The cohesive management: the football lesson for high-tech organizations

Figures & data

Table 1. The model of CM: football lesson.

In football		In business literature
Game for talent	talent management as a market process talent management orientation workforce diversity management excluded	the ‘war for talent’ is well recognized (Chambers et al., 1998; Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013); talent management is the source of competitive advantage (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Heinen & O’Neill, 2004) and organizational performance improvement (Hough, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981; Trank et al., 2002); talent management is critical success factor for organizations operating in a complex environment (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Hopej & Kandora, 2019; Stewart & Harte, 2010); globally oriented companies combine the talent game with the diversity management (Daubner-Siva et al., 2017; Ozbilgin et al., 2015); although the management literature does not support the exclusion of diversity management practices; the results regarding the impact of diversity management on organizational performance are inconclusive (Adler & Gundersen, 2007; Schneid et al., 2015)
Sense of unity of purpose	quantifiable objectives managers’ orientation towards performance systems thinking subordination of the personal interest to the general interest	sense of unity of purpose is well recognized in management science, mainly in relation to the goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) of utmost importance in developing the sense of unity of purpose is the implementation of the idea of contributing to the whole (Malik, 2019), supported by theory of system thinking (Senge, 2006) and the classic Fayol’s principle of subordinating the personal interest to the general interest
Transparency	managers’ orientation towards simplicity culture of openness and honesty trust in openness and honesty	the transparency is expected to result in the increased credibility of the organisation, trust and more effective cooperation among employees as well as cooperation with the environment (Berggren & Bernshteyn, 2007; Drucker & Gumpert, 2007; Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016); for transparency of operations simplicity-minded management is postulated (Ashkenas et al., 2014); in management science, the simplicity relates to the strategic aspect of the organisation (Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001), the way products are designed (Maeda, 2006) and organisational structures (Drucker, 2006; Hopej-Kamińska et al., 2015); transparency is widely studied in the context of organisational trust, leadership or organisational culture (Clair et al., 2005; Kaptein, 2008; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011)
Shared	shared valued and group identity	shared identity is supported by social identity theory (Porck et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020); employees who identify more strongly with their group are more likely to support it, act for its benefit and pursue common goals (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Blader & Tyler, 2009; Mell et al., 2020); an individual’s strong identity with a group is related to understanding and manifesting shared norms and values (Turner, 2010; Zhang et al., 2020)

Source: Bolchover and Brady, 2006; Kuper and Szymanski, 2017; Mościcki, 2019; Zgrzywa-Ziemak et al., 2022

Table 2. Hypothetical model of the cohesive management.

Dimension	Main hypotheses	Specific hypotheses
Game for talent	H1 The more effective the game for talent is, the higher the cohesive management is.	H1.1. The less hiring takes place under the banner of diversity, the less effective the game for talent is. H1.2. The more talent-oriented the mentality is, the more effective the game for talent is. H1.3. The stronger the market dimensions in talent acquisition and retention are, the more effective the game for talent is.
Sense of unity of purpose	H2 The more there is a sense of unity of purpose in an enterprise, the higher the cohesive management is.	H2.1. The greater the degree of quantifiability of goals is, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is. H2.2. The greater the degree of the practice of systems thinking is, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is. H2.3. The more the principle of subordinating the personal interest to the general interest is observed, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is.
Shared identity	H3 The greater the organization’s commitment to a shared identity is, the higher the cohesive management is.	H3.1. The more common values and shared identity are manifested in the organization, the stronger the shared identity is.
Transparency of operations	H4 The greater the transparency of operations is, the greater the cohesive management is.	H4.1. H4_1 The more managers trust in simplicity, the greater the transparency of operations is. H4.2. The more a culture of honesty and openness is fostered, the greater the transparency of operations is. H4.3. The more employees are trusted to be open and honest, the greater the transparency of operations is.

Table 3. Structure of the research sample in terms of selected characteristics.

Characteristic		PL (n = 182)		USA (n = 224)		Total (n = 406)
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Enterprise size	small and medium (10-249 employees)	170	93.4	36	16	206	50.8
	large (250 and over)	12	6.6	188	83.9	200	49.3
technological advancement	low	128	70.4	61	27.3	189	46.5
	high	54	29.6	163	72.7	217	53.5
Principal type of activity	production	37	20.3	114	50.9	151	37.2
	services	79	43.4	65	29.0	144	35.5
	trade	37	20.3	24	10.7	61	15.0
	other	29	15.9	21	9.4	50	12.3
Activity reach	local and regional	55	30.2	92	41	147	36.2
	international	127	69.8	132	58.9	259	63.8

Table 4. Cohesive management: dimensions, variables and scale items.

Dimension	Variable	Questionnaire item
Game for talent	Orientation towards workforce diversity	Hiring employees is based on the assumption that the organization benefits from the differences among them (e.g. in terms of gender, nationality, age).
	Orientation towards talented employees	There is a widespread belief in the organization that highly talented employees are needed to succeed at the highest level.
	Talent management as a market process	In the enterprise, talent acquisition and retention is a market-driven process (market forces determine the movement of talents).
Sense of unity of purpose	Quantifiable objectives	Corporate objectives are quantifiable.
	Managers’ orientation towards performance	In the enterprise, the work of managers is evaluated on the basis of the performance of their subordinates.
	Systems thinking	Systems thinking is practised in the organization.
	Subordination of the personal interest to the general interest	The enterprise practises the principle of subordinating the personal interest to the general interest.
Shared identity	Shared identity	Shared values and group identity are manifested in the enterprise.
Transparency of operations	Managers’ trust in simplicity	Executives have trust in simplicity.
	Culture of openness and honesty	A culture of openness and honesty is practised at the organization.
	Trust in openness and honesty	The organization trusts in openness and honesty.

Figure 1. Model-1_CM: a structural model of the cohesive management (n = 406).

Table 5. Model-1_CM: standardized regression weights.

Dimension/Variable	Cohesive management		Estimate
Game for talent	←	Cohesive management	0.78
Sense of unity of purpose	←	Cohesive management	0.86
Transparency of operations	←	Cohesive management	0.77
Shared identity	←	Cohesive management	0.68

Table 6. CM – verification of research hypotheses.

Main hypotheses	Specific hypotheses
H1 The more effective the game for talent is, the higher the cohesive management is.	H1_1 The less hiring takes place under the banner of diversity, the less effective the game for talent is.	Rejected
	H1_2 The more talent-oriented the mentality is, the more effective the game for talent is.	Confirmed
	H1_3 The stronger the market dimensions in talent acquisition and retention are, the more effective the game for talent is.	Confirmed
H2 The more there is a sense of unity of purpose in an enterprise, the higher the cohesive management is.	H2_1 The greater the degree of quantifiability of goals is, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is.	Confirmed
	H2_2 The more managers’ work is evaluated by the performance of their subordinates, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is.	Confirmed
	H2_3 The greater the degree of the practice of systems thinking is, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is.	Confirmed
	H2_4 The more the principle of subordinating the personal interest to the interest of the general is observed, the greater the sense of unity of purpose is.	Confirmed
H3 The greater the organization’s commitment to a shared identity is, the higher the cohesive management is.	H3.1. The more common values and shared identity are manifested in the organization, the stronger the shared identity is.	Confirmed
H4 The greater the transparency of operations is, the greater the cohesive management is.	H4_1 The more managers trust in simplicity, the more transparency they have in their activity.	Rejected
	H4_2 The more a culture of honesty and openness is fostered, the greater the transparency of operations is.	Confirmed
	H4_3 The more employees are trusted to be open and honest, the greater the transparency of operations is.	Confirmed

Table 7. Sustainable performance: variables and scale items.

Variable	Questionnaire item
Economic performance	revenues workmanship productivity innovation
Social performance	employee satisfaction health and safety at work customer satisfaction contributing to the development of healthy and livable communities compliance with social and environmental criteria by suppliers
Environmental performance	emission, sewage and waste consumption of hazardous, toxic, noxious materials total consumption of resources (materials, energy, water) the environmental impact of the products or services sold throughout their life cycle

Figure 2. Model-2_CM-OP: a structural model of the relationship between the cohesive management and sustainable performance (n = 406).

Table 8. Model-3_CM-OP-AT: moderated multiple regression results.

Model summary	R	Adj. R2	MSE	F-statistic	P Value
	0.6082	0.3699	0.183	78.6766	0.0000
Model	Variable	Coeff.	SE	t-Statistic	P Value
	constant	3,4861	0.0226	154,4648	0.0000
	CM	0.1259	0.0112	11,2255	0.0000
	TA	0.2447	0.0453	5,3981	0.0000
	Int	0.0732	0.0226	3,2359	0.0013
Test of highest order unconditional interaction	Delta R2	F-statistic	P Value
	0.0164	10.471	0.013

Figure 3. Model-3_CM-OP-AT: the technological advancement as a moderator of the relationship between cohesive management and performance.

Table

Variables	n	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted
Game for talent	3	0.71	0.76	0.51
Sense of unity of purpose	4	0.70	0.75	0.43
Shared identity	1	–	–	–
Transparency of operations	2	0.76	0.70	0.54
Economic performance	4	0.74	0.79	0.49
Social performance	5	0.75	0.80	0.45
Environmental performance	3	0.69	0.79	0.55
Sustainable performance	3	0.75	-	-

Table

Variables	Min	Max	M	SD
Orientation towards workforce diversity	1	5	3.07	1.32
Orientation towards talented employees	1	5	3.75	1.06
Talent management as a market process	1	5	3.40	1.05
Managers’ orientation towards performance	1	5	3.71	0.99
Systems thinking	1	5	3.34	1.07
Subordination of the personal interest to the general interest	1	5	3.32	1.05
Managers’ orientation towards performance	1	5	3.46	1.00
Shared identity	1	5	3.66	1.00
Culture of openness and honesty	1	5	3.94	0.95
Trust in openness and honesty	1	5	3.77	1.03
Economic performance	2	5	3.60	0.78
Social performance	1.80	5	3.59	0.64
Environmental performance	1	5	3.34	0.64
Sustainable performance	2.09	5	3.51	0.54

Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels, E. G. I. (1998). The war for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44–57.

