Could innovative teams provide the necessary flexibility to compete in the current context?

  1. Mercedes Rubio Andrés 1
  2. Santiago Gutiérrez Broncano 2
  3. Juan Nicolás Montoya Monsalve 3
  1. 1 Universidad CEU San Pablo
    info

    Universidad CEU San Pablo

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/00tvate34

  2. 2 Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
    info

    Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

    Ciudad Real, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05r78ng12

  3. 3 Universidad Nacional de Colombia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Colombia

    Bogotá, Colombia

    ROR https://ror.org/059yx9a68

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

ISSN: 1131-6837

Año de publicación: 2015

Volumen: 15

Número: 1

Páginas: 145-164

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5295/CDG.130446MR DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

Resumen

En la era moderna las empresas deben buscar un modelo de negocio sostenible y rentable, dado que desarrollan su actividad en mercados altamente volátiles y competitivos. La innovación es un elemento clave que permite a las empresas sobrevivir en estos ambientes complejos. En consecuencia, algunas empresas utilizan un modelo de recursos humanos de acuerdo con la situación actual y establecen un sistema democrático, con el trabajo flexible, centrándose en la responsabilidad y la iniciativa y aumentando el autocontrol de los miembros del equipo. Utilizan recursos tales como la creatividad, la capacidad de innovación o el desarrollo del talento humano. En la mayoría de los casos, los equipos innovadores son capaces de adaptarse y reaccionar a los entornos turbulentos, complejos y dinámicos, que les permiten manejar de manera más eficiente varias tareas. En este trabajo analizamos las características y el funcionamiento de los equipos multifuncionales, equipos virtuales, equipos de innovación abierta y los equipos autogestionados, y finalmente nos centramos en un caso de estudio, Semco, una empresa que se caracteriza por sus prácticas innovadoras en la gestión de recursos humanos y centrada en la responsabilidad y la iniciativa y aumentar el autocontrol de los miembros del equipo.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, N., De Creu, C.K.W., and Nijstad, B.A., 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Orga-nizational Behaviour. 25 (2), 147-173.
  • Arthur, J.B., (1994). Effects of human resource Systems on manufacturing performance and turnover, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670-687.
  • Banker, R.D., Field, J.M., Schroeder, R.G. and Shina, K.K., 1996. Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 867-890.
  • Baucus, m. s. and Near j. P., 1991. Can Illegal Corporate Behavior be Predicted? An Event History Analysis, Academy of Management Journal 34, 9–36.
  • Bayo, A. and Merino, J., 2001. Quality management and high performance work practices: do they coexist. International Journal of Production Economics, 73 (3), 251-260.
  • Beltrán, I., Roca, V., Escrig, A. and Bou, J.C. 2008. Human resource flexibility as a me-diating variable between high performance work systems and performance. Journal of Management, 34 (5), 1009-1044.
  • Blanco, m. andGutierrez, s., 2010. Application of the total quality management ap-proach in a Spanish retailer: the case of Mercadona, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(12), 1365 -1381.
  • Boudreau, K.J. and Lakhani, K.R., 2009. How to Manage Outside Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, 50 (4), 69-77.
  • Capelli, P. and Neumark, D., 2001. Do high-performance work practices improve estab-lishment level outcomes?. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 54 (4), 737-775.
  • Cappelli, P and Crocker-Hefter, A., 1996. Distinctive human resources are firm ́s core competencies. Organizational Dynamics, 24 (3), 7-22.
  • Chaston, I., 1998. Self-managed teams: Assessing the benefits for small service-sector firms. British Journal of Management. 9, 1-12.
  • Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open business models: How to drive in the new innovation land-scape. Boston: Harvard Busi ness School Press.
  • Cohen, S. G. and Ledford, G. E. Jr., 1994. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experimental. Human Relations. 47, 13-43.
  • Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E., 1997. What makes teams work Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
  • Cordery, J.L., Mueller, W.S. and Smith, L.M., 1991. Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Autonomous Group Working: a Longitudinal Field Study. Academy of Management Journal, pp. 464-476.
  • Curral, L.A., Forrester, R.H., Dawson, J.F. and West, M.A., 2001. It ́s What you do and the Way You Do It: Team Task, Team Size, and Innovation-related Group Processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, pp. 187-204.
  • De Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, T., Chalet, T. and Chesbrough 2008. Policies for open in-novation: theory, framework and cases. Helsinki, Finland: Research project funded by Vision Era-Net.
  • Drach-Zahavy, A., and Somech, A., 2001. Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice 5 (2), 111-123.
  • Drazin, R. and Schoonhoven, C.B., 1996. Community Population, and Organizational Effects on Innovation: A Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 1065-1083.
  • Fort, T. L., 1997. The Corporation as Mediating Institution: An Efficacious Synthesis of Stake-holder Theory and Corporate Constituency Statutes, Notre Dame Law Review 73, 173.
  • Grant, R., 1997. The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for management practise. Long Range Planning. 30 (3), 450-454.
  • Guest, D.E., 1987. Human resource management and industrial relations. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 24 (5), 503-521.
  • Guthrie, J.P.; Spell, C.S. and Nyamori, R.O., 2002. Correlates and consequences of high involvement work practices: the role of competitive strategy. International Journal of Human resource Management, 13 ( 1), 183-197.
  • Gutierrez, S., 2012. Management and Leadership of Innovative Work Teams. In S. De Juana-Espinosa et al., (Eds.). Human Resource Management in the Digital Economy: Creating Synergy between Competency Models and Information. USA, IGI Global.
  • Huselid, M.A., 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673-703.
  • Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S, 1997. Technical and strategic human re-source management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1), 171-188.
  • Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M., 1997. An Examination of the Relationship between Work Group and Performance: Once More into the Breech. Personnel Psychology, p.555.
  • Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T.A., Levine, D., Olson, C., and Strauss, G., 1996. What works at work: overview and assessment. IndustrialRelations, 35, 352-332.
  • Isacksen, s. and Lauer, k.t., 2002. The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and innovation management, 11 (1), 74-86.
  • Joinson, C. 2002. Managing Virtual Teams: Keeping Members on the Same Page without Being in the Same Place Poses Challenges for Managers Workplace Trends. Human Resource Magazine, 47 (6), 68-72.
  • Kiffin-Peteron, S.A. and Cordery, J.L. 2003., Trust, Individualism, and Job Characteristics of Employee Reference for Teamwork. International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, pp. 93-116.
  • King, N. and Anderson, N., 2002. Managing Innovation and Change: A Critical Guide for Organizations. London: Thomson.
  • Kirkman, B. L. and Rosen, B., 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment, Academy of Management Journal. 42 (1), 58-74.
  • Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. B. and Shapiro, D. L., 2001. Exporting teams: Enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of work teams in global affiliates. Organizational Dynamics. 30 (1), 12-29.
  • Lawler, E.E., 1992. The ultimate advantage: creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
  • Levi, D. andSlem, C., 1995. Team work in research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29-42.
  • Marchington, M. and Grugulis, I., 2000.Best practice human resource management: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, (6), 1104-1121
  • Miles, R.E and Snow, C.C., 1984. Designing strategic human resource systems. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 31 (1), pp. 36-52.
  • Mohr, R.D. y Zoghi, C., 2008. The high-involvement work design and job satisfaction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61, (3), 275-296.
  • Ordiz, M. and Fernández, E., 2003. High-involvement practices in human resource management: concept and factors that motive their adoption. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (4), 511-529.
  • Pearce, J.H., II and Ravlin, E.C., 1987. The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40, 751-782.
  • Perretti, F., and Negro, G., 2007. Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innova-tion and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 28 (5), 563-586.
  • Pfeffer, J., 1994.Competitive advantage through people. California Management Review, 36 (2), 9-28.
  • Richard, O.C. and Johnson, N.B., 2001. Strategic Human Resource Management Effectiveness and firm performance. The International Journal of Human resource Manage-ment, 12, 299-310.
  • Rubio, M., Gutiérrez, s andVarona, l 2013. self-managing teams in small and medium enterprises, in Machado and Melo (Eds). Effective Human Resources Management in Small and Medium Enterprises: Global Perspective. USA, IGI Global. 280-300
  • Sashkin, M. 1984. Participative management is an ethical imperative, Organizational Dy-namics, 12 (4), 5-22.
  • Schuler, R.S., and Jackson, S.E., 1987a. Linking competitive strategy with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1 (3), 207-219.
  • Schuler, R.S., and Jackson, S.E., 1987b. Organizational strategy and organization level as determinants of human resource management practices. Human Resource Planning, 10 (3), 125-141.
  • Semco, 2010. The Semco business Model, http://semco.com.br/en/ (accesed on 12th july 2011).
  • Semler, r., 1993. Maverick: The success store behind the world ́s most unusual workplace. New York, Warner Books.
  • Semler, r., 1994. Why My Former Employees Still Work for Me, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1994. Reprint #94112.
  • Semler, R 2001. Latest whys and wherefores of the maverick, Financial Times, Oct 18, London Edition.
  • Semler, r., 2004a. The Seven-Day Weekend: Changing The Way Work Works. New York: Warner Books.
  • Semler, R., 2004b. What a nimble, motivated workforce? Cio insight, Apr 1, 2004, New York
  • Semler, R, 2007: Out of this World: Doing things the Semco way, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, July/August, pp. 13-21.
  • Terreberry, S., 1968. The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 590-613
  • Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M. and Hendrickson, A.R., 1998. Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12 (3), 17-29.
  • Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P., 1997. Soft and hard models of human management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 53-73.
  • Tushman, M.L. and O ́Reilly, C.A., 1997. Winning through Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C., 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology. 58, 515-541
  • Vanderburg D 2004. The Story of Semco: The Company that Humanized Work, Bulletin of Science Technology Society; 24; 430
  • Wall, t. D., Kemp, n. j., Jackson, P. r., andClegg, C. W. 1986. Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A longterm field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 280–304.
  • Wellis, R.; Byham, W. and Wilson, J. M.. 1991. Empowerment teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity and participation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativ-ity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology-an Internatio-nal Review-Psychologies Appliquee-Revue Internationale. 51 (3), 355-387.
  • West, M.A., y Hirst, G., 2003. Cooperation and teamwork for innovation. En M.A. West, D. tjosVolD y K.G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, 297-319. Chichester, England: Wiley.
  • Wood, S. and de Menezes, L.M., 2008. Comparing perspectives on high involvement Management and organizational performance across the British economy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (4), 639-682.
  • Wright, P. M., McMahan, C. and McWilliams, A., 1994. Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5 (2), 301-326.
  • Yang, s-B. and Guy, m., 2011. The effectiveness of self-managed work teams in Govern-ment Organizations. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 531-541.
  • Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research. Thousands Oaks. Sage Publications.Zatzick, C.D. and Iverson, R.D. 2006. High-involvement management and workforce reduction: competitive advantage or disadvantage?, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (5), 999-1015
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet