HUMANE-R CLUB Presents
IMPRESSIONS December Edition humane.r@iimrohtak.ac.in
CONTENTS Optimizing Team Conflict for HighPerformance Teamwork January is Prime Month for Job Seeking: Glassdoor The Real Key to Successful Recruitment
Optimizing Team Conflict for HighPerformance Teamwork To start with the involvement we need to take-up theory and research involving task, relationship, and process conflict. Consideration of this model dynamics by examining conflict transformations over time, reciprocal effects of conflict management processes, and negative feedback loops. Moreover, the model incorporates contextual features involving team design and the organizational environment. Integration of various aspects is the motive of this article where nearby recent meta-analytic findings, conflict profiles, conflict dynamics, and contextual factors into a parsimonious model useful for guiding future research and practice.
Team trust is increasingly being recognized as important for team performance, but little is currently understood about how it develops and evolves over the course of a team's lifespan. Inherently dynamic attributes are achieved by trust and team building factors, this represents a critical gap in the literature that needs to be addressed before team trust can be fully understood and effectively facilitated in practice.
There are many relevant gaps when undergoing leadership and respective subordinates and are action teams – those that come together to perform under time-constrained, yet often high-stakes conditions. While scholars have begun to explore how trust develops in these contexts, little is understood about how it evolves over time. Herein we could go for a theoretical model of team trust in action teams that incorporate its dynamic nature, models the reciprocal relationship between team trust and team performance, It Portrays novel mediating pathways with respect to team's progress in the entire multistage performance cycle and considers the role of moderating influences that may strengthen or attenuate the impact of performance feedback on subsequent team trust.
Unique and distinct implications are observed while performing studies which provides a rich foundation of establishment for future providing a rich foundation for empirical studies, and ultimately, the generation for intervention was proof-based which helps in building trust among multiple team cycles over various performances on stages. The process of team adaptation is crucial for team success as effectiveness in today's workplace hinges upon teams that are flexible and dynamic in the unavoidable presence of change.
A considerable amount of work has been conducted on the positive aspects of a team's adaptation process (e.g., successful adaptation resulting in beneficial outcomes). These efforts, however, have largely ignored the process and outcomes of maladaptation when a team fails to adapt properly. We offer propositions around our heuristic that can readily be utilized in research contexts to guide further exploration into team adaptation so that we may better understand the processes underlying maladaptive outcomes. Researchers should seek to consider various factors like as the influencing of team functioning and effectiveness. We conclude with a brief discussion of implications to research and practice. Still, we have less information on the performance implications or results for the transitions between tasks, especially when the info is specific and not in detail and the goals of it are highly volatile in nature. In order to take initiative to approach these gaps we need thorough understanding and we need to review and integrate multiple teams of various relevant domains in a small group of 6 people. Also, we could design a broad framework of workflow irrespective of the nature and effects of team and the transition of their tasks.
Research is reviewed on teams in extreme performance environments. We examine how team processes and emergent states are altered to meet these demands. In a highly demanding culture, we typically rely on our teams to undergo various complex difficult tasks ranging from any drastic and vulnerable research or ay exploration to earth disasters. The historical legacy is considered while writing this article where the research was on extreme settings.
Secondly, team performance discussions were done by us in difficult and tough environments on the contextual environment with high demands or any stressful impact of the team behaviour and undergo various discussions of team process and emergent states that would be impacted by these phenomena. At the last, we could work on challenges faced during conducting research on extreme teams and helping them in building strategies for applications and practise.
Twenty-first-century organizations often believe teams to enact their strategy and to strengthen their flexibility in interacting with their external environment over time. Team composition, or the configuration of team member attributes, can influence team effectiveness and is a crucial consideration within the management of teams. We draw on strategic human resource management (HRM), HRM, and industrial and organizational psychology pieces of literature to develop a conceptual framework for strategic team composition decisions. We describe how organizations use teams to enact their strategy (i.e., fit), and use adaptive teams and networks of teams to realize slot in a dynamic environment (i.e., flexibility).
Using the concepts of fit and adaptability, we develop four guiding principles for strategic team composition decisions
Leadership in today's high performing teams is a relational process best understood from a multilevel emergent perspective. Implicit theories of leadership and followership play an important role in predicting leader emergence in more traditional hierarchical structures, but are inadequate for understanding and predicting leadership as networks in teams, as they are doing not consider the complex dynamics of leading and following activities inherent in such structures More specifically, we propose that the combination of team member. Organizational work teams are by definition comprised of members that work interdependently and count on one another to make task-, goal-, and outcome related progress (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Given that conflict is inevitable wherever interdependencies occur (Deutsch, 1949), conflict in teamwork is a regular occurrence. Because these conflicts have powerful implications for team functioning and effectiveness (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013), it is not surprising that there is a long history of research and ongoing work on this topic (see reviews by Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008; Loughry & Amason, 2014). The current work moves beyond the existing narrative reviews and is needed for several reasons. First, although Korsgaard et al.(2008) provided a review on the multilevel dynamics of team conflict, there have been a number of important recent developments.
These largely involve new meta analyses that shed important light on the benefits, detriments, and contingencies of conflict. Second,Korsgaard et al.'s focus were restricted to antecedents of conflict in teams whereas our focus is on new meta-analytic evidence of conflict's consequences, namely, conflict's implications for performance and innovation. Third, reviews by Loughry and Amason (2014) and Bradley, Anderson, Baur, and Klotz (2015) focused on identifying conditions in which task conflict is most effective. We build on this by drawing from recent empirical work examining team conflict profiles, which describe more clearly the patterns of conflict that occur in teams (O'Neill, McLarnon, Hoffart, Woodley & Allen, in press). Fourth, we theoretically examine the dynamics of team conflict in order to advance research on how conflict profiles are related to other key variables over time. In this way, we further build upon existing reviews, which have called for development of theoretical models that incorporate the role of conflict dynamics given that conflict occurs across multiple episodes of interaction (e.g., Korsgaard et al., 2008). Fifth, the previous reviews do not consider team design or organizational environment factors that represent contextual features with implications for team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987). Ignoring such factors would lead to an incomplete understanding of conflict in teams (Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014).
Thus, this review is needed to advance a model of team conflict that captures recent scientific developments, identifies priorities for future research, and provides implications for practice.
Marketing and Communications Team We will refer to a hypothetical team throughout the current review in order to emphasize the practical implications of the material. The “Marketing and Communications Team” is an 11-member team responsible for various marketing and communication initiatives within a large enterprise organization in the financial services industry. The team has been fortunate as membership has been stable for several years and the team has a mix of experience levels across members. The team has struggled, however, to find time for exploring constructive conflicts involving task-related issues and the team members are finding themselves on a “meeting treadmill.” well, as to consult to other units in the organization on marketing and communications matters. This has led to back-to-back meetings on most days. Further, members have noted that meetings are scheduled with too little time to prepare and reflect beforehand, and therefore the viewpoints expressed during meetings are not always well informed. Nevertheless, the meetings are highly taskfocused, However, because of theemphasis on the task, the development of interpersonal relationships is rarely prioritized. This has given rise to a few miscommunications or misinterpretations that have led to awkward and uncomfortable interpersonal interactions. The team members also indicated that they needed to revisit roles and responsibilities to gain insight into each member's unique skill set.
In addition, as other organizational units seek support from the Marketing and Communications Team, the team members are sometimes unsure of how to prioritize or determine clearly who on the team should be involved and in what capacity. This could be partly attributed to the lack of formal strategic planning or strategic discussions during the past several years. This Marketing and Communications Team will be referred to throughout the review in order to emphasize the practical issues as they could apply to teams in organizations.
Background of conflict states Early conflict research:Early research in organizations emphasized two themes with respect to intragroup conflict. Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) considered the extent to which people's interactions involved differences of opinion that were either substantive (i.e., intellectual) or personal (i.e., effective) in nature. Pondy (1967) noted that conflict can be functional or dysfunctional, as it can take the form of both affective (e.g., anxiety) and cognitive states (e.g., incompatible ideas). Cosier and Rose (1977) examined the potential advantages of cognitive conflict (e.g., probing cognitive differences), which was based on seminal work by Brehmer (1976), who treated cognitive conflict as “differences of policy” (p. 986, emphasis in original). Elsewhere, Argyris (1962) and Rapoport (1960) argued for the harmful effects of personal conflicts within organizations.
A reading of this early research suggests themes involving potential detriments of person based conflict and potential benefits of task-driven conflict. Indeed, several studies revealed that teams employing decision making techniques that stimulated debate involving diverse and opposing perspectives, as in task conflict, chose the most effective decisions and solutions (e.g., Churchman, 1971; Cosier, 1978; Deutsch, 1973; Mason, 1969; Tjosvold, 1982).
The early examinations of team conflict were followed by many studies that used a variety of different designs and conceptualizations of team conflict (e.g., Nemeth, 1986; Pinkley, 1990; Ross, 1989; Schmidt & Kochan, 1972; Schweiger,Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Schwenk & Cosier, 1980; Tjosvold, 1991). Work on developing a common conceptualization of conflict was undertaken independently by two research groups who came to similar conclusions regarding two of the dimensions involved. Amason and colleagues (Amason, 1996; Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Amason et al., 1995) referred to cognitive and affective conflict,whereas Jehn (1992, 1995) used the terms task and relationship conflict, respectively.
Task or cognitive, conflict involves perceived incompatibilities with respect to the ideas and proposed solutions to the issue at hand. Relationship or affective, conflict involves perceived incompatibilities with respect to personalities and interpersonal interactions. Ultimately Jehn's (1995) terms were generally preferred, as evidenced by adoption of the task and relationship conflict labels insubsequent meta-analyses (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003a; Hulsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009) and recently by Amason (e.g.,Loughry & Amason, 2014). There are two potential reasons for this. First, Jehn (1997) expanded on the two dimensional model of conflict by adding a third dimension she called process conflict (see also Shah & Jehn, 1993). Process conflict involves perceived incompatibilities regarding roles, responsibilities, timelines, duties, and resource allocation. Second, Jehn (1995, 1997) advanced psychometrically-sound measures of the task, relationship, and process conflict, which were adopted in most subsequent research, including studies conducted by Amason's group (e.g., Amason, 1996). Accordingly, researchers have predominantly used the terms task, relationship, and process conflict when considering conflict types, which has become known as the tripartite model of team conflict.
-Abdullah Salman M Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai, Tamilnadu
January is Prime Month for Job Seeking: Glassdoor
The start of a new year is typically a time for renewed motivation to pursue resolutions like exercising more or eating healthier. For the careerminded, it’s time to refresh the resume and look for new jobs that offer better cultural fit, more pay or career opportunities. This annual surge in job seeking activity is large enough that it registers prominently in Glassdoor data. In January, there are 22 percent more job applications started on Glassdoor in the United States than in a typical month. The difference is even starker when you consider that November and December are traditionally slower months as workers take time off from their job searches for the holidays. After these two relatively slow months for recruiters, the January surge in candidate interest represents an opportune time to rejuvenate talent pipelines.
This spike in activity is not exclusive to the United States — there is a similar increase in January job search activity in many countries. The January surge is most prominent in France, where there is a 29 percent increase in job applications started on Glassdoor compared to a typical month. Among the countries we analyzed, Brazil has the smallest application surge, but still a healthy 11 percent bump. In today’s tight labor market, it’s likely employers would welcome an 11–29 percent increase in their applicant pools.
Interestingly, however, employers may be missing out on the opportunities provided by this January surge. In the data, employers are slower to post new job openings in January. In the United States, there are four percent fewer new job openings posted in January than in a typical month. This trend is similar across the world, ranging from a small one percent shortfall in Canada to a whopping 17 percent difference in France.
Job seekers should ride the wave of motivation into the new year but should be aware that recruiters and hiring managers may be slower to respond in January as they return from the holidays and sort through a higherthan-usual volume of applications. Savvy job seekers should stay alert and keep an eye out for jobs posted later in the month when the initial surge of applications has died down. January will be a busy time for the job market, and both job seekers and recruiters alike will have opportunities to start the new year — and new decade — strong.
-Glassdoor, Economic Research
This suggests that employers may not be taking full advantage of the surge in job applications headed their way at the start of the new year. Employers would benefit from preparing their job openings at the end of the year so that they’re ready in the first weeks of the year to soak up the surge in candidates and get a leg up over the competition. While employers may be slower to kick off the new year with fresh job opportunities, job seekers shouldn’t be discouraged. There are still plenty of job openings open at the start of the new year, including roles left unfilled during the holiday lull that recruiters are eager to fill.Job seekers are advised to be patient but proactive.
The Real Key to Successful Recruitment
Rebecca Skilbeck
Great employee and candidate experience is the key to successful talent acquisition. While employee recruitment focuses more on retention, candidates experience focuses on the broader aspects since job applicants are not accustomed to the company culture yet. That said, if HR wants to conduct seamless hiring and recruitment process, they have to first understand the key to effective recruitment. To start, we have a candid interview with Rebecca Skilbeck, the Head of Customer Insights and Market Research at PageUp, who has years of experience and has published many pieces of research in recruitment and engagement industry.
During your employment research, please tell us the fascinating facts about employee experience before, during, and after recruitment. Before recruitment – HR professionals are shifting from a top-down approach to talent management to one that focuses on creating a positive employee-centric experience. Employer branding and the Employee Value Proposition (EVP) are key components of the attraction story. 75 percent of job seekers research a company before even applying for a role, which means an attractive employer brand is a must to appeal to top talent. Companies with great employer brands receive 50 percent more qualified applicants and see a 50 percent reduction in cost-per-hire than those with negative or non-existent employer brands, according to LinkedIn research. During recruitment – People who are satisfied with their candidate experience are 38 percent more likely to accept a job offer and 87 percent of candidates say a great recruitment experience can change their mind about a company they once doubted.
In contrast, 83 percent of talent say a negative interview experience can change their mind about a role or company they once liked and 14 percent of millennials and Gen X job seekers say that they would decline an offer based on a lack of HR tech in the application process. After recruitment – Candidates who have a positive recruitment experience are more than twice as likely to recommend the organisation, compared to candidates who have a negative experience (62 percent vs 28 percent). Employers should strive to create a seamless journey between recruitment and onboarding. Organisations that create a positive onboarding experience see a 50 percent uplift in new hire productivity and a reduction in turnover.
Interview- How do those facts align with organisational success? Recruitment is not just about attracting and securing candidates, retaining talent is also key. People want to work for companies whose values and missions align with their own. This creates a win-win for companies and employees: new hires are highly motivated and engaged, and thus less likely to leave, and companies with high engagement are more productive and profitable. In which, showcasing EVP provides transparency and demonstrates your organisation’s culture, mission and values.
Interviewer- What are the trends and ideas shaping the field of HR and technology in a few years? We see a trend of employers prioritising greater emphasis on delivering exceptional candidate experiences by making candidates feel valued. This can be done through a mix of technology and personal touchpoints. First, mobile-optimised career sites, autofill functionality on job applications and tailored automated messages to applicants can help deliver a seamless candidate experience. In addition to this, Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help reduce bias in job ads and encourage diverse applicants. Chatbots can be leveraged to create an engaging candidate experience, allowing the employer to deliver an agile, intuitive recruitment experience for candidates.
Recruitment marketing is also shaping HR as organisations increasingly understand the importance of tapping into passive candidates and building out talent pipelines. If recruiters want the best talent, they need to be proactively sourcing for all roles. Data and analytics should also inform the recruitment strategy. AI and machine learning are revolutionising selection and screening by matching candidates against skill sets and competencies to generate recommended shortlists.
