Gibson et al., 2003; Tata & Prasad, 2004) Production (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002) Quality (Doolen et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2003) Costs (Cohen et al., 1997) Service or customer satisfaction (Gibson et al., 2003; Mathieu et al., 2006; Tata & Prasad, 2004) Overall performance (Doolen et al., 2003; Pagell & Lepine, 2002; Pearce et al., 2002) Service profitability (Jong et al., 2005) Return on capital (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002;

Attitudinal outcomes Employee satisfaction (Doolen et al., 2003; Tata & Prasad, 2004) Commitment to the organization (Cohen et al., 1997) Trust (DeOrtentiis et al., 2013) Motivations (Marks et al., 2001)

Behavioural outcomes Turnover (O’Reilly et al., 1989) Accidents and security (Cohen & Ledford, 1994) Absenteeism (Cohen & Ledford, 1994)

Source: own work based on (Piῆa, Martίnez & Martίnez, 2007) A large number of studies and proposals in this regard highlights the importance of measuring the teamwork and the need to define the parameters of its efficiency. One of the fundamental problems in this area is to identify and distinguish the factors determining the efficiency of teamwork from the criteria for its effectiveness. The measurement of teamwork is not easy and causes many methodological and practical difficulties as it uses different kinds of indicators - both quantitative and qualitative. This may cause reluctance to use so complex indicators of human resources assessment (Skąpska & Samul, 2015). In addition, the above considerations do not take into account the differences in the teams, such as the nature of tasks or the required skills (see Dunphy & Bryant, 1996), which also influence the selection of parameters to assess the effects of group work (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Despite the extensive methodology in this regard the relations between specific indicators and company results are not fully proven (Marr & Schiuma, 2003) and indicate that managing the employees rather indirectly affects the results of the organization (Guest 2011; Paauwe 2009). The authors Wall and Wood (2005) made a critical analysis of the 25 most cited articles in prestigious journals and found that the relationship between people management practices and organizational results are based on improperly designed studies and methodological limitations, and that the conclusions drawn are too optimistic. 2 Research method and results Studies regarding the ways of measuring teamwork conducted in 2014, by the means of a survey questionnaire, in 161 Polish companies with different activity profile in both public and private sectors. The respondents were managers of the companies ((i.e., directors, chief executive offers). The task of respondents was to select the indicators used in respect of teamwork and organizational results. The measurement of teamwork took into account three groups of indicators:  member behaviour (for example: age, skills, training investment),  team attitudes (for example: engagement, satisfaction, motivation),  team productivity (for example: added value, operational cost, revenue). Whereas the measurement of organizational performance took two groups of factors into account:  output measures (for example: customer served, customer satisfaction, innovativeness).  competitive position (for example: market share, sales volume, profit growth). All items were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 („strongly disagree”) to 5 („strongly agree”). The participants were asked about the actual use of these indicators in their company. The purpose was to determine the the most commonly used the above-mentioned indicators based on the statistical data (mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum value). Table 2 reports the results of factor analysis of teamwork effectiveness and organizational performance dimensions.

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

58

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management Table 2. Measurement of teamwork effectiveness and organizational performance dimensions Measurement Dimensions Mean

SD

Min

Max

Member behaviour

3,41

0,92

1

5

Team attitudes

3,70

1,05

1

5

Team prouctivity

3,28

1,13

1

5

Output measures

4,06

1,0

1

5

Competitive position

3,44

0,8

1

5

Team indicators

Organizational performance

SD – standard deviation, Min – minimum value, Max – maximum value Source: own work It is noted that the most managers use the measures of teamwork effectiveness. And this leads to the following conclusion that these managers understand the importance of measuring teamwork. All dimensions of team effectiveness (member behavior, team attitudes and team productivity) are used in a similar degree. These indicators provide an indication of an employee’s engagement, satisfaction, skills and organization's profitability. All of these factors are core competencies for organizational teams and significant aspect of performance outcome. Team’s competencies create a value added and help an organization to gain a success. The dimension of the measurement of organizational performance are also used in the practice of the surveyed enterprises. The highest rated dimension is output measures (mean=4.06; SD=1). It means that the managers pay attention to the most essential indicators for the company, which show the quantifiable results of an organization. However, the lowest rate was achieved by team productivity. It can be connected with the need of possess some data to measure such indicators as added value, operational cost or revenue. It can be difficult and to give too little useful information about organizational performance. Table 3 presents the correlations between the assessed teamwork indicators and the measurement of organizational performance in the studied companies. Table 3. Correlations between variables in the study (N = 161) Item measures

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

member behaviour

(1)

1

team attitudes

(2)

0,546374

1

team productivity

(3)

0,643589

0,506980

1

output measures

(4)

0,557779

0,621941

0,540183

1

competitive position

(5)

0,100094

-0,01163

0,094556

0,170178

(5)

1

p< 0,05, Alfa Cronbacha 0,7670321

Source: own work The research results indicate the existence of relations between the measurements of individual team performance criteria used in companies, i.e. between the behavior of team members and their attitudes, attitude to work and productivity of the team. In addition, the relations between the measurement of these areas and the measurement of organizational results are also significant. This means that companies which measure and evaluate the behavior, attitudes and productivity of their teams also assess the organizational effects of teamwork, such as customer satisfaction, service level or innovativeness. Whereas the above analysis does not indicate any links between the applied indicators of team effectiveness and the used measures of competitive position evaluation. Conclusion On the basis of the conducted literature studies and analysis of the research results some conclusions can be formulated in the area of measuring the effectiveness of team, the indicators used in this field and their correlations with the measurement of organizational performance:

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

59

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management 

there is a large variety of approaches to the methods of measuring team effectiveness that take into account different perspectives and propose a number of diverse qualitative and quantitative indicators, which could hamper their use in practice;  there are mutual relations between the measurement of different criteria of team effectiveness (behavior, attitudes and performance - productivity, output measures), which may mean that there is no need to use all of the indicated measures, but only those that are most relevant for organizations;  the approach to measuring the team effectiveness and the results in organization is complex, the existence of correlations indicates that companies use various types of indicators together;  absence of relations between measuring the team effectiveness and evaluation of the competitive position, which may indicate indirect correlations between these categories and the need to focus on the process approach in the search for links between them. This research investigate the dimension of teamwork measurement and indicate the need for the further research in this area. The carried out analysis determines the directions of the evaluation of the team effectiveness, which should not be unnecessarily extended with all sorts of indicators, but should focus on the parameters most important for the organization like output measures - customer served, customer satisfaction or innovativeness. The research results indicate the direction of improving the existing indiactors for team measurement. Generally, the actions concerning team management, as well as their satisfaction and commitment to work, have reflection in true organizational performance. Further studies in the field should take into consideration the process approach to determine the relations between measuring the team effectiveness and evaluation of the competitiveness. References Adams, S.G., Simon, L. & Ruiz, B. (2002). A pilot study of the performance of student teams engineering education, Session 1017 Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering in Education Annual Conference, Montreal, June 16-19. Baron, A. & Armstrong, M. (2008). Zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim. Uzyskiwanie wartości dodanej dzięki ludziom, Warsaw: Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer business. Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Moon, H., Conlon, D.E. & Iglen, D.R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: toward a contigency approach, Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 572-590. Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects, Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875-93. Cacioppe, R. & Stace R. (2009). Integral team effectiveness: validity analysis of a theory-based team measure, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 15(5/6), 220 – 234. Chen, C.C., Wu, J., Ma, M. & Knight, M.B. (2011). Enhancing virtual learning team performance: a leadership perspective, Human Systems Management, 30, 215-228. Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-90. Cohen, S.G. & Ledford, G.E. (1994), The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasi-experiment, Human Relations, 47(1), 13-43. De Dreu, C.K.W. & Weingart, L.R. (2003), Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. DeOrtentiis P.S., Summers J.K., Ammeter A.P., Douglas C., & Ferris G.R. (2013). Cohesion and satisfaction as mediators of the team trust – team effectiveness relationship: An interdependence theory perspective, Career Development International, 18(5), 521-543. Doolen, T.L., Hacker, M.E. & Aken, E.M. (2003). The impact of organizational context on work team effectiveness: a study of production team, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(3), 285-96. Drach-Zahavy, A. and Somech, A. (2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness, Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 44-66. Dunphy, D. & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: panaceas or perceptions for improved performance?, Human Relations, 49(5), 677-89. Dyer, L. & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm performance: what do we know and where do we need to go?, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 656-670. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R.M. & Pisano, G.P. (2001). Speeding up team learning, Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 125-32. Gibson, C., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. & Schwab, D. (2003). Team effectiveness in multinational organizations: evaluation across contexts, Group & Organization Management, 28(4), 444-74.

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

60

21st International Scientific Conference Economics and Management Guest, D. (2011). Human Resource Management And Performance: Still Searching For Some Answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21, 3–13. Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from the input-processoutput models to IMOI models, Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517-543. Jong, A., Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: a study of selfmanaging service teams, Management Science, 51(11), 1610-25. Kirkman, B., Tesluk, P. & Rosen, B. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness, Personnel Psychology, 54(3), 645-67. Lin, C., Wang, Y., Tsai, Y. and Hsu, Y. (2010). Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition: a survey of virtual teams within business organizations, Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1598-1606. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes, Academy of Management Review, 26(6), 356-376. Marr B. & Schiuma G. (2003). Business performance measurement – past, present and the future, Management Decision, nr 41(8). Mathieu, J., Gilson, L. & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97-108. Mayo, A. (2001). The Human Value of the Enterprise – Valuing People as Assets – Monitoring, Measuring, Managin., London: Nicholas Brealey. O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F., & Barnett, W.P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnove, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37. Paauwe, J. (2009), HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects, Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 129-42. Pagell, M. & Lepine, J. (2002). Multiple case studies of team effectiveness in manufacturing organizations, Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 619-39. Pearce, C., Gallagher, C. & Ensley, M. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: a longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 115-19. Piῆa M.I.D, Martίnez A.M.R & Martίnez, L.G., (2008). Teams in organizations: a review on team effectiveness, Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 7-21 Robbins, S.P., Millet, B., Cacioppe, R. & Waters-March, T. (2001). Organisational Behaviour, Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Sydney. Skąpska, E. & Samul, J. (2015). Human Capital Indicators in Service Industries: from Workforce Profile to Output Measures, European Scientific Journal, 11(10), 292-301. Stewart, G.L. & Barrick, M.R. (2000). Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-48. Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: are research and practice evolving fast enough?, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(1), 224. Tata, J. & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness, Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 248-65. Thompson, L. (2004). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, 2nd ed., Pearson, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Wall, T.D. & Wood, S.J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science, Human Relations, 58(4), 429-62. Zellmer-Bruhn, M. & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: implications for team learning and performance, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 501-518.

May 19-20, 2016, Brno, Czech Republic

61