A Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Human Resources' Interactions

• Autorzy: Anna Pereverzieva
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

To our knowledge, there is a need to develop a methodological approach to the assessment of united communities` human resources` level of interactions, as a large group, and of separate structural unit's - a small group. This allows us to determine the dependence of the level of interactions on the number of people who interact within a particular structure and the nature of the activity they carry out - intellectual or manual labor. The purpose of our research is to develop a methodological approach to the assessment of the level of human resources` interactions, which allows us to identify key areas and policy measures. Expert assessments and analytical dependencies are used as research tools in the article. These tools allow us to quantitatively determine the level of human resources` interactions for an individual entity. Empirical implementation of the proposed approach, using the example of two entities varying in size and nature of labor, allowed us to make a comparative analysis and to distinguish the characteristic features that are the basis for making managerial decisions. A manager acts as an expert who assesses the presence or absence of a particular event in the subordinate unit. The indicator, which characterizes the presence or absence of certain activities and the level of participation in them, is defined on the basis of managerial assessment. The next stage is to determine the interaction rate by means of certain mathematical dependencies and results` analysis. As a result of the research, we got the assessment of the level of human resources` interactions between two entities - a united community and a structural unit. The assessment revealed a dependence on the level of interactions on the entity`s size (small and large groups) and the nature of labor. The results showed that a structural unit, focused on intellectual labor and presented by a small group, has a greater level of interactions than a united community, which has a bigger size and a predominance of manual labor. (original abstract)

Zgodnie z naszą wiedzą istnieje potrzeba opracowania metodologicznego podejścia do oceny poziomu interakcji między społecznościami w ramach zasobów ludzkich, jako dużej grupy, a także oddzielnej jednostki strukturalnej - małej grupy. To pozwala nam określić zależność poziomu interakcji od liczby osób, które wchodzą w interakcje w ramach danej struktury i charakteru wykonywanej przez nich działalności - pracy intelektualnej lub fizycznej. Celem naszych badań jest wypracowanie podejścia metodologicznego do oceny poziomu interakcji zasobów ludzkich, co pozwala nam zidentyfikować kluczowe obszary i środki polityki. Ekspertyzy i zależności analityczne są używane jako narzędzia badawcze w artykule. Narzędzia te pozwalają nam ilościowo określić poziom interakcji zasobów ludzkich dla pojedynczej jednostki. Empiryczna implementacja proponowanego podejścia, na przykładzie dwóch podmiotów o różnym rozmiarze i charakterze pracy, pozwoliła nam dokonać analizy porównawczej i wyróżnić cechy charakterystyczne, które są podstawą do podejmowania decyzji zarządczych. Menedżer działa jako ekspert, który ocenia obecność lub nieobecność określonego zdarzenia w podległej jednostce. Wskaźnik, który charakteryzuje obecność lub brak określonych działań i poziom uczestnictwa w nich, określa się na podstawie oceny menedżerskiej. Kolejnym etapem jest określenie współczynnika interakcji za pomocą pewnych zależności matematycznych i analizy wyników. W wyniku przeprowadzonych badań uzyskaliśmy ocenę poziomu interakcji zasobów ludzkich między dwoma podmiotami - zjednoczoną społecznością i jednostką strukturalną. Ocena wykazała zależność od poziomu interakcji i wielkości podmiotu (małe i duże grupy) oraz charakteru pracy. Wyniki pokazały, że jednostka strukturalna, skoncentrowana na pracy intelektualnej i prezentowana przez małą grupę, ma wyższy poziom interakcji niż zjednoczona społeczność, która ma większy rozmiar i przewagę pracy fizycznej. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Human resources; Social interaction; Labour; Synergy effect

PL

Zasoby ludzkie; Interakcje społeczne; Praca; Efekt synergii

• Czasopismo: Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI)
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 15
• Numer: nr 1 Towards Success in a Competitive Market: The Importance of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
• Strony: 171--203

