Cooperation - A Principle of Scientific Management
Principles of Scientific Management of F.W. Taylor and Practice Implications
_______________
_______________
On Cooperative Behavior in Distributed Teams: The Influence of Organizational Design, Media Richness, Social Interaction, and Interaction Adaptation
Dorthe D. Håkonsson, Børge Obel, Jacob K. Eskildsen and Richard M. BurtonHYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE
Front. Psychol., 12 May 2016 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00692
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00692/full
Cooperation in organizations
Citation:
René Schalk, Petru L. Curşeu, (2010) "Cooperation in organizations", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Issue: 5, pp.453-459, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011048364
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02683941011048364
Cooperation is one of the most important themes for modern organizations. Cooperation as a synergistic force is a core organizational process driving organizational effectiveness (Chen et al., 1998; Smith et al., 1995). If the level of cooperation is high, the goals of the organization as a whole will be better served. Therefore, managers are challenged to foster cooperation within the company to ensure that:
•the company is able to quickly adapt to changes in the environment;
• the company is well positioned in inter‐organizational networks; and that
• flexibility in production or services is assured to cope with changes in the environment.
Being innovative, as well as being able to operate efficiently, requires effective cooperation within companies.
Smith et al. (1995, p. 10), in their editorial for a special issue on cooperation within and between organizations for the Academy of Management Journal, characterized the state of affairs in theory and research on cooperation as chaotic, because ] the numerous cooperation scholars have offered without making much attempt to reference other usages of the term. Most authors agree, however, that cooperation is a process in which individuals, groups, and/or organizations interact and form relationships for mutual gain or benefit (Smith et al., 1995). Chen et al. (1998) identify three distinct conceptualizations of cooperation as:
1. individuals working together to achieve a common goal;
2. goal‐interdependent agents engaged in social interactions; and
3. individual actions that maximize the collective gain.
In some other approaches, cooperation is defined and studied in opposition to competition (individuals try to maximize personal benefits at the expense of collective benefits) and to conflict (disagreements generated by perceived or real incompatibilities among individuals) (Aquino and Reed II, 1998; de Cremer, 2005). In addition, it is agreed that with respect to cooperative relationships, a distinction can be made between formal agreements (written contracts involving contractual obligations), and more informal forms of cooperation.
There is still little insight into how modern organizations can best organize their cooperation processes. Additional challenges are posed by globalization. Often, organizations use managerial interventions and contractual agreements to enhance the quality of a cooperation process. Research on the effect of leadership styles on cooperation shows that leadership behavior affects cooperation processes through induced changes in personal motives (de Cremer, 2002), as well as through its impact on the affective dynamics of the group (Bierhoff and Muller, 2005).
Vol. 25 No.5 is a special issue
The papers that are included in this special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology extensively address the role of cultural differences, virtual communication, team processes, leader behavior, and the impact of norms on cooperation.
“The multicultural workplace: interactive acculturation and intergroup relations,” by Wido G.M. Oerlemans and Maria C.W. Peeters, is a survey‐based study. The findings of this study highlight how interpersonal cooperation depends on the extent to which the cultural value expectations of the native employees accord with the preferences of the immigrant workers. This relationship is also moderated by the amount of inter‐group contact. The authors show that, whenever the acculturation orientations of the two groups conflict, the quality of cooperation is lower as compared to a situation where these expectations are congruent. For the host community employees, however, the amount of contact with immigrant workers reduces the negative effect of incongruent expectations, while for the immigrant employees the amount of inter‐group contact aggravates the negative effect.
“Can conflict management be an antidote to subordinate absenteeism?,” by Renee de Reuver and Marianne van Woerkom, is a survey‐based study. The study thus shows that supervisors' management styles (their attempts to manage cooperation) are highly relevant for employee attitudes, which will ultimately impact on their willingness to cooperate. In line with previous research on conflict management, the study shows the superiority of an integrative style over the controlling or non‐confrontational strategies.
“Electronic negotiations in intercultural interfirm relationships,” by Andrea Graf, Sabine T. Koeszegi, and Eva‐Maria Pesendorfer, is a quasi‐experimental study. Negotiation is closely associated with cooperation, as the integrative potential can only be discovered once the parties have engaged in dialogue and negotiation. The main results of the study show that people operating in individualistic cultures are more likely to claim value for themselves, while people with a collectivist background seem to adopt more integrative strategies during negotiation.
