1.development and performance of self-managing work teams a theoretical and empirical...

8/17/2019 1.Development and performance of self-managing work teams a theoretical and empirical examination.pdf

1/22

Development and performance of self-managing work teams: a

theoretical and empirical examination

Ben. S. Kuipersa* and Janka I. Stokerb

aFaculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; bFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Several theories have been developed that prescribe the team development of self-managing work teams (SMWTs). Some of these have led to models with successivelinear developmental phases. However, both the theory and the empirical data show

little support for these models. Based on an extensive review of team developmentliterature, we propose, instead of linear phases, describing team development in threegeneral team processes. These processes, internal relations, task management, andexternal relations and improvement, were empirically explored in a longitudinal field-study of more than 150 blue-collar and white-collar SMWTs in a Volvo plant inSweden. The three processes were found to be consistent over time and appeared torelate to one-year-later objective SMWT performance measures for product quality, theincidence of sick-leave and long-term sick-leave. Based on these findings, a result-oriented team development approach is proposed, in which the achieved resultsdetermine the processes followed to develop SMWTs further. Also, managers and HRpractitioners are encouraged to monitor the three ongoing team processes and to relatethese to the desired team performance. Such an analysis should be the starting point of adialogue between manager and team to improve the functioning and performance of SMWTs.

Keywords: business performance; quality of working life; self-managing work teams;

team development; team processes

Introduction

The use of teams has grown increasingly popular in organizations over recent decades

(witnessed by the special issue of The International Journal of Human Resource

Management in February 2005). Many publications in professional journals and the

applied press have appeared (see O’Connell, Doverspike and Cober 2002). In their

summary and review of research on teams, Cohen and Bailey (1997) define four different

team types: work, parallel, project, and management. Self-Managing Work Teams

(SMWTs) are a particular form of work team (Spreitzer, Cohen and Ledford 1999) and are

the focus of this paper. They can be defined as groups of interdependent individuals that

are able to self-regulate their behaviour concerning relatively complete tasks (Spreitzeret al. 1999). Self-management refers to a ‘reduced need for hierarchical command and

control leadership’ (Morgeson 2005) in organizations. SMWTs are adopted in many

organizations in order to improve performance and the wellbeing of employees (Hackman

1990; Manz and Sims 1993; Cascio 1995; Cohen, Ledford and Spreitzer 1996; Spreitzer

et al. 1999).

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585190802670797

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 20, No. 2, February 2009, 399–419


2/22

An important, and not necessarily straightforward, issue in achieving self-managementis the development path towards this goal. The main line of thinking in several

publications on this subject is that the development of SMWTs can be described in distinct

linear phases (Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Zenger, Musselwhite, Hurson and Perrin 1994;

Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996). However, O’Connell et al. (2002) observe that such

publications seldom contain empirical support for this statement. Although some research

has vigorously investigated these prescriptive linear phases (see, for example, Miller

2003), the debate on team development in academic journals has focused more

on theoretical descriptive frameworks and the taxonomies of team processes (Marks,

Mathieu and Zaccaro 2001). Unfortunately, these articles are again rarely based on real,

in-context, empirical data and, if they are, as is the case for the work of Gladstein (1984),

they tend to be focused on common work teams rather than SMWTs.

Overall, there seems to be little consensus on the overall development processes

associated with SMWTs. Although several authors agree that SMWTs somehow develop

towards greater self-management, and thereby achieve increased performance and

enhanced quality of working life, there is no consensus on how this occurs and the type

of performance-related outputs that can be expected. Moreover, there is a lack of

empirical data to support or refute the various claims. Given the growing importance

of SMWTs, we clearly need a better theoretical and empirical understanding of

team development and its relationship to performance within SMWTs. Therefore, in

this paper, we will first review a variety of phase models as well as other approaches to

team development and team performance. Then, based on this, we propose an

alternative view of team development processes. Following this, these team processes

will be empirically related to team performance indicators (product quality and

absenteeism) in a longitudinal field-study involving more than 150 SMWTs at a Swedish

Volvo plant. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for both theory andpractice.

Team development literature

Various schools of thought can be distinguished that deal with the issue of team

development. In the following subsections, we will briefly discuss key literature for each

of them, including their strengths and weaknesses. Overall, it seems reasonable to divide

the approaches into three main types:

1. phase models (including group dynamics, consultancy and sociotechnical phase

models);

2. recurring phase models; and

3. process models.

Phase models: Group dynamics

The most commonly used and cited approach in the group-dynamics literature (Miller

2003) is the group development theory by Tuckman (1965), later extended by Tuckman

and Jensen (1977). This theory describes five stages through which a group passes:

1. Forming. The initial group phase of orientation among group members in which

interpersonal and task behaviour is tested.

2. Storming. The second stage of the group process, where interpersonal conflicts and

positioning are the bases of ‘group influence and task requirements’.

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker 400


3/22

3. Norming. Overcoming the resistances of the second phase to achieve groupcohesiveness and developing norms and roles occur in this third phase.

4. Performing. This is the fourth stage of group development and focuses on task

performance. The roles and group structure developed in the norming phase form

the basis for accomplishing the task.

5. Adjourning. In this final phase the group separates and, in a new form, starts again

with the forming phase.

Tuckman built his theory using the concept of ‘interpersonalstages of group development

and taskbehaviours’ on the ‘contention . . . that any group, regardlessof setting,must address

itself to the successful completion of a task. At the same time, and often through the same

behaviours, group members will be relating to one another interpersonally’ (1965, p. 385). He

based his successive stages of group development on an extensive literature search involving

findings related to therapy groups, training groups and laboratory groups.Despite the popularity of Tuckman’s model, three fundamental criticisms have been

levelled at it. The first is that team development often deviates from the sequential steps

suggested (Forsyth 1999). Groups omit certain of the phases defined by Tuckman, move

through the phases in a different order or develop in ways that cannot be described by these

phases (Seeger 1983). The second criticism is that it is impossible to demarcate clearly

between the phases since certain group dynamical aspects do not occur timely nor in

sequential order (Arrow 1997). That is, in practice, teams do not always develop according

to clear, distinguishable phases. Third, the theory was based on the temporal

patterns found in time-limited therapy and laboratory groups, and it has been questioned

whether such patterns can adequately describe work-team processes in an organizational

setting. As Cohen and Bailey (1997, p. 240) observe, ‘The findings from studies of

undergraduate psychology or business students are much less likely to apply to practicing

managers, employees or executives.’ The authors also noted that many of the studiesinvolving laboratories failed to examine organizational features external to the teams.

Phase models: Consultancy practice

In terms of consultancy practice, several phase models have been developed. Katzenbach

and Smith (1993), as an example, define five phases of team development in their ‘team

performance curve’: the team starts out as a working group, and ends up by being a

high-performance team. Another well-known best-practice model by Wellins, Byham and

Wilson (1991) describes a similar method for empowering teams – by increasing levels of

job responsibility and authority. Important elements of these phase models are: the

development of joint accountability, the goal direction and the performance focus of

the team; and these are related to the team’s group dynamical phases. Although these

models are highly prescriptive and poorly defined for academic application, their role in teamdevelopment practice should not be underestimated. Offerman and Spiros (2001) note that

Katzenbach and Smith’s 1993book The Wisdom of Teams is the ‘most commonly cited’ book

by both ‘full-time practitioners’ and ‘academic practitioners’. One should also note that these

popular teamwork phase models clearly stem from Tuckman’s model described earlier.

Phase models: Sociotechnical approach

Based on sociotechnical principles (Morgan 1993), Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996)

also developed a phase model for SMWTs. This model was inspired by the work of

Katzenbach and Smith (1993) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977) but, in every phase, aspects

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 401


4/22

of the sociotechnical concept are included. The phases (Van Amelsvoort and Benders1996; Hut and Molleman 1998; Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort 2000; Kuipers and

De Witte 2005) can be described as:

. Phase 1. Involves a ‘bunch of individuals’ with a focus on technical proficiency, and

this leads to a broadening of the types of tasks performed. The job content is

increased by focusing on the redundancy of functions and on multi-functionality.

All members of the team must be able to perform the primary tasks of the team.

. Phase 2. The ‘group’ acquires a focus on managerial autonomy. This implies that

team members are empowered through adding greater decision-making authority to

their tasks, and thereby increasing the team’s responsibility. The key characteristic

of this phase is also called ‘minimal critical specification’ (Morgan 1993).

Managers, from production as well as from supporting departments, delegate some

of their responsibilities to the team, such as for quality and planning activities.. Phase 3. The ‘team’ develops a focus on social maturity, which is also described as

the ‘self-reliance of the team’. The team has to work as a team, and this involves

teambuilding, working on communication, and joint decision-making. The team

grows in autonomy and becomes increasingly independent of its supervisor.

. Phase 4. The ‘open team’ with a performance focus evolves. The principles of this

phase are ‘double-loop learning’ and developing the capacity to solve most non-

routine problems. It concerns the ‘management of team boundaries’. This idea is

based on Katz and Kahn (1978) and relates to building relationships with other

teams, customers and suppliers.

Empirical support for phase models

Empirical support for the phase models discussed above is limited. For example, although

Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996) investigated 267 teams by a ‘quick-scan’, the items

used in this scan and the measurement methods are not clearly explained. Further, they

report that 26% of the teams were newly established, 63% were in Phase 2, 8% had entered

Phase 3 but none had reached the fourth phase (De Leede and Stoker 1996).

Hut and Molleman (1998) investigated the sociotechnical phase approach by

integrating it with the theories of Wellins et al. (1991) and Campion, Medsker and Higgs

(1993). Their article presents the outcomes of a small survey among four teams and

involved measuring four successive phases. Although their sample was rather small, the

results are nevertheless interesting. They show that teams cannot be positioned in a single

phase at a particular time; rather, teams are developing in all four phases at the same time.

Nevertheless, for three of the teams, they concluded that the first phase had been

developed the most, followed by the second, the third and finally the fourth phase. Thispattern of overlapping phases does suggest that teams do indeed move from simple to

complex tasks.

Based on the study of Hut and Molleman (1998), Kuipers and De Witte (2005)

conducted a study of 37 assembly teams at a Swedish Volvo Truck plant. They also failed

to recognize a pattern of phased development and, further, they could not even detect the

overlapping pattern suggested by Hut and Molleman. The teams did not show any

particular pattern in their development. De Leede and Stoker (1999) examined SMWTs in

11 companies, and they also failed to find the linear developments described by

Katzenbach and Smith (1993) and by Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996). They

suggested that the normative character of the phase theories might partly explain this



5/22

discrepancy. In an earlier publication, De Leede (1997) argued that such models connectstructural change to a group dynamical change and wondered whether the structural

change transitions really took place at the exact same time as group dynamical change

transitions. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that phase models lack a firm empirical

basis resulting from the study of real work teams.

A final critical remark concerns the fact that, as with the consultancy practice

approach, these phase models can also be traced back to the ideas of Tuckman (1965).

However, the prescriptive nature of linearly developing SMWTs cannot be justified using

the predominantly descriptive nature of Tuckman’s original study. Moreover, Tuckman

developed his model based largely on studies concerning group development in therapy

groups and laboratory settings. Ignoring the quite different nature of group working in

organizations, the proponents of the contemporary phase models adopted these phases for

the development of SMWTs without regard to the specific nature and characteristics of

such teams. Given the differences, the use of Tuckman’s descriptive model for team

development is questionable in developing a prescriptive approach for a work-related

setting.

Recurring phase models

The criticisms regarding Tuckman-like successive phase theories led to another

perspective on teamwork phases being developed. Gersick (1988; 1989) can be seen as one

of founders of this approach which sees the developmental process of a team as much more

complex than a number of sequential phases. She studied the development of groups and

subsequently introduced the idea of two main phases. Her punctuated equilibrium model

describes an initial phase which, half way through the group’s lifespan, undergoes a

transition into a certain action phase.Gersick’s ideas have served as input to other models, such as the one by Marks et al.

(2001). Both the theories of Gersick (1988; 1989) and of Marks et al. (2001) can be

labelled as recurring phase models, with transaction and action phases taking turns

through time for the various tasks and sub-tasks. Marks et al. (2001, p. 357) define team

processes as ‘members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through

cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing task work to

achieve collective goals . . . ’. Their descriptive approach is based on the ‘idea that teams

perform in temporal cycles of goal-directed activity, called “episodes” . . . ’ (p. 359). They

also place an emphasis on interpersonal processes occurring ‘throughout both transition

and action phases, and typically lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other

processes . . . ’ (p. 368). They describe ten sub-processes that can take place, and these are

allocated to the two episodes and to the associated interpersonal processes. The transition

phase consists of the mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formulation andplanning sub-processes. The action phase includes monitoring progress toward goals,

systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup, and coordination sub-processes. The

interpersonal processes are ‘conflict management’, ‘motivation and confidence building’,

and the ‘affect management’ sub-processes (Marks et al. 2001).

Process models

Another, more process-oriented, theory linking teamwork to performance is Gladstein’s

concept of group processes (1984). In her study of 100 small sales teams (2–4 people), she

showed that the group processes she was measuring were clearly dividable between an



6/22

Table 1. Summary of linear phase models.

Group dynamic phase modelsConsultancy phase models Sociotechnical phase models

PhaseTuckman and Jensen(1977)

Wellins, Byham and Wilson (1991)

Katzenbach and Smith(1993)

Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996)

Hut and Molleman (1998)

Phase 1 Forming: Orientationand testing(task) behaviour

Diverse collectionof individuals,arranging simple tasks

Combination of individualschanging informationand successful workingmethods

Multi-skilling Multi-functionality

No performance focus

Phase 2 Focus on tasksand roles, increasingresponsibilities

Common tasks andgoals, influenceon performanceimprovement

Managerial tasks Control tasks

Storming: Conflicts andgroup influence

Phase 3 Norming: Cohesiveness,developingnorms and roles

Common processes andcrisis situations

Collective accountability Team-building andcollective goals

Self-relianceand teamcommunication

Phase 4 Performing: Accomplishingthe task

Continuous improvement,proactiveness,arranging complextasks and higherorder responsibilities

Deep commitment to mutualgrowth and success

External teamrelationshipsand high performance

Boundary managemandnon-routine problem

Phase 5 Adjourning: Separation


7/22

Table 2. Literature overview of aspects of team development and the relation with team results.

Key aspects Characterization Authors Model type Performance orientatio

Internal relations

Goal orientation Determining team goals Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Marks et al.

(2001), Wellins et al. (1991)

2,4 Self-reported effective

satisfaction, customer s(Gladstein 1984); value(Dunphy and Bryant 19

Planning activities Team planning of work andsupport activities

Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and Bryant(1996), Van Amelsvoort and Benders(1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

2,3,4

Feedback Motivation, assessment andconstructive feedback in task performance

Marks et al. (2001), Gladstein (Gladstein1984), Hut and Molleman (1998)

3,4,5

Conflict management Handling cooperation andbehaviour problems

Marks et al. (2001), Gladstein (1984) 4,5

Task management

Multi-functionality Task flexibility and appli-ance of multi-skilling

Dunphy and Bryant (1996), VanAmelsvoort and Benders (1996), Hut andMolleman (1998)

3,5 Affective and behaviou(Dunphy and Bryant); (Gladstein 1984), indivcosts, value creation (D1996)

Delegated management andsupport tasks

Carrying out and arrangingroutine production supportactivities


2,3,5

Work communication Sharing strictly task-relatedinformation

Gladstein(1984), Wellins et al. (1991), VanAmelsvoort and Benders (1996)

2,3,5

Decision-making and control Joint performance of man-agerial tasks


2,3,5


8/22

Table 2 – Continued

Key aspects Characterization Authors Model type Performance orientatio

Performance management Actions to improve theteam’s performance

Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Marks et al.(2001), Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy andBryant (1996), Van Amelsvoort andBenders (1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

2,3,4,5

External relations and improvement

Improvement activities Initiating and supportingproduct and processimprovements

Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Marks et al.(2001), Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy andBryant (1996), Van Amelsvoort andBenders (1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

2,3,4,5 Self-reported effectivetion, customer satisfac1984); innovation (Du1996); ‘high performanvoort and Benders 1996Katzenbach and Smith

Customer and supplierrelations

Maintaining relations withinternal and externalcustomers

Gladstein (1984), Katzenbach and Smith(1993), Wellins et al. (1991), VanAmelsvoort and Benders (1996), Hut andMolleman (1998)

2,3,5

Advanced management andsupport activities

Carrying out and arrangingnon-routine productionsupport activities


2,3,5

Notes: 2 Consultancy phase models; 3 Sociotechnical phase models; 4 Recurring phase models; 5 Process models


9/22

intra-group process and a boundary management process. The first included aspects suchas open communication, supportiveness, conflict management and discussion of strategies.

The concept of boundary management on the other hand is defined as the ‘degree of

misunderstanding with external groups’ (Gladstein 1984). She stressed the importance

of the difference between the two types of processes: ‘Clearly, in organisational settings

many groups cannot work in the isolation enjoyed by groups in a laboratory setting. These

groups need to manage their boundaries and adapt to their organizational environment . . . ’

(Gladstein 1984, p. 513). A feature of Gladstein’s theory is that it sets out to describe the

processes occurring within teams without trying to order what comes first and what comes

last. She also considers the intra-group processes and boundary management to be parallel

processes.

Similarly, Dunphy and Bryant (1996) define three team attributes that they see as

‘creating an agenda for team development’: 1) technical expertise; 2) self-management ;

and 3) self-leadership. Although these attributes are not directly defined as processes, they

can easily be regarded as such. Under technical expertise, the members of a team work on

multi-skilling for an expanded task. Self-management concerns the delegation of

‘operational responsibilities’ from the manager to the team. Self-leadership involves

elements of both cooperation and continuous improvement. Teams that have developed

this final attribute are seen as the self-governing basic units of the organization, they can

play a strategic role and can provide improved communications both within and beyond

the team (Dunphy and Bryant 1996). The authors link their team attributes to three sets of

performance outcomes: costs; value; and innovation.

In a third and related approach, Kuipers and De Witte (2005) suggest considering the

simultaneous processes that occur during the life of an SMWT. Based on their empirical

finding that there were ‘very few teams [that] exhibited a linear pattern . . . ’, they proposed

the existence of parallel dimensions that could be developed independently of each other.

Patterns in team development theories

From the above discussion, based on a literature review, it can be concluded that several

theories adhere to some form of linear phase approach. Further, as can be seen in Table 1,

there are clear similarities between the various linear phase models.

The overview provided in Table 1 shows that the various linear phase models can

indeed all be seen as refinements of the original model by Tuckman (1965). Further, all the

models indicate, in one way or another, stepwise growth in performance with each

successive development phase, resulting in some final ‘high-performance’ phase.

If we take this analysis one step further, and compare not only the linear phase models but

also the recurring phase models and the process models, it seems that there are three team

processes that essentially cover all the theoretical ideas expounded. In Table 2, thesethree processes are described and linked to the related models by determining 12 key aspects.

First, if we look at how these three processes resemble the phase models, the process of

task management generally covers the first two phases of the models, i.e. activities linked

to team multifunctionality and its capabilities to manage responsibilities and control. Next,

the process of internal relations covers the third phase of the consultancy and

sociotechnical phase models and the second phase of Tuckman’s model, in which the team

deals with internal cooperative issues. Finally, the external relations and improvement

process covers the fourth phase of all the models. In this process, the team deals with

its relationships with other teams, customers and suppliers and works on improving

performance.



10/22

Further, these three processes can also be clearly related to the recurring phase modelsand the process models. After all, Marks et al. (2001) refer to the team’s interpersonal

processes and Gladstein (1984) distinguishes the intra-group process from a team’s

external relationships. Task management can be found in Dunphy and Bryant’s technical

expertise and self-management attributes (1996), and Marks et al. (2001) are referring to

this topic in their action phase. In terms of the third process, Dunphy and Bryant (1996) see

the team’s external relations as part of self-leadership, and Gladstein (1984) uses the

specific terminology of boundary management, which she defined as the degree of

misunderstanding between the team and external individuals and groups.

Based on this assessment, we argue that these three processes are sufficient to describe

team development. The process of internal relations refers to the internal cooperation and

common accountability of the team. Internal relations include all the activities that

potentially connect the members as a team, such as goal orientation and planning

activities, as well as the relational processes of feedback and conflict management.

Second, the process of task management represents the extent to which the team manages

its primary process. It includes aspects of both job enlargement and job enrichment, such

as multifunctionality, delegated management support tasks, decision-making and control.

It also encompasses basic work communication and performance management. The final

process of external relations and improvement reflects the extent to which the team

explores and develops its boundaries and, as such, it is broader than Gladstein’s

(1984) concept of boundary management. Here, in addition to customer and supplier

relations, we include improvement activities and the team’s advanced managerial and

support function.

Team development and performance

We argue that the above three processes offer a suitable and all-embracing perspective on

team development. However, one issue is still missing, namely the explicit relationship

with performance. Team development should not be regarded as a goal in itself (see

Kuipers 2005), since teamwork is intended to achieve organizational goals: i.e. a team is a

means to an end rather than an end in itself. That is, the development of SMWTs should be

aimed at improving results, both in terms of organizational performance and in terms of

the wellbeing of employees. The contribution here by authors such as Gladstein (1984),

Dunphy and Bryant (1996) and Kuipers and De Witte (2005) is that they make a

connection between the development (processes) of teams and the team performance.

Thus, the elaboration of the above three team processes would be incomplete without

relating them to specific SMWT performance outcomes.

Since team development is not a goal in itself, but a means to achieve certain desired

outcomes, we will define team development in this paper, following Kuipers (2005), as theoverall set of group processes reflecting a team’s actions and behaviour to given tasks,

goals and challenges, resulting in desired outcomes of teamwork . Each of the theories

introduced earlier in this paper describes the performance of a team, implicitly or

explicitly, as a result of one or more of the stages or attributes that a team passes through.

While Katzenbach and Smith’s learning performance curve (1993) and Dunphy and

Bryant’s (1996) connection between team attributes and team performance are the clearest

examples of this general situation, even Tuckman (1965) calls one of the team stages

‘performing’. However, in general, the authors remain vague as to the performance level

that might be achieved. Further, there is very little empirical evidence supporting the

relationship between team development and performance.



11/22

Table 3. Measures for team processes.

Key aspects No. of items Example item Cr

Internal relationsGoal orientation 2 Team goals are formulated by the

team and based on the company’s goals.7

Planning activities 4 The team formulates its own weeklyproduction plan

.7

Feedback 3 The team members address to eachother in case of mistakes in the task performance

.7

Conflict management 4 The team members solve internal cooperationproblems without management interference

.7

Task management Multifunctionality 5 The team members often interchange tasks .7Delegated management and support tasks 4 The team carries out the routine

maintenance.7

Work communication 2 The team members share information aboutthe work

.6

Decision making and control 6 The team divides the tasks .7

Performance management 3 The team acts on mistakes .6External relations and improvement Improvement activities 4 The team members often take initiatives

for improvement.7

Customer and supplier relations 4 The team solves problems with internalcustomers

.8

Advanced management and support activities 5 The team arranges back-up and supportwhen necessary

.6

Note: *The sample size ranges between n ¼ 1,293 (2001) and n ¼ 1,507 (2002).


12/22

In general, one can differentiate between two types of team performance (see Dunphyand Bryant 1996; Kuipers and De Witte 2005). One reflects the quality of working life

(QWL), referring to the wellbeing of people in organizations in terms of satisfaction

(a subjective measure), involvement and also absenteeism and sick leave (objective

measures). The other is business performance (BP), also known as organizational

performance, which is addressed using objective indicators such as product quality,

productivity, costs and delivery precision. Researchers have complained about the lack of

available studies on the latter (Dunphy and Bryant 1996) and it is claimed that it is difficult

to obtain appropriate objective outcome measures (Parker 2003).

Nevertheless, empirical studies using appropriate measures are important to reveal the

potentials of teamwork in terms of performance (Dunphy and Bryant 1996). Moreover, if

one is not only to relate team development and outcomes, but also to explain the

causalities, longitudinal data are essential. One of the general limitations of earlier

empirical studies is that they often lacked longitudinal data (Kozlowski and Bell 2003)

and, as a consequence, their cross-sectional design precludes any conclusions about the

direction of causality. From these findings, we concluded that insights into the longitudinal

relationship between team development processes and the objective measures for both

QWL and BP were needed.

In this paper, therefore, we will describe results of a longitudinal study looking into

both aspects. We set out to explore the relationships between the three processes of

internal relations, task management, and external relations and improvement on the one

hand, and team performance measures on the other. Based on the limited available

literature, we hypothesized the following relationships.

First, regarding internal relations, Marks et al. (2001, p. 368) state that especially

‘interpersonal processes . . . typically lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other

processes’. The relationships found by Gladstein (1984) between intra-group processesand self-reported group effectiveness provide additional support to this idea. Campion

et al. (1993, p. 841) similarly report ‘the importance of proper group processes to the

functioning of effective work groups’. In line with these arguments, we therefore expect to

find positive relationships between the internal relations of SMWTs and primarily the

QWL aspects of teams. That is, the relational aspects and interpersonal processes in teams

may primarily affect the team atmosphere and the wellbeing of team members.

Maintaining good internal cooperation may prevent absenteeism and support team

members in returning to work sooner after sick-leave.

Second, in terms of task management , job-related aspects have historically always

been connected with QWL. Hackman and Oldham (1980) reported positive consequences

of job enlargement and job enrichment in terms of motivation, quality of work, satisfaction

and turnover, and this has been supported by other studies. For example, Yeatts and Hyten

report that especially enriched work environments consistently show positive effects onemployee satisfaction (1998, p. 249). Similarly, Parker (2003) showed, in a longitudinal

study, how lower ‘job autonomy, skill utilisation and participation in decision making’

have negative effects on the wellbeing of employees. In other words, developments in task

management are primarily expected to affect QWL (see also Table 2).

Finally, we would expect external relations and improvement aspects to affect both BP

and QWL since, in the literature, these aspects are often related to high performance

(Wellins et al. 1991; Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996),

customer satisfaction (Gladstein 1984) and innovation (Dunphy and Bryant 1996). In

general, the idea of high-performance reflects all the various types of performance

involved. However, more specifically, it is the direct customer and supplier relationships



13/22

that provide inputs to improve products and processes. Working on these relationships

may lead to better quality products being produced and also to a healthier working

environment. People may feel more committed and involved through managing good

relationships with customers and suppliers and therefore receive more intrinsic motivation

to be present at work and ‘help the customer’. As a consequence, absenteeism may be

reduced.

Method and measures

At one-year intervals, three sets of data were collected using questionnaires distributed

among 2,200 employees working in more than 150 SMWTs at a Volvo Trucks plant in

Sweden by the first author (see Kuipers 2005). Response rates for the 2001, 2002 and 2003

exercises were 73%, 76% and 68%, with data obtained from 152, 168 and 167 teamsrespectively. The vast majority of the teams were production teams (about 75% of the

total) working in one of the plant’s five production departments (identified as blue-collar

teams). The other teams were related to service and support, ranging in function from

engineering to financial administration (white-collar teams). Conventional paper-based

questionnaires were used, and these were distributed by the team managers and completed

during working hours at one of the weekly team meetings. Volvo itself provided the

objective measures that were used for both BP and QWL. Unfortunately, the BP data were

available only for blue-collar teams, whereas QWL data were available for both blue-

collar and white-collar teams.

Initially, we sought confirmation of the existence of the three team processes proposed.

To achieve this, the data for all the teams from the three questionnaire rounds were

compared using a factor congruency test. Next, the relationships between the three

processes and BP and QWL were established using longitudinal regression models: thescores for the team processes in 2001 serve as input to the BP measures in 2002 and to

the average QWL measures over the period 2002–2003. The sample size for these latter

analyses is dependent on the availability of data (see below).

The questionnaire consists of 46 self-reported Likert-type items (1¼ ‘strongly

disagree’, 5 ¼ ‘strongly agree’) based on the aspects mentioned in Table 1 and originating

from Hut and Molleman (1998), the Work Groups Effectiveness Model by Campion et al.

(1993), De Leede and Looise (1999) and Kuipers and De Witte (2005). These items (see

Table 3) cover the 12 previously defined key aspects. Table 3 provides an overview of the

number of items used for each aspect, plus example items and Cronbach’s Alpha

calculated for each aspect (which indicates adequate reliability) for each year of

Table 4. Data on business performance and quality of working life (average per team).

2002 2002 –2003

Product quality (Blue-collar teams) n 73M 91.96s.d. 4.79

Short term sick-leave (Blue-collar and white-collar teams) n 57M 2.39s.d. 1.70

Long-term absenteeism (Blue-collar and white-collar teams) n 57M 1.25s.d. 2.43

Notes: n ¼ number of teams; M ¼mean; s.d. ¼ standard deviation.



14/22

measurement. The items specifically reflect actions and behaviour of teams, that is, none

of the items refer to emergent states (Marks et al. 2001) or to actions and behaviours of individual team members.

Three objective performance measures were also used, and these are presented in

Table 4. One of these represents business performance (product quality) and the other two

quality of working life (number of sick-occasions and long-term absenteeism). The data

for these were provided by Volvo.

Unfortunately, these performance measures were not available for all teams. The

measure used for product quality was only applicable to production teams. The measure is

the percentage of so-called Direct OK items produced – that is the percentage of products

that are produced fault-free at the first attempt by a particular team. This figure is an

average measure of the product quality delivered by a team, and the data used here reflects

the week in which the questionnaire was answered. In terms of sick leave, Volvo provided

data on the number of sick occasions and the percentage of long-term sick leave in the

organization. The data for sick leave were only available as annual averages but at least

these periods started on the same date as the questionnaire was answered. Both these

measures were available for both blue-collar and white-collar teams. Product quality

data were available for 73 teams (43% of the total number of teams) and data

about sick leave were available for 57 teams (34% of the total number of teams).

Results

Factor analysis of team development

A factor analysis (principal components) was carried out, for each year of measurement,

on the 46 items related to team processes. The varimax rotated solution included three

factors (see Appendix). A factor congruency test was carried out using the formula of

Gorsuch (1974) in order to see if the three factors were similar for each year. The outcomesof 2001 were compared with those of 2002, those of 2001 with 2003 and the outcomes of

2002 with those of 2003. The outcomes for these three tests had congruencies of .98, .96

and .98 respectively; clearly above the .9 threshold for claiming factor replication

(Gorsuch 1974). The three factors each explain between 10% and 20% of the variance for

each year, with a combined total explained variance of between 41% and 43% in each year

studied. Further, a Cronbach Alpha analysis of reliability showed that each of the three

item-scales had a satisfactory score above 0.8, for each of the years (see Appendix). The

three factors found by the factor analysis confirm the previously defined team processes.

It is notable that an inspection of the outcomes for the teams did not suggest any linear

pattern in the development of the three processes, a similar finding to those of Kuipers and

Table 5. Regression results for one-year-later BP and QWL measures.

BP: Product quality

QWL: Number of sick-occasions b-values

QWL: Percentageof long-term absenteeism

Control: Blue-collar teams n.a. .603*** .311Internal relations 2 .019 2 .057 2 .368*Task management .311** 2 .145 2 .086External relations .308** 2 .394** .017df 47 (3) 42 (4) 42 (4)R2 .279 .794 .211

Notes: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.



15/22

De Witte (2005). Rather, each team seemed to have its own strengths and weaknesses,further supporting the idea of parallel processes.

Effects on team performance

The results of the regression analysis shown in Table 5 indicate the relationships between

team processes and team performance.1

First, as expected, internal relations do have a significant relationship with QWL, in

the form of long-term absenteeism. Internal relations seems to be the only team process

that has a significant effect here: high scores for internal relations are correlated to low

scores for long-term absenteeism one-year later. Second, the level of task management in

2001 positively relates to BP (product quality) in the following year. Apparently, task

management has a strong effect on this measure (b ¼ .311**). Third, as we expected,

external relations and improvement is also positively related to BP. Further, it also seems

to have a significant negative relationship with QWL, in particular the number of absences

due to sickness. We found that higher scores for external relations are related to lower

one-year-later sickness frequencies. No other significant relationships were found for this

sick-leave measure.

Conclusions and discussion

Conclusions

In this paper, some key theories concerning team development have been described and

the criticisms levelled at them discussed. By identifying related issues that were found

across all the common theories, a model was suggested that could characterize team

development through three processes involving behaviour and team action. Further, wealso cautioned that the use of phase approaches (e.g. Tuckman 1965; Wellins et al. 1991;

Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996) might easily result in

team development being considered as a goal in itself, with passing through the stipulated

steps becoming the goal. We argued that team development should be considered as a

means to achieve better team results, both in terms of business performance (BP) and

quality of working life (QWL).

Our results first confirmed the existence of three team processes, internal relations,

task management and external relations and improvement . Their existence was supported

by data from more than 150 production and service SMWTs at a Volvo plant in Sweden.

They were then tested to see if they had a longitudinal relationship with the objective team

performance indicators of BP and QWL. The results showed how each of the processes has

its own distinct effects on team performance. These empirical results emphasize the

importance of team development for long-term team performance.We found that internal relations relates negatively to long-term absenteeism.

A possible explanation for this is that internal relations and the group’s attitude might help

to prevent long-term sick leave because team members pay attention to each other. For the

same reason, it might also help in avoiding short-term sick leave turning into long-term

absenteeism, if there is a feeling that the team cares for you and you care for the team.

Second, task management positively relates to product quality. One explanation could

be that SMWT craftsmanship depends on job management and so good task management

results in the team delivering higher quality products. We did not find a significant

relationship between task management and our measures for QWL. The reason that earlier

studies did may be related to the fact they focused more on the effects of autonomy, job



16/22

enlargement and job enrichment as an emergent state, or given organizationalcharacteristic, rather than, as we did, on an aspect of team development. We chose to

define task management explicitly in terms of concrete behaviour and actions, rather than

as given working characteristics, and this might have led to the different findings. Further,

the use of only sick-leave measures as indicators of QWL might be too limited; measures

such as staff turnover perhaps need to be taken into account to fully describe QWL.

Third, external relations and improvement was found to be positively related to

product quality and negatively to the frequency of sick leave. Perhaps maintaining

customer– supplier relationships makes people more committed to work and more

reluctant to stay at home if they feel unwell. Maybe, they feel responsible, rather than

pressured, to be at work to satisfy customer needs. Further, process improvements,

initiated by the team through external relations, may also contribute to a higher product

quality and to a healthier working place.

Theoretically, this study supports the idea that the various team processes occur

simultaneously as teams develop. In line with the thinking of Dunphy and Bryant (1996),

this also implies that, for different aspects of performance, different accents in team

development are required. Whereas phase theories specifically state that team development

should go through the full range of phases, our results show that high performance levels

can be reached by different combinations and patterns of the team processes. Our results

also suggest a revision of the existing theories rather than yet another new theory on team

development. The existing theories are able to deliver important input for a model that

provides a more dynamic view on developmental processes in teams. Unfortunately, many

of the models we reviewed lack a thorough empirical basis in real organization settings.

Some academics have also complained about a lack of studies that include objective

measures (e.g. Dunphy and Bryant 1996), or about the difficulty in gaining access to such

data of good quality (Parker 2003). In this study, we avoided these problems by collectingdata from a large number of teams over a three-year period and by including objective

performance measures. The insights from this study should support researchers in further

longitudinal studies of processes in SMWTs in organizations, and we would urge them to

use objective performance measures, and not see team development as a goal in itself.

Limitations of this study

This study, apart from the theoretical examination of team development theories, had an

explorative empirical nature. We found strong empirical support for the existence of three

team processes, although further study is necessary since we faced difficulties in trying to

hypothesize the longitudinal relationships between these processes and objective team

performance measures. Very little literature is available on these relationships, especially

in terms of having both objective and longitudinal data, and this restricts ones ability tohypothesize with confidence.

To make a more general application of the model possible, further research is needed

that includes additional objective QWL and BP performance indicators. Organizations are

also interested in reducing costs, improving productivity and delivery precision and it is

important for them to know if, and how, internal relations, task management and external

relations effect such other team performances.

Further research should also involve other types of organizations. Despite the fact that

different types of teams were involved in this research, from various types of production

departments and from supporting departments, a more general approach to team development

will require studies in other settings such as healthcare and commercial service industries.



17/22

Implications for management and HR practice

Contemporary approaches such as the HR scorecard (Paauwe 2004) can support

practitioners in further developing our perspective on team development. The essence of

approaches like the scorecard is to help managers define the connections, or causal chains,

between performance and whatever is driving and enabling this performance, and to define

these in terms of concrete practices (Becker, Huselid and Ulrich 2001). Having found

credible evidence for the existence of a few such connections between team processes and

performances, we would propose a similar approach for the development of self-

management in work teams. That is, first define the performances you want to achieve and

then go back and consider the team processes that enable these performances. This

alternative approach should help managers to develop their teams in a more sophisticated

way. HR practitioners could support managers through coaching, providing HR tools and

their knowledge of organizational development.In practical terms, this means that teams should not be stimulated to develop in a

structured and predefined linear order. Rather, a team’s development should be

continuously evaluated by its manager, with support from a HR practitioner. Together,

they can analyse the results and subsequently put an emphasis on those dimensions that

match the vulnerability of the team. Teams also do not need to be fully developed in one

dimension before shifting attention to another dimension. Rather, the circumstances and

the specific targets and goals related to the team’s purpose should be used to define which

dimensions, and which aspects within these dimensions, should be the focus in seeking to

improve performance.

To conclude, we stress our argument that team development is situational, and does not

depend on sequential phases as phase models suggest. This insight should encourage

managers and their HR practitioners to monitor ongoing team processes and relate these to

the desired performance. Such a diagnosis should be the basis of a dialogue betweenmanager and team to improve the functioning and performance of SMWTs. By studying

further the SMWT development processes in real organizational settings, researchers may

encourage practitioners to develop healthy scepticism of the popular prescriptive phase

theories.

Note

1. Please note that the regression models for absenteeism included a statistical control for anyeffect of blue-collar versus white-collar SMWTs. Only in the case of the number of sick-occasions did it appear that there was a significant difference between the two types of team.Overall, it seemed that blue-collar workers were most likely to report in sick but, in terms of long-term absenteeism, no significant difference was found.

References

Arrow, H. (1997), ‘Stability, Bistability, and Instability in Small Group Influence Patterns,’ Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1, 75–85.

Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., and Ulrich, D. (2001), The HR Scorecard, Linking People, Strategy,and Performance, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Campion, A.M., Medsker, G.J., and Higgs, A.C. (1993), ‘Relations between Work GroupCharacteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups,’Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

Cascio, W.F. (1995), ‘Whither Industrial and Organizational Psychology in a Changing World of Work?,’ American Psychologist , 50, 928–939.



18/22

Cohen, S.G., and Bailey, D.E. (1997), ‘What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Researchfrom the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite,’ Journal of Management , 23, 3, 239–290.

Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), ‘A Predictive Model of Self-ManagingWork Team Effectiveness,’ Human Relations, 49, 643–680.

De Leede, J. (1997), Innoveren van onderop: Over de bijdrage van taakgroepen aan product- en procesvernieuwing (Bottom-Up Innovation: About the Contribution of Self-Managing Teams to

Product and Process Improvement), Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.De Leede, J., and Looise, J.K. (1999), ‘Continuous Improvement and the Mini-Company Concept,’

International Journal of Operations and Production Management , 19, 11, 1188–1202.De Leede, J., and Stoker, J.I. (1996), ‘Taakgroepen in de Nederlandse industrie: één concept met

vele toepassingen (Work Teams in the Dutch Manufacturing Industry: One Concept with ManyApplications),’ Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 12, 4, 310–321.

De Leede, J., and Stoker, J.I. (1999), ‘Self-Managing Teams in Manufacturing Companies:Implications for the Engineering Function,’ Engineering Management Journal, 11, 3, 19–24.

Dunphy, D., and Bryant, B. (1996), ‘Teams: Panaceas or Prescriptions for Improved Performance,’

Human Relations, 49, 5, 677–699.Forsyth, D.R. (1999), Group Dynamics (3rd ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth/ITP.Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), ‘Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group

Development,’ Academy of Management Journal, 31, 1, 9– 41.Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), ‘Marking Time: Predictable Transitions in Task Groups,’ Academy of

Management Journal, 32, 2, 274–309.Gladstein, D.L. (1984), ‘Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness,’ Administrative

Science Quarterly, 29, 4, 499–517.Gorsuch, R.L. (1974), Factor analysis, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Hackman, J.R. (1990), Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for EffectiveTeamwork (2nd ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hut, J.A., and Molleman, E. (1998), ‘Empowerment and Team Development,’ Team Performance

Management , 4, 2, 53–66.Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.), New York: John

Wiley and Sons.Katzenbach, J.R., and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams; Creating the High-Performance

Organization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Kozlowski, S.W.J., and Bell, B.S. (2003), ‘Work Groups and Teams in Organizations,’ in Handbook

of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12), eds. W.C. Borman,D.R. Ilgen and R.J. Klimoski, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 333–375.

Kuipers, B.S. (2005), Team Development and Team Performance. Responsibilities, Responsivenessand Results: A Longitudinal Study of Teamwork at Volvo Trucks Umeå , PhD, University of

Groningen.Kuipers, B.S., and De Witte, M.C. (2005), ‘Teamwork: A Case Study on Development and

Performance,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management , 16, 2, 185–201.Manz, C., and Sims, H. (1993), Business Without Bosses: How Self-managing Teams Are Building

High Performance Companies, New York: Wiley.Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), ‘A Temporally Based Framework and

Taxomony of Team Processes,’ Academy of Management Review, 26, 3, 356–376.

Miller, D.L. (2003), ‘The Stages of Group Development: A Retrospective Study of Dynamic TeamProcesses,’ Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20, 2, 121–134.

Morgan, G. (1993), ‘Organizational Choice and the New Technology,’ in The Socio-TechnicalPerspective, eds. E. Trist and H. Murray, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

pp. 354– 368.Morgeson, F.P. (2005), ‘The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the

Context of Novel and Disruptive Events,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 3, 497–508.

O’Connell, M.S., Doverspike, D., and Cober, A.B. (2002), ‘Leadership and Semi-Autonomous Work Team Performance,’ Group and Organisation Management , 27, 1, 50–65.

Offerman, L.R., and Spiros, R.K. (2001), ‘The Science and Practice of Team Development:Improving the Link,’ Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 376–392.

Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and performance; Achieving Long Term Viability, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.



19/22

Parker, S.K. (2003), ‘Longitudinal Effects of Lean Production on Employee Outcomes and theMediating Role of Work Characteristics,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 4, 620–634.

Seeger, A.J. (1983), ‘No Innate Phases in Group Problem Solving,’ Academy of Management Review, 8, 683–689.

Spreitzer, G.M., Cohen, S.G., and Ledford, G.E. (1999), ‘Developing Effective SMWTs in ServiceOrganizations,’ Group and Organization Management , 24, 3, 340–366.

Tuckman, B.W. (1965), ‘Development Sequences in Small Groups,’ Psychological Bulletin, 63, 6,384–399.

Tuckman, B.W., and Jensen, M.A.C. (1977), ‘Stages of Small Group Development Revisited,’Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419–427.

Van Amelsvoort, P., and Benders, J. (1996), ‘Team Time: A Model for Developing Self-DirectedWork Teams,’ International Journal of Operations and Production Management , 16, 2,159–170.

Van Amelsvoort, P., and Van Amelsvoort, G. (2000), Designing and Developing Self-Directed Work Teams, Vlijmen: ST-Groep.

Wellins,R.S.,Byham,W.C.,and Wilson,J.M. (1991), Empowered Teams:Creating Self-Directed Work Groups that Improve Quality, Productivity and Participation, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yeatts, D.E., and Hyten, C. (1998), High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zenger, J.H., Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., and Perrin, C. (1994), Leading Teams: Mastering the New Role, Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.



20/22

Appendix 1. Factor analyses of team responsiveness dimensions (rotated factor loadings in absolute values).

2001 2002 2003

ItemsFactor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Task mgt. External rel. Internal rel. Task mgt. External rel. Internal rel. Task mgt. External rel

task01 .598 .485 .424 .505 task02 .562 .460 .386 .458

task03 .340 .451 .438 .468task04 .647 .502 .564task05 .596 .447 .458task06 .706 .513 .333 .563 task07 .673 .635 .653task08 .630 .631 .676 task09 .370 .636 .662task10 .617 .566 .331 .580 task11 .556 .467 .385 .512 task12 .500 .323 .474 .323 .487 task13 .517 .348 .504 .362 .496 .328 task14 .494 .672 .700task15 .458 .304 .573 .581task16 .591 .633 .664task17 .482 .539 .522

task18 .491 .540 .599task19 .526 .383 .380 .352 .499 task20 .545 .336 .462 .367 .602task21 .478 .360 .489 .404 .580 .370ext01 .711 .686 .701ext02 .829 .807 .827 ext03 .709 .686 .726 ext04 .838 .807 .825ext05 .642 .657 .659ext06 .702 .686 .698ext07 .379 .541 .481ext08 .596 .671 .613


21/22

ext09 .417 .426 .393 .434 .538 .388ext10 .464 .398 .483 .457 ext11 .429 .365 .410ext12 .389 .463 .308 .327 .462 .337 .416 .452ext13 .390 .459 .350 .465 .330 .403 .452 int01 .577 .319 .330 int02 .772 .406 .318 int03 .716 .452 .345

int04 .411 .448 int05 .568 .361 .326 .631 .376 int06 .483 .373 .339 .478 .422 int07 .493 .380 .665 int08 .460 .375 .609 .316 int09 .442 .424 .689 int10 .321 .499 .371 .432 .371 .328 int11 .479 .493 .343 .547 .494 int12 .431 .542 a .9054 .8724 .8641 .9179 .8832 .8480 .9274 .8878

Notes: Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; Factor loadings smaller than .30 are suppresseindicate to which factor the item was assigned; a ¼ Cronbach’s alpha’s for scales.


22/22

1.development and performance of self-managing work teams a theoretical and empirical...

Documents