Search results

To present the advantages and possible deterrents of self‐managed work teams, and offer recommendations on ways to integrate these teams into project management.

A range of works, which provide a description and practical advice about self‐managed work teams, are reviewed in an effort to provide a thorough picture of self‐managed work teams. The information is sorted into sections: history of self‐managed work teams; self‐managed work teams: a definition; characteristics of self‐managed work teams; the role of emotional intelligence in self‐managed work teams; developing and empowering the team; barriers to successful self‐managed work teams; factors to consider before forming a self‐managed work team; and the longevity of self‐managed work teams.

Integrates theories and findings from other works to offer a holistic view of self‐managed work teams in today's workplace.

Resources from USA, as well as European writings, were analyzed to bring global perspectives. Applications are not specific to FM or construction, but business in general.

A useful source for project managers or other managers considering implementing self‐managed work teams to increase productivity and employee morale.

Takes an integrated approach in exploring all areas of self‐managed work teams, including emotional intelligence. Provides useful information on integrating self‐managed work teams in project management.

The introduction of employee empowerment through a self‐managed work teams programme into an organization further requires the introduction of multifaceted changes in person‐job relationships and the whole organizational hierarchy. The self‐managed teams concept can be seen as a strategy to increase motivation, quality, productivity, customer satisfaction and to sustain high performance. Self‐managed teams serve as the main building blocks of the organization. However, they are not simple or easy to create, develop and support. Companies must realize that it takes time, training and resources to implement teams and reap their rewards.

Provides theoretical background for examining the development of self‐managed work teams as a total quality management (TQM) intervention at the employee level. Briefly summarizes the current knowledge regarding self‐managed work teams within the context of sociotechnical system design. Discusses the origins of the self‐managed work team, design features, conditions for successful implementation, and barriers to effectiveness. Presents one organization′s experience with self‐managed work teams to demonstrate the fundamental nature of the change required in implementing this TQM strategy.

Organizational literatures stress the empowering effects of worker participation programs. The case of a Mexican garment factory is used to examine the contradictory location of women in self-managed teams. While self-managed teams require independent and assertive workers, women workers are hired specifically for their docility. I argue that managers provide the tools and mechanisms for workers to be autonomous decision-makers, while at the same time they gender teams in ways that assure continued female disadvantage. Placed in this contradictory location, women workers both reproduce and resist gender subordination by carving out spaces of independent action, using the language of traditional womanhood.

Both the learning organization literature and the self‐managed work team literature have alluded to the potential links between teamwork and learning. However, as yet the link between these two concepts remains undeveloped. This study uses a survey of a random sample of 200 Australian organizations to empirically examine the relationships between self‐managed work teams and the learning organization using performance indicators as a medium. It was found that the learning organization concept displays a moderate to strong link with three measures of performance used in this study: knowledge performance, financial performance and customer satisfaction. Although the self‐managed work team concept did not display any significant relationship with performance, the qualitative component of the survey did emphasize that there is a common belief that self‐managed teams can increase performance in the right setting. While an insignificant relationship between self‐managed teams and the learning organization was also found, this study suggests some methodological concerns for future research into the relationship between self‐managed teams and the learning organization.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between self‐leadership behaviors in a self‐managed work team environment and relevant organizational variables, i.e. supervisory trust, decision‐making, feedback and team goal setting.

Data were collected on‐site over a period of three days from employees working in a non‐union paper mill located in a small rural community in the northwestern region of the USA. The survey was completed by 141 employees, representing a 99 per cent response rate. Self‐leadership, supervisory trust, decision‐making, feedback and team goal setting were measured using different scales.

The results indicated that supervisors, who give feedback, and who are perceived as trusting, and encouraging innovative behaviors contribute to the development of self‐leadership behaviors of rehearsal, self‐goal setting, self‐criticism, self‐reinforcement, self‐expectation and self‐observation. In addition, providing team training, fostering communication within the team, and allowing the team members to make work related decisions also enhance the movement toward self‐management.

The study relied on self‐report data, thereby allowing for the possibility of same source bias. However this is a common problem with cross‐sectional designs.

The paper is of value in pointing out that a different approach to leadership is required in a self‐managed work team environment, and by suggesting that building trust, fostering communication within the team, giving feedback and encouraging goal setting, innovative behaviors, and decision‐making can contribute to the development of self‐leadership behaviors important to the success and effectiveness of self‐managed work teams. Organizations should therefore through training programs encourage the development of these behaviors.

This empirical study examines the impact of context‐team factors and team‐employee factors on perceived uncertainty in self‐managed service teams. The results of our study show that context‐team factors rather than team‐employee factors are critical to the extent of uncertainty employees perceive when providing customer service. Furthermore, perceived uncertainty has negative impact on self‐managed team outcomes in terms of job satisfaction and intention to leave the team. Besides this, our findings indicate that team commitment to customer service quality can serve as an effective tool to handle the negative consequences of perceived uncertainty in self‐managed service teams. Finally, in addition to the cross‐sectional analysis, a longitudinal exploration has been carried out, the outcomes of which suggest that the structural relationships are changing over time, underlining the need to take dynamic considerations into account in analyzing the effectiveness of self‐managed work teams.

This paper explores the role of individual goal orientation on the self‐management work process and how individual goal orientation may impact self‐managed work team (SMWT) effectiveness. Supervisory encouragement, team member goal orientation, and work team behaviors are included in a conceptual model of work team effectiveness. Propositions addressing the relationships between goal orientation, encouraging supervisory behaviors, and self‐managed work team effectiveness are offered and practical implications addressing the usage of goal orientation as a selection tool for self‐managed work teams and the need for external supervisors to encourage certain work team behaviors to promote work team effectiveness are discussed.

The purpose of this paper was to examine the impact of superleader behaviors in self‐managed work teams, on organization commitment, job satisfaction and organization self‐esteem.

Data were collected on‐site over a period of three days from employees working in a non‐union paper mill located in a small rural community in the northwestern region of the USA. The survey was completed by 141 employees, representing a 9 per cent response rate. Self‐leadership, organization commitment, job satisfaction and organization self‐esteem were all measured using different instruments.

The results indicated that teams groups that were led by a supervisor who exhibited the characteristics of a superleader had higher levels of organization commitment, job satisfaction, and organization self‐esteem.

The study is based on a small sample and relied on self‐report data, thereby allowing for the possibility of same source bias. However, this is a common problem with cross‐sectional designs.

Leading in a self‐managed work team environment requires a unique approach to leadership. The results of this study illustrated that superleader behaviors result in some beneficial outcomes for organizations including enhanced levels of organization commitment, job satisfaction and organization self‐esteem. It behoves organizations to encourage, through training programs, the development of these behaviors.

Investigates the relationships between team‐based management systems and organizational effectiveness across a variety of settings throughout the USA. Uses a validated instrument on organizational effectiveness to gather data. Presents survey results to support the claims of team‐based management proponents that the technique improves participants’ productivity, quality, satisfaction, performance, and appears to be effective. However, less than half of the surveyed respondents who implemented team‐based systems indicated that their self‐managed team programmes had failed to achieve their stated objectives of influencing and enhancing organizational effectiveness. A major implication of this study is that the introduction of team‐based programmes into an organization further requires the introduction of multifaceted changes in person‐job relationships and the whole organizational hierarchy.