Clean up your network: how a strike changed the social networks of a working team

IF 1.6 Q3 MANAGEMENT
K. Thommes, A. Akkerman
{"title":"Clean up your network: how a strike changed the social networks of a working team","authors":"K. Thommes, A. Akkerman","doi":"10.1108/TPM-06-2017-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThis paper aims to analyse the impact of an intra-team conflict on the social relations within a team. The team conflict was triggered by a strike action which separated the team in two groups, the strikers and the worker, who continued to work. After the strike was settled, all had to work again cooperatively. This paper analyses how the strike action affects work and private social networks among workers. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nThe authors combine a qualitative ethnographic approach with quantitative network data. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThe authors find that the strike action led to a separation between the former group of strikers and non-strikers. While the subgroups become more cohesive and their social network density increased, the links between both groups diminished. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nThis study reveals that strikes and the accompanying separation of the workforce can improve social relations within the team, if individuals behaved alike during the conflict. \n \n \n \n \nPractical implications \n \n \n \n \nFor managers, the results raise questions concerning typical managerial behaviour during strikes, as managers frequently trigger separation by trying to convince some individuals to continue to work. Instead, groups may even improve their performance after a strike, if they were allowed to behave alike by all joining the strike or refraining. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThis study is the first to analyse social relations after a conflict. The authors combine qualitative and quantitative data and show the evolution of a social network after a strike. Moreover, they separate private communication flows and work-related communication and show that both networks do not necessarily evolve equally after a conflict.","PeriodicalId":46084,"journal":{"name":"Team Performance Management","volume":"24 1","pages":"43-63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/TPM-06-2017-0031","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Team Performance Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2017-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to analyse the impact of an intra-team conflict on the social relations within a team. The team conflict was triggered by a strike action which separated the team in two groups, the strikers and the worker, who continued to work. After the strike was settled, all had to work again cooperatively. This paper analyses how the strike action affects work and private social networks among workers. Design/methodology/approach The authors combine a qualitative ethnographic approach with quantitative network data. Findings The authors find that the strike action led to a separation between the former group of strikers and non-strikers. While the subgroups become more cohesive and their social network density increased, the links between both groups diminished. Research limitations/implications This study reveals that strikes and the accompanying separation of the workforce can improve social relations within the team, if individuals behaved alike during the conflict. Practical implications For managers, the results raise questions concerning typical managerial behaviour during strikes, as managers frequently trigger separation by trying to convince some individuals to continue to work. Instead, groups may even improve their performance after a strike, if they were allowed to behave alike by all joining the strike or refraining. Originality/value This study is the first to analyse social relations after a conflict. The authors combine qualitative and quantitative data and show the evolution of a social network after a strike. Moreover, they separate private communication flows and work-related communication and show that both networks do not necessarily evolve equally after a conflict.
清理你的社交网络:一场罢工如何改变一个工作团队的社交网络
目的本文旨在分析团队内部冲突对团队内部社会关系的影响。团队冲突是由罢工行动引发的,罢工行动将团队分为两组,罢工者和继续工作的工人。罢工解决后,所有人都必须再次合作。本文分析了罢工行动如何影响工人的工作和私人社交网络。设计/方法论/方法作者将定性人种学方法与定量网络数据相结合。研究结果作者发现,罢工行动导致了前罢工者和非罢工者之间的分离。当亚组变得更有凝聚力,他们的社交网络密度增加时,两组之间的联系减少了。研究局限性/影响这项研究表明,如果个人在冲突中表现相似,罢工和随之而来的劳动力分离可以改善团队内部的社会关系。实际意义对于管理者来说,研究结果提出了关于罢工期间典型管理行为的问题,因为管理者经常试图说服一些人继续工作,从而引发离职。相反,如果允许所有人都参加罢工或克制,团体甚至可以在罢工后提高表现。独创性/价值这项研究是第一次分析冲突后的社会关系。作者结合了定性和定量数据,展示了罢工后社交网络的演变。此外,它们将私人通信流和与工作相关的通信分离开来,并表明在冲突后,这两种网络不一定会平等发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
29.40%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: This international journal contributes to the successful implementation and development of work teams and team-based organizations by providing a forum for sharing experience and learning to stimulate thought and transfer of ideas. It seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice by publishing articles where the claims are evidence-based and the conclusions have practical value. Effective teams form the heart of every successful organization. But team management is one of the hardest challenges faced by managers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信