dis q

Diagnosing Whether an Organization Is Truly Ready to Empower Work Teams: A Case Study Thomas J. Bergmann and Kenneth P. De Meuse, Professors of Management, University of Wisconsin Department of Management and Marketing

T his case study examined employee

perceptions regarding the level of

organizational readiness to move

toward team-based management. The

sample consisted of 11 managers, 18 team

leaders, and 123 team members in a

multinational food manufacturing plant.

Although all three groups indicated a

moderate level of readiness, the plant

experienced great difficulty implementing

the team concept. One-way analysis of

variance indicated that team members

scored significantly lower than team

leaders and managers on nine of 18 sur-

vey items. In-depth interviews with plant

mangers and team leaders revealed there

was widespread confusion regarding

what the team approach was, the speed

with which it should be implemented,

and the impact it would have on jobs.

Implications for the introduction and

implementation of the team approach in

an environment of mixed employee

support are provided.

3 8 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

Self-managed work teams, self-directed work teams, high performance/high commitment teams, employee involvement teams, employee participation teams, quality circles, and total quality management teams — all are names given to an organizational approach designed to empower work teams to make more decisions affecting their work units. The introduction of the "team concept" in the work place is one of the leading strategies US corporations are using in the 1990s to gain a competitive advantage. Leading companies such as American Express, Disney, Ford, General Mills, Hewlett-Packard, and Shell Oil are using empowerment techniques to increase organizational effectiveness and employee morale. Recent surveys have reported up to 70 percent of US companies are employing some version of self-managed work teams (SMWT) or high-performance work teams (Dumaine, 1994; McCann & Buckner, 1994; Ostennan, 1993). McCann and Buckner found, however, that only about one-third of human resource professionals believed that power and decision making were truly being shifted to lower levels within the organization. They ques- tioned whether empowerment was being directed from the top-down without the corresponding movement of power. They called for additional research to obtain a better understanding of what actually is occurring in organizations empower- ing their employees.

The purpose of this case analysis is to exploi e the perceived readiness of an organization to implement the team concept. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses are performed to exam- ine the different perceptions of managers, team leaders, and team members with regard to the team concept. Suggestions are made on how to more effectively introduce and implement the team concept.

Transitioning to Team-Based Management u s business has accepted the general concept of empowering employees. However, there is con- siderable disagreement regarding what empower- ing employees and teams actually means (Dumaine, 1994). There appears to be a high level of agreement among managers that empow- ering teams is desirable but a great deal of dis- agreement on what it is they, as managers, should do to implement it! The most common definition of team-based management is that it is an evolutionary process in which team members eventually are "empowered" to make all deci- sions relevant to the functioning of their work

unit (Case, 1995). Table I highlights the key dif- ferences between a traditional management- based company and one employing team-based management.

The movement toward teams is a dramatic change for most organizations and, as with any significant change, organizational members face many impediments and considerable reluctance. A substantial body of literature suggests that executives, managers, and first-level supervisors frequently resist relinquishing their decision- making power and authority (Bruzzese, 1994; De Meuse, 1994; Shipper & Manz, 1992; Stayer, 1990). For example, Harley-Davidson encoun- tered difficulty at the executive level when it began empowering work teams in the 1980s. Not only did the employees and supervisors have dif- ficulty adjusting, but the senior executives resist- ed as well. Mr. Vaughn Beal, Chairman of the Board, declared "the percentage of senior man- agement that survived the transition was pretty

Transitioning to Team-Based Management

Traditional Organizations Team-Based Organizations

Man agement-driven

Isolated specialists

Many job descriptions

Information limited

Many management levels

Departmental focus

Management-controlled

Policy/procedure-based

Selection-based ernployment

Top-down performance appraisal

Autocratic leadership

Change is temporary

Seemingly organized

Incremental improvement

High management commitment

Customer-driven

Multi-skilled work force

Few job descriptions

Information shared

Few management levels

Whole business focus

Team-regulated

Values/principles-based

Training-based employment

360-degree feedback

Participative leadership

Change is ongoing

Seemingly chaotic

Continuous improvement ("Kaizen")

High worker commitment

; Adapted from Weilins, Byham, & Wilson (J99]).

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 39

Americans have become

accustomed to accepting

authority and often

question the underlying

reason for expansion of

the employee's role in

the work place.

small.... You just get to the point where you can't tolerate people who are nonbelievers. They have to go" (Bruzzese, 1994, p. 21). Likewise, at Shelby Die Casting, the organization identified supervisors as the barrier to implementation of the team concept and terminated them. The com- pany then trained employees to start managing themselves (Caudron, 1994).

Likewise, lower-level employees often are reluctant to accept the new responsibility required of team-based management. Team members who have been shaped over the years to make few, if any, decisions may show a strong reluctance to "latch-on" to newfound power when suddenly cast in the role of team member. Employees come to the work place with certain expectations and beliefs that may lead them to question the motives involved here. Americans have become accustomed to accepting authority and often question the underlying reason for expansion of the employee's role in the work place (Caudron, 1994). Employee reluctance may involve more than just a reluctance to assume power; it may involve a questioning of the team concept itself. American Individualism is intimately interwoven into the fabric of American life.

The most important consideration when tran- sitioning an organization is the evolutionary nature of the team empowerment process (Francis & Young, 1992). Too often management has the unstated assumption that employee empowerment occurs as quickly and easily as turning on a light switch. All top management has to say is "we are a team-based company" and, presto, darkness turns to light. On the con- trary, empowerment needs to be shared with employees gradually. Lois McMurchy, training director at Shelby Die Casting states "... it's like teaching a bird to fly. It takes a while" (Caudron, 1994, p. 43). She believes that it takes well over three years to transform the work group into a self-managed work team. The bottom-line is that a partnership between employee and manage- ment needs to develop. Time is needed for the team to clarify roles, to build relationships, and to identify an effective process it can use to man- age itself (Francis & Young, 1992).

A Question of Readiness Effectively managing reluctance, clarifying employee roles, providing training, and defining the concept itself — all aspects are part of the evolutionary process of team-based management. But even an evolutionary process has a begin- ning, and there are points within the process

where revolutionary leaps occur. When is an organization ready to move closer to team-based management?

The focus of the present study is to obtain a better understanding of how different groups within a company perceive the readiness of that organization truly to empower employees. Such an understanding may provide insight into man- ager, team member, and team member reluc- tance: Is it a resistance to change itself? A sense of inadequate preparation? A distrust of motives? A lack of confidence in one's abilities? An uncer- tainty about expectations?

METHOD

The Organization The data in this study were obtained in a fast- growing manufacturing plant of a large multina- tional food company located in a midsize mid- western city. The following three major product lines were processed at the plant: (a) infant for- mula — both powder and liquid, (b) high protein adult drink, and (c) high concentration dietary drink. The nature of the manufacturing process requires a high degree of interdependence between work units. The plant is unionized, but management and labor relations are stable. During data collection, management and the labor union negotiated a new contract without labor disruption.

The plant employed approximately 40 people four years earlier, increasing employment to more than 150 at the time of the study. The basic organizational structure consists of three man- agerial layers. The "plant manager" has overall responsibility for all facility operations. Ten functional "managers" report directly to the plant manager. Eighteen "team leaders" largely serve in the role of supervisors, reporting to the respec- tive functional managers.

Data Collection The collection of data occurred in two phases. Phase I was a two-hour personal, structured interview with each manager and team leader in the plant. The participants were asked such ques- tions as: (a) What does the team concept mean to you? (b) What additional training (skills) do your team members need to implement the team con- cept effectively? (c) What do you personally see as the greatest drawback of the team concept? (d) What do you personally see as the greatest advantage of the team concept? (e) Do you feel the employees here generally understand what

4 0 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

the company means by the team concept? (f) What barriers currently exist that prevent the team concept from being successful? and (g) What can top management do to facilitate the implementation of the team concept? Overall, the purpose of the interview was to solicit general perceptions of how successfully the team concept was being implemented, where there were prob- lems, and how to correct them. At the end of the interview, each respondent was asked to com- plete a survey which was returned directly to the interviewer. The interviewer knew the identity of the respondent but the respondent was guaran- teed anonymity.

