TAKIM SÜREÇLERİNİN TAKIM ETKİNLİĞİ VE BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE’DE HİZMET SEKTÖRÜNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN FİRMALAR ÜZERİNDE BİR UYGULAMA

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 54, 644 - 671, 30.07.2020

Meral Dülger Taşkın

Öz

Takım süreçleri takımların nasıl işlediğini, kendi aralarında ve çevreleriyle nasıl iletişim kurduklarını açıklamaktadır. Dolayısıyla, bu süreçlerin anlamlandırılmasının takımların örgüt düzeyindeki yerini vurguladığı düşünülmektedir. Konuyla ilgili yazın taraması, takımların örgütsel tasarımlarda kullanımı ile ilgili çalışmaların genellikle sınırlı olduğunu, Türkiye özelinde ise bu konuda herhangi bir araştırma yapılmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Yazındaki bu boşluğu doldurmayı amaçlayan makale, örgütsel tasarım bakış açısını benimseyerek Türkiye'nin büyük şehirlerinde hizmet sektöründe faaliyet gösteren çok uluslu ve yerel firmalarda Takım Çalışma Süreçleri, Takımda Kişilerarası Süreçler ve Ekip Etkinliği/Başarısı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Başka bir deyişle, bu firmalarda yer alan takımların amaçlarına ulaşma, kişilerarası ilişkileri yönetme ve hem kendi hem de örgüt hedefleri açısından anlamlı bir yerde olma konularında ne aşamada olduklarını örgüt seviyesinde bir bakış açısıyla ortaya koymaktır. Veriler, 149 firmada çalışan toplam 368 orta düzey ekip üyesi ve ekip yöneticisinden toplanmıştır. Öngörülen ilişkiler hiyerarşik regresyon yöntemi ile analiz edilmiş ve sonuçlar takım süreçlerinin Takım Etkinliği/Başarısı üzerinde önemli bir etkisi olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Çalışma bulguları, Türk hizmet sektöründe faaliyet gösteren firmaların yapılarının gelişmiş ülkelerdekilerle neredeyse aynı düzeyde olduğunu göstermesi açısından literatürle paralellik göstermektedir. Dolayısıyla, sonuçların kuruluşları uygulanabilir bir örgütsel tasarım öğesi olarak takımları bünyelerinde daha çok bulundurmaya heveslendirebileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Takım Süreçleri, Takım Etkinliği, Takım Başarısı, Örgüt Tasarımı, Hizmet Sektörü

Destekleyen Kurum

Boğaziçi Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

5241

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmanın fikir babası olan değerli doktora danışmanım Prof. Dr. Güven Alpay ve veri toplama aşaması için destek veren Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Kooridnatörlüğü’ne en içten teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

THE EFFECT OF TEAM PROCESSES ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERFORMANCE: AN APPLICATION ON THE SERVICE SECTOR COMPANIES OPERATING IN TURKEY

Öz

Team processes explain how teams work, how they communicate with themselves and their surroundings. Thus, understanding these processes is thought to highlight the place of teams in organizations. Literature review has revealed that studies on the use of teams in organizational designs are generally limited and no research was conducted pertaining to this topic in Turkey. Hence, from an organizational design point of view, this endeavor aims to fill the gap in the literature by examining the relationship between Team Action Processes, Interpersonal Processes and Team Effectiveness/Performance in multinational and domestic service firms operating in Turkey. That is, from an organizational perspective, the study reveals the place of teams in terms of achieving their goals, managing interpersonal relations and being in a meaningful place regarding both their own and organizational goals. Data are collected from 368 middle-level team members and team managers in 149 teams who operate in the service industry in major cities of Turkey. The hypothesized relationships are analyzed with hierarchic regression and the results reveal that team processes have a significant effect on Team Effectiveness/Performance. As these findings are consistent with the literature, they may motivate organizations to employ teams as a viable organizational design element more frequently.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Team Processes, Team Effectiveness,, Team Performance, Organizational Design, Services Industry

Proje Numarası

5241

Kaynakça

• Ancona, D. G. & Cladwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-666.
• Antoni, C. & Hertel, G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: Implications for different types of teamwork. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 253-266.
• Aubé C. & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 189-204.
• Austin, J. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866-878.
• Bain, P.G., Mann, L. & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32, 55-73.
• Beal, D. J., Burke, R. R. & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.
• Bliese, P. D. & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: Multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work and Stress, 14, 65-73.
• Bond, M. H. & Wing-Chun Ng, I. (2004). The depth of a group’s personality resources: Impacts on group process and group performance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 285-300.
• Campion, M. A., Medsker, G.J. & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness-Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
• Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M. & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.
• Carter, S. M. & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583-601.
• Chiocchio, F. & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382-420.
• Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching The Team at Work, Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey International.
• 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, 239-290.
• Cohen, S. G., Ledford Jr., G. E. and Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.
• Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization Theory and Design. Willard, OH: Donnelley & Sons Company.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
• Galbraith, J. R. (1994). Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations. USA: Addison – Wesley Publication Company.
• Galbraith, J. R., Lawler, E. E. & 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. & Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Process (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Gilley, J. W. & Gilley, A. (2007). Manager as Coach, Hartford, CT: Praefer.
• Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
• Goold, M. & Camppbell, A. (2002). Designing Effective Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
• Griffith, T. L. & 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.
• Haas, M. R. (2010). The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 989-1008.
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
• Hackman, J.R. (Ed.), (1990). Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork, California, USA: Jossey – Bass Publications.
• Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Hackman, J. R. & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1-50). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh Edition, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Hirokawa, R. Y. & Salazar, A. J. (1991). The necessity of chimera hunting: Why group communication scholars should maintain a “bottom-line” focus in group decision-making research. In annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
• Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K. & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam r&d projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15, 38-55.
• Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J. & 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.
• Kang, H.R., Yang, H. D. & Rowley, C. (2006). Factors in team effectiveness: Cognitive and demographic similarities of software development team members. Human Relations, 59, 1681-1710.
• Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-120. Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C.S., Lyons, R. & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40, 181-222.
• Konradt, U., Andreßen, P. & Ellwart, T. (2009). Self-leadership in organizational teams: A multilevel analysis of moderators and mediators. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 322-346.
• Kuipers, B. S. & de Witte, M. C. (2005). Teamwork: A case study on development and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 185-201.
• Kuipers, B. S. & Stoker, J. I. (2009). Development and performance of self-managing work teams: A theoretical and empirical examination. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 399-419.
• Larson, C. E. & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
• Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E. & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-308.
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
• Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J. & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 964-971.
• Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L. & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97-108.
• Mathieu, J. E. & Schulze, W. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic team process–performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 605-619.
• Medcof, J. W. (2001). Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 999-1012.
• Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G. & 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. & Associates (1998). Tomorrow’sOorganization: Crafting Winning Capabilities in a Dynamic World. California, USA: Jossey – Bass Publishers.
• Nielsen, T. M., Hrivnak, G. A. & Shaw, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance a metaanalysis of group-level research. Small Group Research, 40, 555-577.
• Pfeffer, J. (1978). The micropolitics of organizations. In M. W. Meyer and Associates (Eds.), Environments and Organizations (pp. 29-50). , San Francisco. CA: Jossey – Bass.
• Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York, USA: Harper and Row.
• Salas, E., Cooke, N. J. & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540-547.
• Sassenberg, K., Jones, K. L. & 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.
• 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, 135-148.
• Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54.
• Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L. & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology. In Kelley, Kathryn (Ed), (1992). Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology, advances in psychology, 82 (pp.117-153). Oxford, England: North-Holland.
• Ulrich, D. & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency and population.The Academy of Management Review, 9, 471-481.
• Van Emmerik, I. H. & Brenninkmeijer, V. (2009). Deep-level similarity and group social capital: associations with team functioning. Small Group Research, 40, 650-669
• Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C. & 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.
• West, M. A. & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.
• West, M. A., Borrill, C. & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team effectiveness in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 13, pp.1-48). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Yee Ng, K. & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups: A multilevel analysis. Group and Organization Management, 30, 514-540.
• Zhou, Y. & Wnag, E. (2010). Shared mental models as moderators of team process-performance relationships.Social Behavior and Personality, 38, 433-444.