پرورش تیم مدیریت ارشد انعطاف پذیر : اهمیت ارتباطات رابطه ای و جامعیت تصمیم استراتژیک
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4614||2013||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Safety Science, Volume 51, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 148–159
Despite growing research interest in both top management team (TMT) processes and resilience in organizations, these two streams of research have remained largely separate, let alone fully developed. In this study, we examine whether and why relational connections marked by connectivity facilitate strategic decision comprehensiveness, and cultivate two forms of TMT resilience that capture both efficacious beliefs and adaptive capacity. Based on a sample of 74 TMTs, the findings of this study indicate that (1) connectivity is positively related to strategic decision comprehensiveness, (2) strategic decision comprehensiveness is positively associated with both forms of TMT resilience, and (3) connectivity is indirectly, through strategic decision comprehensiveness, related to both TMT resilience–efficacious beliefs and TMT resilience–adaptive capacity. These findings have direct implications for research on TMTs, decision-making processes, and resilience by specifying the ways in which relational connections help build capacities in senior executive teams.
Resilience, which is defined as “the capacity to rebound from adversity strengthened and more resourceful” (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003, p. 97), is fundamental to human and organizational functioning and viability. Coping and bouncing back from experiences of failure and adversity may also be important for organizational crisis-preparedness, high reliability, longevity and future growth (Carmeli and Markman, 2011, Carmeli and Schaubroeck, 2008 and Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001). Resilience is also a key capacity that is related to safety processes and outcomes in various settings (Amalberti, 2006 and Morel et al., 2009). Woods and Hollnagel (2006) pointed to the need to adopt a proactive approach to safety management that recognizes the complexity and ever-changing environment. This approach requires constant investments in “anticipating the changing potential for failure because they (organizations) appreciate that their knowledge of the gaps (is) imperfect and that their environment constantly changes” (Woods and Hollnagel, 2006, p. 6). Resilience as a capacity for positive response and healing capabilities from setbacks has also attracted considerable research attention in health and psychology (Bonanno, 2004, Fergus and Zimmerman, 2005 and Flach, 1997), and organization and management studies (Dutton et al., 2006, Lilius et al., 2011, Powley, 2009 and Waldman et al.,2011). The concept of resilience emerged from the understanding that “failures are breakdowns in the normal adaptive processes necessary to cope with the complexity of the real world, and that success relates to organizations, groups and individuals who produce resilient systems that recognize and adapt to variations, changes and surprises (Rasmussen et al., 1994, Cook et al., 2000, Woods and Shattuck, 2000 and Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003)” (Patterson et al., 2007, p. 155). However, this line of research has often focused at the individual level, and despite increased efforts this body of knowledge has yet to be fully developed. Specifically, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of team resilience and the processes that help build this capacity. This relatively understudied area is particularly important in the context of top management teams (TMTs) that often face times of difficulty such as declining outcomes, experiences of failure, and upheavals. Understanding why some TMTs are more able than others to cope with the significant challenges of economic hardships (e.g., recession) and demanding competitive pressures (e.g., rapid technological advances) is a research area that is in a nascent stage. TMT members are individually and collectively accountable for the strategic orientation and functionality of their organization. However, research has noted that many TMTs experience maladaptation (Hambrick, 1998), and often make poor choices that negatively affect the organization (Carmeli and Schaubroeck, 2006). In addition, research indicates that internal TMT processes may play a key role in explaining adaptive and maladaptive organizational responses to change (Hambrick, 1998, Mooney and Sonnenfeld, 2001 and Simsek et al., 2005). Work team processes have attracted considerable research attention, and have focused on various constructs such as cohesion and attention to political feasibility that describe the interactions between members (Eden and Ackerman, 2001, Kozlowski and Bell, 2003, Kozlowski and Bell, 2008 and Mathieu et al., 2008). This interest derives from the acknowledgement that “processes are important because they describe how team inputs are transformed into outcomes” (Mathieu et al., 2008, p. 412). Similarly, the study of TMTs aims to understand processes and outcomes and has become an increasingly prominent topic of inquiry (Hambrick, 2005). TMT processes provide meaningful intervening constructs (Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2004) that help unpack the ‘black box’ of inconsistent demographic research findings (Hambrick, 1994 and