IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aae/journl/v15y2019i1p171-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Human Resources` Interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Pereverzieva

    (Natural Resources And Economic Theory Department, at Zaporizhzhya National University, Kronschtadtska str., 2а, 22, 69001, Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine)

Abstract

To our knowledge, there is a need to develop a methodological approach to the assessment of united communities` human resources` level of interactions, as a large group, and of separate structural unit’s – a small group. This allows us to determine the dependence of the level of interactions on the number of people who interact within a particular structure and the nature of the activity they carry out – intellectual or manual labor. The purpose of our research is to develop a methodological approach to the assessment of the level of human resources` interactions, which allows us to identify key areas and policy measures. Expert assessments and analytical dependencies are used as research tools in the article. These tools allow us to quantitatively determine the level of human resources` interactions for an individual entity. Empirical implementation of the proposed approach, using the example of two entities varying in size and nature of labor, allowed us to make a comparative analysis and to distinguish the characteristic features that are the basis for making managerial decisions. A manager acts as an expert who assesses the presence or absence of a particular event in the subordinate unit. The indicator, which characterizes the presence or absence of certain activities and the level of participation in them, is defined on the basis of managerial assessment. The next stage is to determine the interaction rate by means of certain mathematical dependencies and results` analysis. As a result of the research, we got the assessment of the level of human resources` interactions between two entities – a united community and a structural unit. The assessment revealed a dependence on the level of interactions on the entity`s size (small and large groups) and the nature of labor. The results showed that a structural unit, focused on intellectual labor and presented by a small group, has a greater level of interactions than a united community, which has a bigger size and a predominance of manual labor

