Eficacia grupal en el sector de la automocióntareas y procesos grupales

  1. Osca Segovia, Amparo
  2. Bardera Mora, María del Pilar
  3. García-Salmones Fernández, Lourdes
  4. Urién Angulo, M. Begoña
Journal:
Papeles del psicólogo

ISSN: 0214-7823,  1886-1415

Year of publication: 2011

Volume: 32

Issue: 1

Pages: 29-37

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Papeles del psicólogo

Abstract

In our country, during the 90�s, leading companies in the automotive sector began to modify their structures to become more competitive. The introduction of technology allowed to modify the job content and to introduce teamwork. In this context, ten years ago, our research group started to study the variables involve in the effectiveness of groups, following an input-process-output model. The purpose of this article is twofold: to present some results obtained related to the tasks and group processes and to advance in the research, adding new analyses from a cultural perspective. Specifically, comparing the group processes and outcomes in two subsidiaries of a multinational company located in Mexico and Spain. From an applied perspective, some proposals are put forward to improve te efficiency of work in this sector.

Bibliographic References

  • Andersen, G.R. (2006). Conflicts during organizational change: Destructive or constructive. Nordic Psychology, 58(3), 215-231.
  • Aykan, Z. y Kanungo, R.N. (2001). Crosscultural Indus- trial and Organizational Psychology: A Critical Appraisal of the Field and the Future Directions. En N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil y Ch. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 385-408). London: Sage Publications.
  • Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D. y Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 84-93.
  • Cohen, S. y Wills, T.A. (1985), Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-57.
  • Cunningham, I.J. y Eys, M.A. (2007). Role ambiguity and intra-team communication in interdependent sport teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2220-2237.
  • Drenth, P.J. y Groenendijk, B. (1998). Organizational Psychology in a cross-cultural perspective. En P.J. Drenth, T. Henk y Ch.J. de Wolf (Eds.). Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 133-160). Hove: Psychology Press.
  • Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J. y Gaby, S. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: factors related to employee´s reactions to implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419- 428.
  • Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. y Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-20.
  • García-Salmones, L. y Osca, A. (2004). Satisfacción y eficacia: un estudio con grupos de trabajo. Comunicación presentada en la V Semana de Investigación de la Facultad de Psicología de la UNED, 15-19 de noviembre de 2004.
  • Glazer, S. y Beehr, T.A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 467-487.
  • Gómez, C., Kirkman, B.L. y Shapiro, D.L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1097-1106.
  • Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
  • Hackman, J.R. y Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
  • Hackman, J.R. y Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation trough the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Process, 16(2), 250-279.
  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture´s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Huang, X. y van de Vliert, E. (2003). Comparing Work Behaviors across Cultures: A Cross-level Approach Using Multilevel Modeling. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), 167-182.
  • Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. y Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-ProcessOutput Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
  • Jackson, S.E. y Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16- 78.
  • Jimmieson, N.L., Terry, D.J. y Callan, V.J. (2004). A Longitudinal Study of Employee Adaptation to Organizational Change: The Role of Change-Related Information and Change-Related Self-Efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 11-27.
  • Kirkman, B.L. y Shapiro, D.L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward model of globalized self-managing work teams effectiveness. Academic of Management Review, 22(3), 730-757.
  • Kirkman, B.L. y Shapiro, D.L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing wok teams: the mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 557-569.
  • Kozlowski, S.W.J. y Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
  • Langfred, C.W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885-900.
  • Lee-Ross, D. (2005). Perceived job characteristics and in- ternal work motivation: An exploratory cross-cultural analysis of the motivational antecedents of hotel workers in Mauritius and Australia. Journal of Management Development, 24(3), 253-266.
  • LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Jackson, C.L., Mathieu, J.E. y Saul, J.R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Test of multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307.
  • Lowe, S.R. y Chan, C.S. y Rhodes, J.E. (2010). Pre-hurri- cane perceived social support protects against psychological distress: A longitudinal analysis of low-income mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(4), 551-560.
  • Mansell, A., Brough, P. y Cole, K. (2006). Stable predic- tors of job satisfaction, psychological strain, and employee retention: An evaluation of organizational change within the New Zealand Customs Service. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(1), 84- 107.
  • Marks, M., Mathieu, J.E. y Zaccaro, S.J. (2001). A temporaly based framework and taxonomy of teams processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
  • Mathieu, J.E. y Schulze, W. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic team process-performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 605-619.
  • McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Maynard, M.T., Mathieu, J.E., Marsh, W.M. y Ruddy, T.M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the influences of employees’ resistance to empowerment. Human Performance, 20(2), 147-171.
  • Meller, M.W. y Gupta, V. (1994). The performance paradox. En B.M. Staw y B. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Research (pp. 309-369). Greenwich: JAI Press.
  • Morgan, B.B., Salas, E. y Glickman, A.S. (1993). An análisis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277-291.
  • Osca, A. y Uríen, B. (2001). Características de las tareas y su influencia en la satisfacción laboral y el rendimiento de grupos de trabajo. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 17(3), 327-340.
  • Osca, A., Uríen, B., González-Camino, G., Martínez-Pérez, M.D. y Martínez-Pérez, N. (2005). Organizational Support and group efficacy: a longitudinal study of main and buffering effects. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3-4), 292-311.
  • Osca, A., Uríen, B. y Rodrigo, M.J. (2009). Tareas y eficacia grupal: un estudio en México y España. Comunicación presentada al VII Congreso Iberoamericano de Psicología. Oviedo, 20-24 de Julio de 2010.
  • Osca, A. y García-Salmones, L. (2010). El impacto del tamaño y la diversidad en los procesos y resultados grupales. Psicothema, 22(1), 137-142.
  • Parker, S.K. y Ohly, S. (2008). Designing motivating jobs: And expanded work for linking work characteristics and motivation. En R. Kanfer, G. Chen y R.D. Pritchard (Eds.). Work Motivation: past, present and future (pp.233-284). Nueva York: Routledge.
  • Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. y Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652.
  • Rentsch, J.R. y Klimoski, R.J. (2001). Why do ‘great minds’ think alike?: Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 107-120.
  • Roadhes, L. y Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 698-714.
  • Sanchez-Burke, J., Nisbett, R.E. e Ibarra, O. (2000). Cultural styles, relational schemas, and prejudice against out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 174-189.
  • Schabracq, M.J. y Cooper, C.L. (2000). The changing nature of work and stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(1), 110-135.
  • Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications: Theorical advances and empirical tests in twenty countries. En M.P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1-65). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Tannenbaum, S.I., Beard, R.L. y Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. En K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 117- 153). Oxford: North-Holland.
  • Tata, J. y Prasad, S. (2004). Team Self-management, Organizational Structure, and Judgments of Team Effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 248- 265.
  • Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and social behavior. Londres: McGraw-Hill.
  • Tubre, T.C. y Collins, J.M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155-169.
  • Uríen, B. y Osca, A. (2001a). Cambios en las tareas y su repercusión en la satisfacción laboral: un estudio de grupos de trabajo en empresas de automoción. Revista de Psicología Social, 16(3), 315-329.
  • Uríen, B. y Osca, A. (2001b). Group processes and their influence in effectiveness. Comunicación presentada al 10th European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology. Mayo 16-19, Praga.
  • Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Vermunt, J. K., Kompier, M.A. y Doorewaard, J. A. (2006). Individual autonomy in work teams: The role of team autonomy, selfefficacy, and social support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 281- 299.
  • Watson, W., Cooper, D., Torres, M.A., Neri, J.L. y Boyd, N.G. (2008). Team processes, team conflict, team outcomes, and gender: An examination of U.S. and Mexican learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 524-537.
  • Williams, H.M., Parker, S.K. y Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 301-324.
Data source: Dialnet