Twórcy

autor

Anna Pereverzieva

• Zaporizhzhya National University, Ukraine

Bibliografia

• Banerjee, M., Tolbert, P., & DiCiccio, T. (2012). Friend or foe? The effects of contingent employees on standard employees' work attitudes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(11), 2180-2204.
• Bingham, J., Oldroyd, J., Thompson, J., Bednar, J., & Bunderson, J. (2014). Status and the true believer: The impact of psychological contracts on social status attributions of friendship and influence. Organization Science, 25(1), 73-92.
• Bridoux, F. Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2017). Heterogeneous social motives and interactions: The three predictable paths of capability. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1755-1773.
• Brimhall, K., Mor Barak, M., Hurlburt, M., McArdle, J., Palinkas, L., & Henwood, B. (2017). Increasing workplace inclusion: The promise of leader-member exchange. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership and Governance, 41(3), 222-239.
• Call, M., & Nyberg, A. (2015). Stargazing: An integrative conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star employee research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 623-640.
• Chen, J., & Garg, P. (2018). Dancing with the stars: Benefits of a star employee's temporary absence for organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1239-1267.
• Cohen, M., Levinthal, D., & Warglien, M. (2014). Collective performance: Modeling the interaction of habit-based actions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 329-360.
• Cumberland, D., Alagaraja, M., Shuck, B., & Kerrick, S. (2018). Organizational social capital: Ties between HRD, employee voice, and CEOs. Human Resources Development Review, 17(2), 199-221.
• Delmas, M., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethnics, 150(4), 1071-1088.
• Dibble, R., & Gibson, C. (2018). Crossing team boundaries: A theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters. Human Relations, 71(7), 925- 950.
• Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2010). From an intrateam to an interteam perspective of effectiveness: The role of interdependence and boundary activities. Small Group Research, 41(2), 143-174.
• Edmondson, A., & Nembhard, I. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 123-138.
• Ethiraj, S., & Garg, P. (2012). The division of gains from complementarities in human-capital- intensive activity. Organization Science, 23(3), 725-742.
• Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 625-642.
• Faraj, S. & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary Work in Knowledge Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3), 604- 617.
• Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604- 617.
• Gaisina, L., Belonozhko, M., Kirichuk, S., Sultanova, E., & Tumanova, A. (2017). Self-organization and self- development as key factors in improving productivity. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(2), 444- 453.
• Gibson, C., & Dibble, R. (2013). Excess may do harm: Investigating the effect of team external environment on external activities in teams. Organization Science, 24(3), 697-715.
• Gibson, C., Cooper, C., & Conger, J. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62- 76.
• Glaz, V., Glaz, Y., & Rusetskaya, E. (2017). The Improvement of labor activity motivation of workers in the process of their socialization in the organization: The influence of organizational culture. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(6), 244-254.
• Gonchar, О. (2008). The essence of "pedagogical interactions" definition in scientific and pedagogic science of Ukraine. Theory and Methodology of Training and Upbringing, 22, 32-38.
• Gornostai, P.P. (2015). Group interaction in the psychological paradigms. Scientific Studies in Social and Political Psychology, 35, 113-126.
• Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. (2014). Structural microfoundations of innovation: The role of relational stars. Journal of Management, 40(2), 586-615.
• Helfat, C., & Martin, J. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281-1312.
• Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831-850.
• Hirst, G., & van Dick, R. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 963-982.
• Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
• Hogg, M., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 232-255.
• Huang, L., Gibson, C., Kirkman, B., & Shapiro, D. (2017). When is traditionalism an asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6), 693-715.
• Huckman, R., Staats, B., & Upton, D. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85-100.
• Hülsheger, U., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (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.
• Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77 -89.
• Keizer, P. (2017). A multidisciplinary-economic framework of analysis. Journal of Philosophical Economics, 11(1), 103 -132.
• Kostopoulos, K., Spanos, Y., & Prastacos, G. (2013). Structure and function of team learning emergence: A multilevel empirical validation. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1430-1461.
