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
Aldizkaria:
Papeles del psicólogo

ISSN: 0214-7823,  1886-1415

Argitalpen urtea: 2011

Alea: 32

Zenbakia: 1

Orrialdeak: 29-37

Mota: Artikulua

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Papeles del psicólogo

Laburpena

En nuestro país, desde la década de los 90, las empresas líderes del sector de la automoción comenzaron a modificar sus estructuras para hacerlas más competitivas. La introducción de tecnología permitió modificar el contenido de los puestos y trabajar en equipo. En este contexto, nuestro grupo de investigación inició hace diez años el estudio de las variables implicadas en la eficacia grupal siguiendo un modelo input-process-output. Este artículo tiene un doble objetivo: presentar algunos de los resultados obtenidos relacionados con las tareas y los procesos grupales y, avanzar en el estudio incorporando nuevos análisis desde una perspectiva transcultural. Concretamente se comparan los procesos y resultados grupales en dos filiales de una empresa multinacional ubicada en México y España. Desde una perspectiva aplicada se formulan algunas propuestas de intervención para mejorar la introducción de equipos de trabajo en este sector.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • 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.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet