Search results

The purpose of this paper is to propose a model in which team commitment in self‐directed teams moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Survey questionnaires measuring team commitment, OCB, and job satisfaction were administered to 242 full‐time employees who were involved in self‐directed teams at three geographically diverse manufacturing facilities. After carefully testing the psychometric properties of the scales, hierarchical multiple regression was used to test hypotheses.

The relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was shown to be significant, as was the relationship between team commitment and OCB. Most importantly, the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior was moderated by team commitment, such that the relationship was stronger when team commitment was high.

Due to heightened salience of self‐directed team functioning in our sample, generalization of results may be limited.

The findings indicate that the usefulness of self‐directed work teams may be limited in situations where employees lack team commitment. Besides implementing self‐directed teams and assigning performance goals, researchers and practitioners need to identify efforts that work toward increasing commitment of team members, thereby increasing organizational citizenship behavior in the organization.

It is believed that this research makes a significant contribution to understanding the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, a relationship that has long been known but not well defined. Moreover, the paper develops what appears to be a valid and reliable measure of team commitment, based on goodness of fit using cross‐validation, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability tests.

Human resources are the most important asset of any organization. Yet most organizations continue to arrange their people in work patterns that inhibit and limit their employees’ participation. Many companies have tried to move away from a traditional rigid organizational structure to a more flexible one only to abandon it with few or no positive results. The difference between success and failure depends not on company size or resources, but on appropriate planning and avoidance of pitfalls. This article presents Chevron’s experiences in establishing interfunctional work teams, evaluates barriers, and suggests steps for successful implementation of self‐directed process teams.

Human resources are the most important asset of any organization. Yet most organizations continue to arrange their people in work patterns that inhibit and limit their employees’ participation. Many companies have tried to move away from a traditional rigid organizational structure to a more flexible one only to abandon it with little or no positive results. The difference between success and failure depends not on company size or resources, but on appropriate planning and avoidance of pitfalls. Presents Chevron’s experiences in establishing inter‐functional work teams, evaluates barriers, and suggests steps for successful implementation of self‐directed process teams.

Distinguishes two different forms of team: the han and the self‐directed work team. The main differences between these forms relate to autonomy and the number of hierarchical levels. Argues that the ideal typical conditions under which both forms flourish are different. Whereas the han form is typically applied in a highly repetitive production process in a country with a number of specific national conditions, namely Japan, the self‐directed work team seems preferable in a dynamic environment in western countries. Implementing and developing such teams is by no means an automatic process. Presents a heuristic model to guide these processes.

Over the past decade many manufacturing organisations around the world have been changing their structures from the traditional hierarchical pyramid structure to a flatter, more responsive and lean structure. Team work and employee participation have become the key tasks for managers in all types of industries. This paper discusses team work and self‐directed work teams. It presents some of the key findings from a survey conducted in Australia and describes the four stages of developing self‐directed work teams. Some recommendations for companies adopting work teams are also made.

Discusses how part of Rank Xerox′s quality journey included the use of self‐directed work teams. Asserts that this approach enables true empowerment, but in a controlled and directed manner. Describes how the primary goal is total customer satisfaction and discusses the need to make the most effective use of the experience and expertise of those employees best placed to provide customer satisfaction. Discusses the development of a “leadership through quality” business model. Asserts the quality journey has driven an evolution in the management style of the company. Contends that self‐directed work teams are a natural output from employee involvement and leadership through quality. Looks at the benefits and challenges. Concludes that empowerment through self‐directed work teams needs thought, commitment and a significant time‐frame to make it work, but if customer and employee satisfaction are driving the business, it is definitely worth the effort.

Organizations are facing stiff competition in the ever‐changing global market‐place and are sure to face increasing battles in the future. To position themselves for success in the coming decade, many organizations are making the transition to an empowered workforce. In an empowering environment, those closest to the job are given the responsibility to make decisions regarding their own work, and many times, their own customers. Implementing self‐directed teams is a step towards achieving an empowered culture. Details the five necessary steps for successful team implementation including: the six‐step process for designing teams, adopting team selection systems, addressing new training needs, initiating leadership transitions and changing roles, and rewarding team rather than individual performance.

In the past decade there has been a movement towards “employee empowerment”. Employee/management teams have played an integral part in this change. Recently, the idea of the self‐directed work group has emerged, giving groups of employees both the responsibility over a particular area or function of the business, as well as authority to make decisions and implement solutions in that area. Large productivity increases, high morale, and increased employee commitment are some of the benefits of these groups, but all is not positive. Argues that companies wanting to switch to self‐directed work groups must be prepared thoroughly for the changes that will lie ahead. There are a number of areas which, if focused on now, will minimize the difficulties that can result before and after the process of change has begun. They can be categorized into three topics: preparing the organization (including top management attitudes, organizational structure, compensation systems, and employee‐retention strategies), preparing management (including attitudes, skills training, and vocabulary changes), and preparing employees (including attitudes, communication and group skills‐training, and job cross‐training).

Presents some of the critical questions relating to self‐directed work teams (SDWT) – small groups of employees who are responsible for producing an entire product or product segment and for managing themselves and the work that they do. While some companies have used SDWTs for many years, interest in the concept has grown very rapidly in the last few years but because of large differences in work and workers, SDWTs are not a universally applicable concept. Any organization that is considering adopting SDWTs must ask a series of questions to determine if SDWTs “fit” their circumstances.

Increasing international competition requires companies to empower and develop the skills of workers at the lower levels. This paper will show how implementing change from below through self‐directed teamwork enhances the understanding of the changing nature of work and the relationship between work and training. The case study of African Gold Mine (a pseudonym of one of the world’s deepest gold mines) illustrates the South African gold mining industry’s attempt to create a twenty‐first century workforce through self‐directed work team (SDWT) training conducted within the mine. However, underground participatory research reveals that in the workplace, organisational constraints hinder the effective implementation of SDWT training. In order to cope with these organizational constraints and inefficiencies, workers resort to planisa; “they make a plan”. In other words, they “get on and get by” underground through improvising and the team’s self‐initiated action. This paper argues that planisa is part of the existing occupational culture of miners and is an embryonic form of teamwork. Any strategy to increase the productivity of mineworkers must draw on these experiences.