INCREASING ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: A TEAM PERSPECTIVE IN STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Year 2017, , 326 - 335, 30.09.2017

Meral Dulger

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.710

Abstract

Purpose - Job designs based on individual employees may pose
challenges such as delays, failure to fulfill obligations and/or
misunderstandings that may reflect negatively on performance and ultimately
competitive advantage. Alternatively, this paper proposes teams to efficiently
utilize human resources.  

Methodology - Propositions that can be used as potential research
questions are derived through reviewing the relevant literature. Findings- Instances where individual
employees fall short of considering each and every aspect of a given job are
becoming ever so common. Teams, however, are mechanisms through which different
individuals with different specialties and can come together and this synergy is
coordinated towards a common goal. Accordingly, teams seem to have potential in
efficient use of human resources.

Conclusion- Teams provide an organization and coordination tool
for human resources practices. It is believed that teams have considerable potential
in terms of increasing organizational performance and competitive advantage.
Hence, teams are suggested as mechanisms upon which modern job designs should
stand on.  

Keywords

Team, strategic management, competitive advantage, strategic human resources management, job design

References

• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120.
• Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(1): 67–94.
• Boswell, W. R. (2006). Aligning employees with the organization's strategic objectives: Out of “line of sight”, out of mind. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(9): 1489–1511.
• Buller, P. F. and McEvoy, G. M. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human resource management review, 22(1): 43-56.
• Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 501–528.
• Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. USA: Addison – Wesley Publication Company.
• Galbraith, J. R. (1994). Competing with flexible lateral organizations. USA: Addison – Wesley Publication Company.
• Galbraith, J. R., Lawler, E. E. and associates (1993). Organizing for the future: The new logic for managing complex organizations. San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass.
• Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H. and Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behavior, structure, process (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Gilley, J. W. and Gilley, A. (2007). Manager as coach. Hartford, CT: Praefer.
• Grant, R. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, Summer: 114-135.
• Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 109–122.
• Griffith, T. L. and Neale M. A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 379-421.
• Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1): 3–13.
• Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J. and Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configuration in self managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5: 883-889.
• Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635–672
• Kang, H.R., Yang, H. D. and Rowley, C. (2006). Factors in team effectiveness: Cognitive and demographic similarities of software development team members. Human Relations, 59, 1681 – 1710.
• Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Keen, P. (1997). The process edge: Creating value where it counts. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Larson, C. E. and LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
• Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Developing organizations: Diagnosis and action. Reading, MA: Addison – Wesley Publishing Company.
• Leavitt, H. J. (1975). Suppose we took groups seriously... In E. L. Cass and G. G. Zimmer (Eds.), Men and work in society; A report on the symposium held on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the original Hawthorne studies. (pp. 67-77). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. and Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356-376.
• Mohrman, S. A. and Cummings, T. G. (1989). Self-Designing organizations: Learning how to create high performance. USA: Addison – Wesley Publishing.
• Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G. and Mohrman Jr., A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. California, USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Mohrman, S. A., Galbraith, J. R., Lawler III, E. E. and Associates (1998). Tomorrow’s organization: Crafting winning capabilities in a dynamic world. California, USA: Jossey – Bass Publishers.
• Nadler, D. A., Gerstein, M. S., Shaw, R. B. and Associates (1992). Organizational architecture: Designs for changing organizations.
• Ostroff, F. (1999). The horizontal organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ostroff, C., and Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. (pp. 211–266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.
• Salas, E., Cooke, N. J. and Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50: 540–547.
• Sassenberg, K., Jones, K. L., and Shah, J. Y. (2007). Why some groups just feel better: The regulatory fit of group power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2: 249-267.
• Senge, P., (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, USA: Doubleday Currency.
• Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In Sundstrom, E. (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 3–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Wellins, R.S., W.C. Byham, and J.M. Wilson (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass Publications.
• Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C. and Dixon, G. R. (1994). Inside teams: How 20 world-class organizations are winning through teamwork. California, USA: Jossey – Bass Publications.
• West, M. A. (2004). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational leadership (Second Edition). Malden, MA: BPS Blackwell.
• Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. 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.