“Struggles for cooperation: conflict resolution strategies in multicultural groups,” by Smaranda Boroş, Nicoleta Meslec, Petru L. Curşeu, and Wilco Emons, is a survey‐based study. The study goes beyond the direction envisaged (and gives answers to some paradoxes mentioned) by Wagner III (1995) in that it conceptualizes individualism and collectivism on vertical and horizontal orientations and also uses recent developments in the group diversity literature to consider different “types of group composition.” The results of the study show that cooperation in multicultural groups is positively influenced by the average level of within‐group horizontal collectivism, as well as by the variety in horizontal and vertical collectivism. Moreover, the study shows that group similarity as regards horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism is beneficial for cooperation, while group dissimilarity in vertical individualism is detrimental for cooperation.
Future research directions
Future research should further investigate the antecedents as well as the consequences of formal and informal norms in cooperation processes. Knowledge is an important organizational asset and this is often seen as the core resource exchanged in cooperative relations. Knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing are essential for cooperation. In the group cognition literature there is extensive research on information sharing in groups as the main driver of group creativity and performance (Mesmer‐Magnus and de Church, 2009). This is yet another example of rich, but disconnected, areas of research that investigate aspects of cooperation.
A potentially fruitful endeavor in future research would be to study cooperation using multilevel approaches. As shown in several studies in this special issue, whenever people cooperate, factors at several levels need be taken into account. An instructive example offered in this special issue concerns the impact of cultural orientation on cooperative behavior. Although value orientation seems a clear‐cut individual level variable, cultural value orientations impact on cooperation through multi‐level dynamics. At the individual level, cultural orientation is highly relevant for integrative versus distributive strategies used in negotiations (see the paper by Graf et al.). At the dyadic level, the fit between cultural expectations plays an important role in shaping interpersonal relations (the paper by Oerlemans and Peeters). At the group level, different compositions in terms of individualism and collectivism impact on group interactions (the paper by Boros et al.).
Finally, studies on inter‐group negotiation and cooperation are scarce (Curşeu and Schruijer, 2008). Groups are systems that exhibit specific dynamics that are distinct from the sum of individual actions (Curşeu, 2006). Research on inter‐group cooperation should therefore focus on the group level of analysis.
Tools of Cooperation
The tools of cooperation can be grouped into four major categories: power, management, leadership, and culture.
The Tools of Cooperation and Change
Clayton M. ChristensenMatt MarxHoward H. Stevenson
HBR, OCTOBER 2006 ISSUE
https://hbr.org/2006/10/the-tools-of-cooperation-and-change
Bibliography
Aquino, K. and Reed, A. II (1998), “A social dilemma perspective on cooperative behavior in organizations. The effects of scarcity, communication and unequal access on the use of shared resources”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 390‐413.
2.
Bierhoff, H. and Muller, G.F. (2005), “Leadership, mood, atmosphere, and cooperative support in project groups”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 483‐97.
3.
Bouwen, R. and Taillieu, T. (2004), “Multi‐party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management”, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 137‐53.
4.
Chen, C.C., Chen, X. and Meindl, J.R. (1998), “How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism collectivism”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 285‐304.
5.
Curşeu, P.L. (2006), “Emergent states in virtual teams: a complex adaptive systems perspective”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 249‐61.
6.
Curşeu, P.L. and Schruijer, S.G.L. (2008), “The effects of framing on inter‐group negotiation”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 347‐62.
7.
Curşeu, P.L., Schalk, M.J.D. and Wessel, I. (2008), “How do virtual teams process information? A literature review and implications for management”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 628‐52.
8.
de Cremer, D. (2002), “Charismatic leadership and cooperation in social dilemmas: a matter of transforming motives”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 997‐1016.
9.
de Cremer, D. (2005), “Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4‐13.
10.
Mesmer, J.R. and de Church, L.A. (2009), “Information sharing and team performance: a meta‐analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 535‐46.
11.
Rico, R., Sánchez‐Manzanares, M., Gil, F. and Gibson, C. (2008), “Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge‐based approach”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 163‐84.
12.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross‐discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393‐404.
13.
Schruijer, S. (2006), “Research on collaboration in action”, International Journal of Action Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 222‐42.
14.
Smith, K.G., Carroll, S.J. and Ashford, S.J. (1995), “Intra‐ and interorganizational cooperation: a research agenda”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 7‐23.
15.
Vansina, L. and Taillieu, T. (1997), “Diversity in collaborative task systems”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 183‐99. [Google Scholar]
16.
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.P. and Lyles, M.A. (2008), “Inter‐ and intra‐organizational knowledge transfer: a meta‐analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 830‐53.
17.
Wagner, J.A. III (1995), “Studies on individualism‐collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152‐72.
No comments:
Post a Comment