Interviewer- How can a platform like PageUp help HR people in future recruitment? What are the benefits and the possible drawbacks of using a recruitment platform? PageUp assists daily HR operations – from recruitment and recruitment marketing, through to onboarding, performance management, learning and development, succession and internal mobility – all in one place. Our software simplifies the day-today work of HR practitioners. We do so by allowing companies to accelerate the often-tedious hiring process through automation, userfriendly dashboards and sophisticated talent pooling, saving organisations both time and money while delivering an exceptional candidate experience.
There is no drawback to using recruitment platforms per se, however, companies might fall into the trap of being over-reliant on technology and as a result, lose the personal touch in the recruitment process. Thus, it is important to remember that HR is fundamentally a people-first function.
Interviewer- In your Recruitment Trends 2020 webinar, you emphasise that “skills will be the job currency of the future”. What do you mean by that? We’re seeing an increased emphasis towards hiring for soft or “essential” skills. Organisations are hiring people who are adaptable, creative, innovative and collaborative. People with these attributes have high learning agility, leadership and strong communication skills. Roles are evolving as technology continues to advance. Yes, some roles will be replaced by machines, but the expectation is that AI and automation will complete approximately half of the tasks within a role. This means there is an increased emphasis on the traits that make us inherently human – collaboration, creativity, communication. That said, in order to retain the talent, you need to give them the opportunity for lateral movement, so skills rather than experience is key.
Interviewer- AI is likely to be helping HR management more in the future. What do you think will happen when AI “take over” HR jobs? AI will not completely eliminate the need for HR practitioners. HR is fundamentally a people-centric function.
Candidates and talent want to interact with an HR practitioner and form an authentic connection, which they won’t be able to get from dealing with a machine.
Interviewer- What is your advice for HR people when dealing with the difficulties of operating HR tech? An important first step before selecting HR technology (or any technology) is to understand – what are the problems your business needs to solve? Engaging key stakeholders (HR, IT, hiring managers, etc) early in the process creates a shared understanding of your business’ needs. This allows your organisation to identify the solution that is designed to solve your business’ unique problems. Change management and communication are crucial to overcoming barriers and reducing perceived difficulties. So, educating stakeholders on how to use new technology and articulating business outcomes helps drive engagement and uptake. For organisations using multiple HR tech vendors, there needs to be a seamless and consistent experience when moving from one solution to the next. Ideally hiring managers, candidates and HR should be unaware that they are switching between systems. Interview- Aside from using technology as a competitive advantage, what should HR personnel prepare to attract and retain talent? Attracting and retaining talent relies on having a long-term strategy that is based on an understanding of the capabilities and skills.
This will help HR managers understand if they have the existing talent to build into the roles that will be needed, or if they should go out to the market to acquire new talent.
For a targeted attraction campaign, organisations need to showcase their values and mission. This helps attract the right talents as they will understand why they should come and work at a company – not just for current roles but for a future career.
HR professionals should build and maintain a warm talent pool by nurturing relationships with potential candidates – including passive candidates – and keeping them engaged. HR teams can do this by sharing company information on a regular basis such as organising bi-annual coffee catch-ups with candidates. This works more effectively and efficiently than having to reactively search for candidates to quickly fill an open role. When recruiting passive candidates using recruitment marketing tools, it’s important to use analytics to gain insight into which channels and methods are working.
In terms of talent retention, I encourage more companies to embrace a culture of internal mobility. Companies tend to overlook their existing talent pool when looking to fill open roles. By looking inwards and opening opportunities for your staff to redefine their career paths internally, companies can tackle skill shortages and prepare the next generation of leaders.
About Rebecca Skillbeck Rebecca Skilbeck is the Head of Customer Insights and Market Research at PageUp. Her areas of expertise and passion are business intelligence: gaining actionable insights from organisational and market data and thought leadership: what are the trends and ideas shaping the fields of HR and technology. Rebecca has over 20 years of experience as a research analyst in a career that has included academia, strategic consulting and equity investment. She is the author of numerous white papers on talent management.