Siinviidatu võiks pretendeerida paljude juhtimiskursuste seminaritekstiks, olla kohustuslik lugemine kõikidele juhtimise eest töötasu vastu võtjatele ja pakkuda huvi väga avarale lugejaskonnale. Covid-piirangute tingimustest tõuke saanud kaugtöö koos tehnoloogiavõimaluste lakkamatu avardumisega on paljudes organisatsioonides kujundanud olukorra, kus koosolekute tähendus organisatsioonis on radikaalselt muutunud. Koosolekud ei ole enam üks paljudest töötajatevahelisest suhtlemisvormidest, vaid sisuliselt ainus vorm. Traditsioonilised n-ö suitsunurgavestlused peale koosolekut, on kadunud või vähemalt teisenenud. Nüüd ongi hea võimalus koosolekutest veidi analüütilisemalt mõelda.
Meetings are formal, time-delimited interactions between leaders and their followers (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2018). They are often considered a “necessary evil” in the life of a workgroup. Indeed, many meetings are poorly run and considered a waste of time (Mroz, Yoerger, et al., 2018).
Soe soovitus koosoleku-teadlastele:
We propose that meeting scientists need to fundamentally revise our perceptions of meetings and their role in successful workgroups.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was fairly reasonable to believe that employees could interact with each other face-to-face (FtF) between meetings. Most employees worked alongside each other in an ofﬁce or at least in the same building. Now, we must consider that coworkers are in the same building but on alternating days. They may work in the same city but remotely.
Tähelepanu haarav ja erutav väide:
Speciﬁcally, we suggest that meetings are no longer one form of workgroup interactions, they are the primary form of workgroup interactions.
Autorid seavad eesmärgi:
Our goal in this paper is to challenge the assumption of coworker co-location and refocus researcher’s attention to meetings as the foundation of a successful workgroup.
We draw on social psychology to understand how entitativity affects group members when they are not interacting. Social psychologists frequently examine entitativity as it affects members of a social category (e.g., political party; cf., Hogg et al., 2007). […] For organizational scientists, though, we suggest that the key difference is whether the group members can meaningfully interact with the entire group. Therefore, we disentangle size from interactivity to properly theorize about workgroups as social categories between meetings.
Entitativity is an individual’s cognitive assessment of a social unit as a group (Blanchard et al., 2020; Campbell, 1958; Lickel et al., 2001). […] If people do not experience a certain level of entitativity in groups, they do not enact group processes and experience group outcomes. For example, if people at the bus stop experience conﬂict, they may be likely to call in external authorities to resolve this conﬂict. On the other hand, a well-functioning workgroup should be able to resolve the conﬂict themselves facilitated by a good leader.
Koosolekute korraldajad-läbiviijad võiksid möönda:
More importantly, social identity, self-categorization, and entitativity are all inherently linked together (Evans, Graupensperger, Benson, Eys, Hastings, & Jinger, 2019; Hogg et al., 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Hohman et al., 2016; Sani et al., 2019; Turner & Reynolds, 2012). Employees have to perceive a group in order to belong to it.
Between meetings, the workgroup is a social category. Employees self-categorize themselves into a variety of personal and work-related social categories every day (Meyer et al., 2006; Welbourne & Paterson, 2017).
Identiteet on oluline:
To summarize, a successful meeting that produces a strong level of entitativity—and group identity—is likely to facilitate the salience of an employee’s workgroup identity between meetings. And when a person’s workgroup identity is salient, it produces normative behavior, positive in-group attitudes, cohesion, cooperation, empathy, collective behavior, shared norms, and mutual inﬂuence (Hogg & Terry, 2000).
Töö hajutatuse tingimustes:
Distributed workgroups increase the importance of meetings in workgroup functioning. For a growing number of workgroups, meetings are no longer one type of workgroup interaction; they are the main type of workgroup interaction. Certainly, this is not true for all groups; some workgroups have been and will continue to be co-located. […] As a result, meetings are the primary opportunity to establish workgroup members’ cognitions and assessments about their workgroup. We have focused on entitativity because it is necessary in order for employees to enact group processes and experience group outcomes. We suggest that meetings and the workgroup entitativity that develops during them may take on a level of importance previously unrecognized in other theories about employees and their workgroups.
For example, perceived organizational support is mediated by managerial support and most strongly experienced at the workgroup level (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006; Woznyj et al., 2017).
Blanchard, A. L., & Allen, J. A. (2022). The entitativity underlying meetings: Meetings as key in the lifecycle of effective workgroups. Organizational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221101341