The difficulties in ensuring justice in temporary teams - managers’ perspective

• Autorzy: Rogala Piotr , Bartniczak Bartosz , Kusterka-Jefmańska Marta , Panasiewicz Agnieszka , Płachciak Adam , Zaremba-Warnke Sabina

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.162.35

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The paper aims to assess difficulties in ensuring justice in temporary teams. Three research questions were asked: do managers think that ensuring justice in temporary teams is difficult?; which determinants of a sense of justice in temporary teams do managers consider the most difficult/easiest?; is the degree of difficulty associated with ensuring each of the four types of justice in the work of the temporary team the same? Design/methodology/approach: The survey was carried out in June and July of 2021. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the statistical significance of differences in the difficulty level in ensuring justice in temporary teams. Findings: Managers ranked distributive justice as the most difficult to provide, followed by procedural justice, informational justice and interpersonal justice, respectively. Respondents ranked 4 factors as the most difficult to provide: the information needed for the work of the temporary team is provided just in time; each member of the temporary team is appreciated (tangibly and intangibly) according to their contribution to the team, the task team (as a whole) is appreciated, tangibly and intangibly, according to the effort put into the task and a temporary team leader will customize communication to suit the individual needs of members of the temporary team. Research limitations/implications: The first limitation is related to the research sample. Entities from a few selected industries were included. The second limitation is related to the fact that temporary teams differ, and sometimes these differences are significant. Another limitation is the composition of the research group. It included managers. In order to fully recognize the situation, it would be necessary to know the opinions of other employees. Practical implications: The results of the research may be helpful for managers in various types of organizations. They allow for a better understanding of temporary teams' regulations. In addition, they indicate those issues that should be given special attention in order to manage such teams reasonably. Originality/value: Although the topic of teamwork appears in academic publications, only a few relate justice in temporary work teams. This paper deals with this topic and focuses on difficulties with fair team management.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

organizational justice; temporary team; teamwork

PL

sprawiedliwość organizacyjna; zespół tymczasowy; praca zespołowa

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: z. 162
• Strony: 633--649
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 34 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Rogala Piotr

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-1758

autor

Bartniczak Bartosz

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1299-049X

autor

Kusterka-Jefmańska Marta

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6773-6157

autor

Panasiewicz Agnieszka

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4643-2664

autor

Płachciak Adam

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7560-1538

autor

Zaremba-Warnke Sabina

• Wroclaw University of Economics and Business

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9005-5763

Bibliografia

• 1. Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., Rani, E. (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job satisfaction and organization commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(4), pp. 145-154. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v4n9p145.
• 2. Bielski, M. (2001). Organizacje. Istota. Struktury. Procesy. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
• 3. Bieniok, H., Rokita. J. (1984). Struktura organizacyjna przedsiębiorstwa. Warszawa: PWN.
• 4. Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P.E. (2001). The Role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), pp. 278-321. doi: org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958.
• 5. Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H., Ng, K.Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), pp. 425-445. doi: org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425.
• 6. Erkutlu, H. (2011). The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 532-554. doi: org/10.1108/ 01437731111161058.
• 7. Galewicz, W. (2017). Zarys sprawiedliwości wyrównawczej w etyce Arystotelesa. Peitho/Examina Antiqua, 1(8), 289-307.
• 8. Hopej, M. (2004). Struktury organizacyjne. Podstawowe, współczesne i przyszłe rozwiązania strukturalne. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
• 9. Ismail, A., Zainol, N.A.M., Husain, H.A., Ibrahim, N., Ismail, Y. (2021). Power distance as a moderator in the relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Management Studies, vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 25-56. doi: org/10.32890/ijms.28.1.2021.9974.
• 10. Jenny, B. (2007). Project Management. Knowledge for a Successful Career. Zürich: VDF Hochschulverlag.
• 11. Katzenbach, J.R., Smith, D.K. (2015). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high- performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
• 12. Komari, N., Sulistiowati (2020). Relationship between Organizational Justice and Counterproductive Work Behaviors. GATR Journal of Management and Marketing Review, 5(4), 206-212.
• 13. Le Roy, J., Bastouni,s M., Minibas-Poussard, J. (2012). Interactional Justice and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Negative Emotions. Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal, 40(8), pp. 1341-1356, doi: 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.8.1341.
• 14. Lichtarski, J.M. (2007). Zespoły zadaniowe w strukturach organizacyjnych przedsiębiorstw - wyniki badań empirycznych. In: Mechanizmy i obszary przeobrażeń w organizacjach. Warszawa: Difin.
• 15. Lichtarski, J.M. (2011). Struktury zadaniowe: składniki, własności i uwarunkowania. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu. Seria: Monografie i Opracowania, nr 187, 189.
• 16. Lock, D. (2014). The Essentials of Project Management. Farnham: Gower.
• 17. Lundin, R.A., Godenhjelm, S., Sjoblom, S. (2015). Projectification in the public sector - the case of the European Union. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
• 18. Macko, M. (2009). Poczucie sprawiedliwości organizacyjnej a zachowania pracowników. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Nauk Społecznych UAM.
• 19. Mankin, D., Cohen, S.G., Bikson, T.K. (1996). Teams and technology: Fulfilling the promise of the new organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• 20. Maylor, H., Turkulainen, V. (2019). The concept of organisational projectification: past, present and beyond? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
• 21. Mendryk, I., Rakowska, A. (2017). Poczucie sprawiedliwości organizacyjnej a poziom zaangażowania pracowników. Wyniki badań. Annales, 4, 237-246, doi:10.17951/ h.2017.51.4.237.
• 22. Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., DeChurch, L.A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), pp. 535-546. doi: org/10.1037/ a0013773.
• 23. Ngeleshi, J., Dominic, T. (2020). Organizational justice and job satisfaction among different employee groups: the mediating role of trust. Business Management Review, 23(2), 71-88.
• 24. O’Connor, E., Crowley-Henry, M. (2019). Exploring the relationship between exclusive talent management, perceived organizational justice and employee engagement: bridging the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 903-917. DOI:10.1007/s10551-017-3543-1.
• 25. Pawlak, M. (2006). Zarządzanie projektami. Warszawa: PWN.
• 26. Rawls, J. (1994). Teoria sprawiedliwości. Warszawa: PWN.
• 27. Robbins, S.P. DeCenzo, D.A. (2002). Podstawy zarządzania. Warszawa: PWE.
• 28. Santis, P., Albuquerque, A., an Lizarelli, F. (2016). Do sustainable companies have a better financial performance? A study on Brazilian public companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133(1), pp. 735-745.
• 29. Saunders, M.N.K., Thornhill, A. (2004). Trust and mistrust in organizations: an exploration using an organizational justice framework. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 493-515.
• 30. Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2-24.
• 31. Tran, TV., Lepisto, S., Jarvinen, J. (2021). The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception. J. Manag. Control, 32, pp. 369-399. doi: org/10.1007/s00187-021-00319-2.
• 32. Wegener, B. (1987). The illusion of distributive justice. European Sociological Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-13. doi: org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036427.
• 33. Xu, A.J., Loi, R., Ngo, H. (2016). Ethical Leadership Behavior and Employee Justice Perceptions: The Mediating Role of Trust in Organization. J. Bus. Ethics, 134, pp. 493-504. doi: org/10.1007/s10551-014-2457-4.
• 34. Zimmermann-Pepol, M., Gregorczuk, K. (2016). Wymiary sprawiedliwości na gruncie filozofii prawa. Problematyka sprawiedliwości wczoraj-dziś-jutro. Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, T. XXXV, 597-618.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).