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

Show affiliations +
Journal:
Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

ISSN: 1131-6837

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 15

Issue: 1

Pages: 145-164

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5295/CDG.130446MR DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

Abstract

In the modern era firms should look for a sustainable and profitable business model. They operate in highly volatile and competitive markets. Innovation is a key element that allows firms to survive in these complex environments. Accordingly, some companies are developing human resource models that align to the actual competitive context. For instance, they establish democratic systems, flexible work practices, they focus on responsibility and initiative and increase the self-control of team members. In this framework, firms tend to use resources such as creativity, capacity for innovation or development of human talent. Therefore, innovative teams are able to adapt and react to turbulent, complex and dynamic environments, which allow them to handle in a more efficient way several subtasks. This fact gives rise to a higher effectiveness in the activities of firms. This paper analyze the characteristics and performance of multifunctional teams, virtual teams, open-innovation teams and self-managing teams. It also study the case of Semco, a company that is characterized by its innovative practices in human resources management and focus on responsibility and initiative and increase the self-control of team members.

Bibliographic References

  • 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
Data source: Dialnet