Search results

Reports the results of a UK company survey on the strategic and operational autonomy of team leaders working on new product development (NPD). The data are based on returns from 194 manufacturing companies and were completed by either the director of R&D or a member of the board with overall responsibility for the management of NPD project team leaders. The management of NPD project team leaders was classified into task variables (six strategic and seven operational) and a member of top management was asked to rate on a seven‐point Likert scale the extent to which each task was the autonomous responsibility of the team leader as opposed to the responsibility of other managers. Subdivides the sample into high technology and low‐to‐medium technology companies and analyses the strategic and operational management of NPD team leaders according to the company′s performance (measured by annual sales turnover) and its market environment, using four measures of the market environment: product life cycle, market growth rate, market share and R&D spending on new product development. Finds annual sales turnover to be the most important and closely associated variable with high amounts of autonomy granted to team leaders working on new product development. In medium‐to‐low technology companies, the market growth rate and R&D spending are additional, significantly associated variables. Concludes that UK companies reduce their top management controls in order to facilitate the autonomy of NPD team leaders when company sales turnover is high. Additionally, it is arguable from the evidence of the data that medium‐to‐low technology companies are more influenced by recent market performance than are high technology companies because, in addition to sales, they facilitate more autonomy according to market growth rate, market share and R&D spending.

Previous studies show that sharing leadership in teams offers potential performance benefits across various contexts. This paper aims to investigate moderators of the effectiveness of shared leadership. In particular, it seeks to explore the moderating effects of team work function – manufacturing versus knowledge team work – and team autonomy.

In order to test the hypotheses, the authors conducted hierarchical regression analyses and ran moderated two‐way regression analyses using a field sample of 552 employees comprising 81 teams in a Danish manufacturing company.

Contrary to expectations, the results demonstrated a non‐significant relationship between shared leadership and team performance. However, as expected, work function significantly moderated this relationship such that shared leadership exhibited a negative relationship with manufacturing team performance and a positive relationship with knowledge team performance. Moreover, team autonomy was positively related to performance, and it significantly moderated the relationship between shared leadership and team performance.

The study provides a potentially useful framework for understanding boundary conditions for the effectiveness of shared leadership. However, since the design of the study is cross‐sectional, direct causation cannot be inferred. Moreover, the study took place within a single organization in a Danish context and, therefore, care must be taken in generalizing the findings without additional evidence from further research.

To the authors' knowledge, the study is the first to obtain evidence which indicates that the success of shared leadership may depend on the team work function and the level of team autonomy.

Team autonomy is thought to be important for team innovation performance. However, the theoretical basis of the relationship between team autonomy and team innovation performance is not well understood, and previous studies have found inconsistent relations between them. Based on motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G) theory, this paper aims to explain how and when team autonomy could influence team innovation performance from a new team-level perspective.

Using a two-wave, time-lagged survey design, the authors collected data from 340 members of 86 teams in China. PROCESS 3.0 for SPSS was used to test hypothesized relationships.

The results show that team autonomy is positively related to team information exchange. Team information exchange mediates the positive relationship between team autonomy and team innovation performance. Furthermore, the positive relationship between team autonomy and team information exchange is stronger with less task conflict, which runs contrary to the hypothesis. Additionally, relationship conflict does not adjust the impact of team autonomy on team information exchange.

This study provides a new perspective to explain the mechanism between team autonomy and team innovation performance at team level from the information processing approach, specifically, MIP-G theory. It also incorporates team conflicts as important contextual factors to answer the call for a wider study of boundary conditions in the team autonomy research.

Team autonomy involves empowering employees to achieve greater control over organizational dynamics. Such empowerment may augment the employees’ vigor, dedication and absorption at work. However, there is limited evidence on the contents of the relationship between team autonomy and work engagement. This paper aims to fill in this gap, shedding light into the manifold implications of team autonomy on employees’ work engagement.

A serial mediation analysis was designed to collect evidence of the effects of team autonomy on work engagement. Drawing on self-determination theory, social comparison theory and social facilitation theory, team member-supervisor exchanges and organizational climate were contemplated in the analysis as mediating variables. An ordinary least square regression-based model relying on 5,000 bootstrap samples was implemented. The study focused on a large sample of Europeans employed in the manufacturing sector (n = 4,588).

Team autonomy had tiny, but statistically significant effects on work engagement. Good relationships between team members and supervisors positively mediated the effects of team autonomy on work engagement. Conversely, the organizational climate did not have a significant mediating role. A statistically significant serial mediation effect linked team autonomy and work engagement via team member-supervisor exchanges and organizational climate.

Team autonomy contributes to increasing the employees’ vigor, dedication and absorption at work. The enhancement of team member-supervisor relationships fosters the engagement of team members who experience a greater autonomy at work. The effects of team autonomy on organizational climate are ambiguous and mediated by an improvement of the relationships between team members and supervisors.

The paper originally investigates the implications of team autonomy on work engagement, emphasizing the importance of social exchanges at work to realize the full potential of team autonomy.

