Organisatsioonid siseselt ja organisatsioonid omavahel moodustavad väga erinevaid võrgusikke. Siinviidatu keskendub keskastmejuhtide võimalustele gruppide võrgustikes toimivas organisatsioonis. Artikkel võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele juhtimishuvilistele.

Grupipõhisus organisatsioonides suureneb ning gruppidevaheline koordineerimine muutub terviktulemuse seisukohast ikka olulisemaks.

“In today’s team-based organizations, teams have become more dependent on other teams and will continue to become more interdependent in years to come (Greer et al., 2017; Salas et al., 2017). Yet, teams are three times more likely to miss performance commitments because of coordination breakdowns with other teams than because of coordination issues within their own team (Sull et al., 2015).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Gruppidevaheline koordineerimine on vähe tähelepanu saanud.

“Coordinating the interdependencies between teams presents serious challenges to organizations and their middle managers that are not only different from the coordination challenges within teams but also more critical to the functioning of the organization as a whole. Unfortunately, research on coordination mechanisms for intergroup effectiveness largely developed in separate literatures without much cross-pollination (e.g., Carter et al., 2020).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Olemasolevate koordineerimismehhanismide võimekus erinevates organisatsioonivormides on surve all. Traditsioonilised hierarhiad jäävad sageli hätta.

“The organizational design literature has long argued that formal hierarchical structure is the way to coordinate the goal-directed efforts of interdependent teams (Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005). At the
same time, the boundary spanning literature argues theoretically that coordinating behaviour will result in intergroup effectiveness (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Marrone, 2010; Marrone et al., 2007) and it is middle managers’ role to engage in these coordinating behaviours (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992; Raes et al., 2011).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Autorid lubavad:

“To address this issue and to advance our theoretical understanding of the coordination of intergroup effectiveness and to what extent middle managers play a role, we develop an integrative framework that connects the organizational design, boundary spanning, and strategy process literatures.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 2)

Keerukus organisatsioonides suureneb, kuid sellega ka võimekus ja potentsiaal.

“‘We are now in the era of networks of teams’ (Salas et al., 2017, p. 595), where collaboration is increasingly ‘multilevel (from top to bottom of the hierarchy) and multiunit (across all units of the organization)’ (Greer et al., 2017, p. 137). As such, it is crucial that interdependent teams work together effectively towards the organization’s collective strategic goals (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000; Greer et al., 2017; Noble, 1999; Sull et al., 2015).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 4)

Sildav piiride ületamine:

“Boundary spanning behaviours are all behaviours that involve individuals purposefully going outside the boundaries of their own team (Ancona and Caldwell, 1990; Marrone, 2010). A large literature shows that boundary spanning improves various team-level outcomes (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Marrone, 2010).” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 6)

Struktuuri võimekus on teatud juhtudel piisav.

“We propose that for teams from the same division, structural coordination is enough to improve intergroup effectiveness, because these teams can rely on knowledge and understandings that are locally shared (i.e., within the division) and known to be locally shared, even without boundary spanning by managers.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 9)

Kuidas ületada kohalikku teadmust ja struktuuri võimekust.

“Structural coordination allows teams to tacitly coordinate their efforts, based on local knowledge and understandings, without much managerial investment in explicit coordination through boundary spanning or need to understand the bigger picture. In comparison, behavioural coordination and
cognitive coordination are more distal and strategically focused coordinating mechanisms that can substitute for structural coordination but also benefit from each other’s influence.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 24)

Piire ületav sildav koordineerimine on üks tõsiseltvõetav võimalus gruppide võrgustikes hakkamasaamisel.

“Accordingly, organizations may take steps to develop middle managers’ focus in taking on boundary spanning activities by developing their understanding of where boundary spanning is most needed and most effective. That is, boundary spanning training (cf. Marrone et al., 2007) could develop
managers’ understanding not only of how to engage in boundary spanning but also of when to do so.” (Porck and Knippenberg, p. 26)

Porck, J. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2022). An Integrative Model of the Role of Structural, Behavioural, and Cognitive Coordination in Intergroup Effectiveness: How Middle Managers Play a Role. Journal of Management Studies, n/a(n/a).