• Leonardelli, G., Pickett, C., & Brewer, M. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory. A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43(C), 63-113.
• Liborius, P. (2017). What does leaders' character add to transformational leadership? Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 151(3), 299-320.
• Lin, C.H.V, & Sun, J.M.J. (2018). Chinese employees' leadership preferences and the relationship with power distance orientation and core self-evaluation. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 12 (1), UNSP 6. http://doi.org//10.1186/s11782-018-0027-9
• Litchfield, R., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Carter, M., & Hirst, G. (2018). When team identity helps innovation and when it hurts: Team identity and its relationship to team and cross-team innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 350-366.
• Lopez, D. (2018). Dominant discourse by the leadership: negative reinforcement of human relationships. Innovar-revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, 20(36), 67-78.
• Martin, J. (2011). Dynamic managerial capabilities and the multibusiness team: The role of episodic teams in executive leadership groups. Organization Science, 22(1), 118-140.
• Melnikov, V. (2014). Synergetic effect in modeling innovative processes. Innovation Technologies and Economic Security, 5(54), 335-340.
• Mitchell, R., Parker, V., & Giles, M. (2011). When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(10), 1321-1343.
• Morozov, V.А. (2015). The interaction: concept, types and features. Creative Economics, 9(10), 1309- 1318.
• Morrison, E. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.
• Mortensen, M. (2014). Constructing the team: The antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Оrganization Science, 25(3), 909-931.
• Okoe, A., & Boateng, H. (2018). Examining human resource practice outcomes and service innovation. Service Industries Journal, 38(7-8), 431-445.
• Pooja, A., De Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2016). Job Stressors and Organizational Citizenship behavior: The roles of organizational commitment and social interaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27(3), 373-405.
• Rink, F., Kane, A., & Ellemers, N. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 247 -293.
• Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness. Group and Organization Management, 35(6), 751-781.
• Russell, Z., Steffensen, D., Ellen, B., Zhang, L., Bishoff, J., & Ferris, G. (2018). High performance work practice implementation and employee impressions of line manager leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 258-270.
• Salvato, C., & Vassolo, R. (2018). The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1728-1752.
• Schippers, M., West, M., & Dawson, J. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769-788.
• Schneider, B., & Bartram, D. (2017). Aggregate personality and organizational competitive advantage. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(4), 461-480.
• Somech, A., & Khalaili, A. (2014). Team boundary activity: Its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group and Organization Management, 39(3), 274- 299.
• Somech, A., Desivilya, H., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
• Starostina, A., & Kravchenko, V. (2011). The essence and practical significance of applying the methodology of constructing a categorical apparatus of economic science (for example, the concepts of "globalization" and "entrepreneurial risk." Bulletin of Kiev University named after Shevchenko. Economics, 128, 5-10.
• Tempest, S. (2009). Learning from the alien: Knowledge relationships with temporary workers in network contexts. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 912- 927.
• Teoh, K., Coyne, I., Devonish, D., Leather, P., & Zarola, A. (2017). The interaction between supportive and unsupportive manager behaviors on employee work attitudes. Personnel Review, 45(6), 1386-1402.
• Tse, H., To, M., & Chiu, W. (2018) When and why does transformational leadership influence employee creativity? The roles of personal control and creative personality. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 145-157.
• Van der Vegt, G., Bunderson, S., & Kuipers, B. (2010). Why turnover matters in self-managing work teams: Learning, social integration, and task flexibility. Journal of Management, 36 (5), 1168-1191.
• Wijewardena, N., Härtel, C., & Samaratunge, R. (2017). Using humor and boosting emotions: An affect-based study of managerial humor, employees' emotions and psychological capital. Human Relations, 70(11), 1316-1341.
• Wilkin, C., de Jong, J., & Rubino, C. (2018). Teaming up with temps: the impact of temporary workers on team social networks and effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(2), 204-218.
• Zanozovska, O. (2017). The effects of the quality of employees' interactions with their managers on their work. Baltic Journal of Economics Studies, 3(2), 33- 42.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7341/20191517