The paper presents a model of the relationships between organizational culture, organizational structure, and the level of team autonomy. The model suggests that teams with high levels of autonomy are likely to be most effective in companies with flexibility‐oriented cultures and organic structures. The model is useful to researchers in examining further connections between contextual variables and team autonomy and to practitioners in helping identify the types of teams that would be most effective in their organizations. The paper also presents a four‐step proactive approach to implementing team‐based working.

The paper aims to investigate how teamwork contributes to successful maintenance practice within maintenance work in an industrial setting.

Qualitative data were gathered from a single case. This includes interviews, participatory observation and document collection.

The findings suggest that even though TPM is originally a technologically‐based concept, the explanations for success or failure are mainly organisational, pointing to management style, collaboration between maintenance and production, involvement and teamwork. This case study shows that a high degree of team autonomy was an important contributor to success; a point not previously emphasized in the literature.

The paper provides a deep understanding of a unique case, but should be supplemented with more data in order to reach general conclusions.

Many companies struggle with implementing total productive maintenance. The paper provides an understanding on how TPM can successfully be supported by teamwork.

Few case studies on TPM and teamwork are available. The main contribution of the paper is a deep understanding of teamwork and maintenance practices, and of including autonomy in TPM teams.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of two formal controls, namely target rigidity and process autonomy, on team adaptability and project success in new product development (NPD) projects. Target rigidity refers to performance goals that are non-negotiable once they have been set. Process autonomy refers to the extent to which a project team is free to choose ways to achieve its goals. Team adaptability is considered a key factor that explains the relationship between formal controls and project success.

Two separate models related to resource and cost measures are analysed, since different target types may influence managerial perceptions. This study uses data collected from a survey with 113 project managers as respondents.

The findings show that target rigidity and process autonomy support team adaptability. Furthermore, team adaptability mediates the impact of formal controls on project success. The effects are more pronounced for cost targets as compared to resource targets.

Firms can increase project success by using formal controls in such a way that they allow project managers to provide their teams with motivating guidelines (target rigidity) and discretion (process autonomy) to adapt to new circumstances.

This study reveals the impact of formal controls on NPD project success through team adaptability. A balanced use of target rigidity and process autonomy may help improving NPD project success.

Agile principles have been widely used in software development team practice since the creation of the Agile Manifesto. Studies have examined variables related to agile principles without systematically considering the relationships among key team, agile methodology, and process variables underlying the agile principles and how these variables jointly influence the achievement of software development agility. In this study, the authors tested a team/methodology–process–agility model that links team variables (team autonomy and team competence) and methodological variable (iterative development) to process variables (communication and collaborative decision-making), which are in turn linked to software development agility (ability to sense, respond and learn).

Survey data from one hundred and sixty software development professionals were analyzed using structural equation modeling methods.

The results support the team/methodology–process–agility model. Process variables (communication and collaborative decision-making) mediated the effects of team (autonomy and competence) and methodological (iterative development) variables on software development agility. In addition, team, methodology and process variables had different effects on the three dimensions of software development agility.

The results contribute to the literature on organizational IT management by establishing a team/methodology–process–agility model that can serve as a basis for developing a core theoretical foundation underlying agile principles and practices. The results also have practical implications for organizations in understanding and managing holistically the different roles that agile methodological, team and process factors play in achieving software development agility.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of employee empowerment on team performance in the context of municipal work teams. Four different dimensions of employee empowerment are identified: autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity.

Using a survey of 176 US municipal government employees, this study conducted an OLS multiple regression analysis. The study regressed the dependent variable, team performance, on the four independent variables: autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity.

The regression analysis provided empirical evidence in support of the four hypotheses proposed in this study. The study reveals that autonomy, responsibility, information, and creativity each have positive and significant effects on team performance.

The study suggests that employee empowerment programs should consider different dimensions of empowerment. At least, managers need to keep in mind the four dimensions of empowerment discussed in this research. Understanding different dimensions of empowerment will enable managers to design and implement a successful empowerment program.

Prior research focused on developing conceptual models of the multiple dimensions of empowerment. This paper took one step further and provided empirical evidence.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the precise role of intrinsic motivation and autonomy in relation to intellectual stimulation in creating a creative climate in a professional services firm. The intention is to discover whether theories that stress the primacy of the need for intrinsic motivation and autonomy over other managerial goals such as monitoring find support.

The authors propose and test a model for the relationship of interest. The theoretical model is tested through analysis of multilevel data gathered across in two iterations over two years from 177 employees and 64 teams in one company.

The authors find that intrinsic motivation and autonomy mediate the relationship between intellectual stimulation and creative climate. Autonomy exercises a stronger mediating effect than intrinsic motivation.

The single company research context’s specificity; causal relationships between variables cannot be empirically investigated; the verified research model cannot claim to represent how the organization actually functions, for which qualitative work is required.

Theories stressing the primacy of employee autonomy are supported over those stressing a need for management to monitor and control autonomy-seeking employees.

This paper shows the vital mediating role of employee autonomy and to a lesser extent intrinsic motivation in a professional service firm context.