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Pereverzieva, 2019. "A Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Human Resources` Interactions," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 15(1), pages 171-204.
    • Handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:15:y:2019:i:1:p:171-204
    DOI: 10.7341/20191517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jemi.edu.pl/uploadedFiles/file/all-issues/vol15/issue1/JEMI_Vol15_Issue1_2019_Article7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.7341/20191517?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Mortensen, 2014. "Constructing the Team: The Antecedents and Effects of Membership Model Divergence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 909-931, June.
    2. Jeffrey A. Martin, 2011. "Dynamic Managerial Capabilities and the Multibusiness Team: The Role of Episodic Teams in Executive Leadership Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 118-140, February.
    3. Abednego Feehi Okoe & Henry Boateng & Bedman Narteh & Robert Owusu Boakye, 2018. "Examining human resource practice outcomes and service innovation," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7-8), pages 431-445, June.
    4. Piet Keizer, 2017. "A multidisciplinary-economic framework of analysis," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 103-132, November.
    5. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Pranav Garg, 2012. "The Division of Gains from Complementarities in Human-Capital-Intensive Activity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 725-742, June.
    6. Laura Huang & Cristina B Gibson & Bradley L Kirkman & Debra L Shapiro, 2017. "When is traditionalism an asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(6), pages 693-715, August.
    7. Robert S. Huckman & Bradley R. Staats & David M. Upton, 2009. "Team Familiarity, Role Experience, and Performance: Evidence from Indian Software Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 85-100, January.
    8. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    9. John B. Bingham & James B. Oldroyd & Jeffery A. Thompson & Jeffrey S. Bednar & J. Stuart Bunderson, 2014. "Status and the True Believer: The Impact of Psychological Contracts on Social Status Attributions of Friendship and Influence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 73-92, February.
    10. Magali A. Delmas & Sanja Pekovic, 2018. "Corporate Sustainable Innovation and Employee Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 1071-1088, July.
    11. John S. Chen & Pranav Garg, 2018. "Dancing with the stars: Benefits of a star employee’s temporary absence for organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 1239-1267, May.
    12. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2015. "Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 831-850, June.
    13. Carlo Salvato & Roberto Vassolo, 2018. "The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1728-1752, June.
    14. Flore Bridoux & Régis Coeurderoy & Rodolphe Durand, 2017. "Heterogeneous social motives and interactions: The three predictable paths of capability development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(9), pages 1755-1773, September.
    15. Michael D. Cohen & Daniel A. Levinthal & Massimo Warglien, 2014. "Collective performance: modeling the interaction of habit-based actions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(2), pages 329-360.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valentina & Lara & Ivan, 2021. "The strategy implementation process as perceived by different hierarchical levels: The experience of large Croatian enterprises," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 17(2), pages 99-124.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wohlgemuth, Veit & Wenzel, Matthias & Berger, Elisabeth S.C. & Eisend, Martin, 2019. "Dynamic capabilities and employee participation: The role of trust and informal control," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 760-771.
    2. Xiaoming He & Yaqun Yi & Zelong Wei, 2019. "New product development capabilities in China: the moderating role of TMT cooperative behavior," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 73-97, April.
    3. Akter, Shahriar & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Sajib, Shahriar & Biswas, Kumar & Bandara, Ruwan J. & Michael, Katina, 2022. "Algorithmic bias in machine learning-based marketing models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 201-216.
    4. MacLean, Donald, 2017. "Capacidades dinâmicas, ação criativa e poética," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 57(3), May.
    5. Bağış, Mehmet & Kryeziu, Liridon & Akbaba, Yılmaz & Ramadani, Veland & Karagüzel, Ensar Selman & Krasniqi, Besnik A., 2022. "The micro-foundations of a dynamic technological capability in the automotive industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Anja Schulze & Stefano Brusoni, 2022. "How dynamic capabilities change ordinary capabilities: Reconnecting attention control and problem‐solving," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2447-2477, December.
    7. Carl Åberg & Mariateresa Torchia, 2020. "Do boards of directors foster strategic change? A dynamic managerial capabilities perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 655-684, September.
    8. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    9. Sabina Tasheva & Bo Bernhard Nielsen, 0. "The role of global dynamic managerial capability in the pursuit of international strategy and superior performance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    10. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Javad Nasiry, 2020. "Organizational Structure, Subsystem Interaction Pattern, and Misalignments in Complex NPD Projects," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(1), pages 214-231, January.
    11. Lanza, Andrea & Simone, Giuseppina & Bruno, Randolph, 2016. "Resource orchestration in the context of knowledge resources acquisition and divestment. The empirical evidence from the Italian “Serie A” football," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 145-157.
    12. Tim Heubeck & Reinhard Meckl, 2022. "Antecedents to cognitive business model evaluation: a dynamic managerial capabilities perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(8), pages 2441-2466, November.
    13. Xin Cao & Taohua Ouyang & Puzant Balozian & Sixuan Zhang, 2020. "The Role of Managerial Cognitive Capability in Developing a Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Xiaomi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-27, September.
    14. Jose Uribe & Seth Carnahan & John Meluso & Jesse Austin‐Breneman, 2022. "How do managers evaluate individual contributions to team production? A theory and empirical test," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2577-2601, December.
    15. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2018. "What Makes a Decision Strategic? Strategic Representations," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 606-619, December.
    16. Sunkee Lee & Philipp Meyer-Doyle, 2017. "How Performance Incentives Shape Individual Exploration and Exploitation: Evidence from Microdata," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 19-38, February.
    17. Giovanni Gavetti & Massimo Warglien, 2015. "A Model of Collective Interpretation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1263-1283, October.
    18. Carlo Salvato & Roberto Vassolo, 2018. "The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1728-1752, June.
    19. Mark Mortensen & Martine R. Haas, 2018. "Perspective—Rethinking Teams: From Bounded Membership to Dynamic Participation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 341-355, April.
    20. Sabina Tasheva & Bo Bernhard Nielsen, 2022. "The role of global dynamic managerial capability in the pursuit of international strategy and superior performance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 689-708, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    assessment; human resources; interactions; labor; synergistic effect;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J54 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Producer Cooperatives; Labor Managed Firms
    • O15 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Economic Development: Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:15:y:2019:i:1:p:171-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Ujwary-Gil (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://fundacjacognitione.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.