Lawrence, 1997). This line of research has produced useful knowledge about processes within TMTs that enable different strategic orientations, improve strategic choices, and enhance firm performance (Barrick et al., 2007, Li and Hambrick, 2005, Lubatkin et al., 2006, Pettigrew, 1992 and Smith et al., 1994). However, although studying TMT processes can provide significant input to refine Upper Echelon Theory (Hambrick, 2005), this body of knowledge has yet to be fully exploited (Barrick et al., 2007, Hambrick, 2005 and Lubatkin et al., 2006). Further, research on TMT processes and resilience has largely remained disparate, and we have yet to see studies that examine whether and how TMT processes can help build and cultivate collective resilience. This study aims to contribute to this emerging literature by examining whether connectivity between TMT members facilitates a higher level of engagement in strategic decision comprehensiveness and enhances TMT resilience. We further draw on recent literature on high quality relationships (Dutton, 2003, Dutton and Heaphy, 2003 and Ragins and Dutton, 2007) to investigate how relational connections marked by connectivity between TMT members help cultivate TMT resilience, thus contributing to a better understanding of the relational and strategic decision making pathways for building team capacities. Connectivity is a relational construct that characterizes the structural ties between members and is manifested in openness (it enables people to embrace diverse influences that come from others as opportunities for learning and growth) and generativity (a relationship between members which is manifested in enhanced possibilities for learning new things, seeing new opportunities, and generating new insights) (Carmeli and Spreitzer, 2009, Dutton and Heaphy, 2003, Dutton and Sonenshein, 2009 and Losada and Heaphy, 2004). Thus, we reason that connectivity may be a key mechanism because it enables the team to see opportunities in times of difficulty and generate new insights that can augment the capacity to bounce back from negative events strengthened and more resourceful. Nevertheless, a critical factor in TMT resilience is a team’s grasp of the situation and issues it faces. For instance, Chakravarthy (1982) suggested the concept of adaptive fit to describe a system that is able to sense complexity in an environment. Similarly, Lengnick-Hall and Beck (2005) defined the capacity for resilience as the “ability to interpret unfamiliar situations; to devise new ways of confronting these events; and to mobilize people, resources, and processes to transform these choices into reality (Kobasa et al., 1985, p. 752)”. Thus, a TMT needs to engage in strategic decisions in a more comprehensive manner to enhance its resilience and cope with adversity successfully. In other words, the extent to which TMTs “attempt to be exhaustive or inclusive in making and integrating strategic decisions” (Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984, p. 402) is crucial to making the right choices that can enable the team to recover from a setback. We also suggest that connectivity facilitates the engagement of TMT members in decision comprehensiveness. This is because connectivity in relationships enables TMT members to feel psychologically safe to discuss the strategic issues at hand (see Edmondson, 1999 and Edmondson, 2003), thus alleviating concerns that may lead members to become defensive and less inclined to discuss major issues openly, which can inhibit cognitive processes of seeing and capitalizing on opportunities. This kind of connection between TMT members also helps them to interact and interrelate in such a way that they do not dismiss or oversimplify issues, but rather carefully consider them in a more mindful manner when making strategic choices. In testing these relationships, we hope to contribute to the scant literature on TMT resilience by expanding our knowledge about TMT processes while drawing on the theory of high quality relationships in the workplace. In so doing, this study addresses the call to unravel relational and strategic decision making processes that help build capabilities. Further, we provide a first examination of whether the way TMT members connect facilitates engagement in strategic decision comprehensiveness and why the latter may enhance team resilience, which is crucial for effective navigation in turmoil and in uncertain environments that pose various strategic and organizational challenges.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study highlights the importance of relational connections among TMT members in facilitating strategic decision comprehensiveness and cultivating TMT resilience. We probed to two forms of resilience – beliefs and capacity to absorb strain, recover and adapt positively in the face of adversity. Our findings indicate that a high level of connectivity within TMTs facilitates engagement in strategic decision comprehensiveness and helps cultivate a resilient TMT. Our study contributes to Upper Echelon Theory by integrating separate theories and bodies of research to better understand relational mechanisms and decision making processes and their role in cultivating TMT resilience. In so doing, this study encourages a line of inquiry which may facilitate meaningful discussions on issues in upper echelon, strategic decision-making processes, relational connections and resilience.