 Google Scholar

Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & González-Cruz, T. (2013). What is the meaning of ‘talent’ in the world of work? Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heinen, J. S., & O’Neill, C. (2004). Managing talent to maximize performance. Employment Relations Today, 31(2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.20018

 Google Scholar

Hough, L. M. (1984). Development and evaluation of the “accomplishment record” method of selecting and promoting professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.135

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings. American Psychologist, 36(10), 1128–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1128

 Google Scholar

Trank, C. Q., Rynes, S. L., & Bretz, R. (2002). D.: Attracting applicants in the war for talent: Differences in work preferences among high achievers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012887605708

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hopej, M., & Kandora, M. (2019). The Concept of Conjoined Management. In Z. Wilimowska, L. Borzemski, & J. Świątek (Eds.), Information Systems Architecture and Technology: Proceedings of 39th International Conference on Information Systems Architecture and Technology – ISAT 2018. ISAT 2018 (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing Vol. 854, pp. 173–187). Cham: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Stewart, J., & Harte, V. (2010). The implications of talent management for diversity training: An exploratory study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(6), 506–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011061194

 Google Scholar

Daubner-Siva, D., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Jansen, P. G. (2017). Dovetailing talent management and diversity management: the exclusion-inclusion paradox. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2017-0019

 Google Scholar

Ozbilgin, M., Tatli, A., & Jonsen, K. (2015). Global diversity management: An evidence-based approach (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press.

 Google Scholar

Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2007). International dimensions of organizational behavior. South-Western College Publishing.

 Google Scholar

Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Li, C., & Kabst, R. (2015). The influence of cultural context on the relationship between gender diversity and team performance: a meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.957712

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Malik, F. (2019). Führen leisten leben: Wirksames management für eine neue welt. Campus Verlag GmbH.

 Google Scholar

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The Art & practice of The learning organization. Doubleday.

 Google Scholar

Berggren, E., & Bernshteyn, R. (2007). Organizational transparency drives company performance. Journal of Management Development, 26(5), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710748248

 Google Scholar

Drucker, S. J., & Gumpert, G. (2007). Through the looking glass: Illusions of transparency and the cult of information. Journal of Management Development, 26(5), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710748329

 Google Scholar

Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational Transparency: A New Perspective on Managing Trust in Organization-Stakeholder Relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ashkenas, R., Siegal, W., & Spiegel, M. (2014). Mastering organizational complexity: a core competence for 21st century leaders. In R. Woodman, W. Pasmore, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 29–58). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

 Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. (2001). N.: strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 107–116.

 Google Scholar

Maeda, J. (2006). The laws of simplicity. The MIT Press.

 Google Scholar

Drucker, P. (2006). F.: The practice of management. Harper Business.

 Google Scholar

Hopej-Kamińska, M., Zgrzywa-Ziemak, A., Hopej, M., Kamiński, R., & Martan, J. (2015). Simplicity as a feature of an organizational structure. Argumenta Oeconomica, 1(1), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2015.1.10

 Google Scholar

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & Maclean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281431

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.520

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22(4), 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0581

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Porck, J. P., Matta, F. K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Oh, J. K., Lanaj, K., & Lee, S. M. (2019). Social identification in multiteam systems: The role of depletion and task complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1137–1162. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0466

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, L. L., George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2020). Not in my pay grade: The relational benefit of pay grade dissimilarity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1344

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T.R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice. Economic Outcomes, and Extrarole Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.

 Google Scholar

Mell, J. N., Dechurch, L. A., Leenders, R. T. H. A. J., & Contractor, N. (2020). Identity asymmetries: an experimental investigation of social identity and information exchange in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), 1561–1590. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0325

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Turner, J. C. (2010). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In T. Postmes, & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology. Rediscovering Social Identity (pp. 243–272). Psychology Press.

 Google Scholar

Bolchover, D., & Brady, C. (2006). The 90-minute manager: Lessons from the sharp End of management. Pearson Education.

 Google Scholar

Kuper, S., & Szymanski, S. (2017). Futbonomia. Dlaczego Anglia przegrywa, Hiszpania, Niemcy i Brazylia wygrywają i dlaczego USA, Japonia, Australia a nawet Irak staną się piłkarskimi potęgami [Soccernomics: Why England loses, Why Germany and Brazil Win, and Why the U.S., Japan, Australia …]. SQN Publisher.

 Google Scholar

Mościcki, P. (2019). Lekcje futbolu [Football lessons]. W Podwórku.

 Google Scholar

Zgrzywa-Ziemak, A., Zimmer, J., & Hopej, M. (2022). The model of cohesive management capability-a theoretical framework. Scientific Papers Of Silesian University Of Technology. Organization And Management Series, 155, 609–622.

 Google Scholar