Phase II of the data collection occurred duriiie a plant-wide activity day. The plant closed down for the day and all team members ^I^HH anonymously completed the employ- ees' survey as part of the day's activi- ties. The Team Culture Readiness Survey is comprised of 18 common questions designed to measure the perceptions of respondents of the readiness of the organization to move closer to team-based management. Three unique questions were designed for team members only, which mea- sured how they perceived their team leader's management of them as team members. The questions on this survey were developed from review of the literature (e.g.. Fisher, 1993; Vamey, 1990), as well as preliminary interviews with a small sample of plant employees (see Table 2). In total, 152 employees completed the survey: 11 managers, 18 team leaders, and 123 team members.

Results The mean scores on the Team Culture Readiness Survey for the managers, team leaders, and team members are presented in Table 2. A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if there was a significant difference in perceptions among managers, team leaders, and team mem- bers. Results show the team members have sig- nificantly lower scores on nine of the 18 com- mon survey items (ps < .05). For those nine items, managers had the highest scores on five, and team leaders had the highest scores on the remaining four items. On only one survey item (Question 16) did team members have the high- est mean score (albeit it was not statistically sig- nificant). Overall, the grand means for the 18 items indicated that managers (M = 4.3), team leaders (M = 4.4), and team members (M = 3.9)

All interviewees

declared that they

preferred the team

concept over the

traditonal managerial

appro Kh.

all expressed a moderate level of team readiness. However, the results suggested that team members were significantly less ready than were managers or team leaders.

The data revealed little consistency in percep- tions across the three groups of respondents in terms of highest and lowest ratings. Managers gave their highest readiness rating to Question 3: "The nature of work in the plant lends itself to a team-based approach." They gave the lowest rating to Question 2: "Front-line employees can suggest improvements without going through several levels of approval." In contrast, team leaders rated "management's willingness to invest money in training employees" the highest (Question 17), and "the adequacy of the plant's

team support functions" the lowest (Question 13). And finally, team members gave their highest rating to Question 16: "Front-line employees have the skills needed to take greater control of their jobs." They rated "team leaders' willing- ness to adjust responsibility downward and radically change their own roles and behaviors" the lowest (Question 20).

The results from the qualitative analysis of the data obtained during the interviews with the managers and team leaders revealed the following points. First, all interviewees declared that they preferred the team concept over the traditional managerial approach. Interviewees anticipated that the team concept ultimately would lead to a positive work climate with improved communi- cation. Second, they believed that the team concept meant all employees are working toward a common goal. However, beyond that meaning of "working toward a common goal," there was much confusion regarding a useful definition of the team concept. In addition, there was little agreement regarding the speed and tactics that should be used to implement the concept. Because of this lack of vision, nearly all interviewees expressed frustration with how the team concept was functioning at the plant. Third, the amount of time needed to incorporate the team concept, the rapid plant growth, and the inability of individuals to change their past behaviors were common concerns expressed by the interviewees. Fourth, both managers and team leaders believed the 24-hour shift schedule had a negative effect on application of the team concept. Finally, and surprisingly, neither the presence of the union nor inter-team competition

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 4 1

Comparing Manager, Team Leader, and Team Member Responses to the Team Culture Readiness Survey Note: Figures represent means computed from a six-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The managers and team leaders were not asked to respond to Questions 19 to 21.

Statement Manager Leader Member

I. Management believes that front-line employees can and should make the majority of decisions that affect how they do their work.

3.8 3.9 3.4

2. Front-line employees can suggest and implement improvements to their work without going through several levels of approval.

3 . The nature of the work in your plant lends itself to a team-based approach rather than to individual effort.

4. The technology and physical design of your plant are flexible enough to permit restructuring based on the needs of the team concept.

5. It is possible to organize your work, so that teams of employees can take responsibility for entire jobs.

6. There is enough complexity in jobs to allow for initiative and decision making.

7. The union is likely to agree to renegotiate traditional work rules and job classifications to permit greater flexibility and autonomy.

8. Overall, employees are interested and willing to organize into teams.

9. Your company has a history of following through on initiatives such as employee empowerment.

10. Your overall company culture, vision, and values support team-work and empowerment.

11. Plant management is willing to adjust responsibility downward and radically change its own roles and behaviors.

12. Your company Is secure enough to guarantee a period of relative stability during which teams can develop.

13. Your plant has adequate support functions, such as human resources, engineering, and maintenance, that can help teams by providing information, coaching, and training.

14, Plant management understands that developing teams is a lengthy, time-consuming, and labor-intensive process, and is willing and able to make the investment.

15. Your plant has systems in place to provide timely information to front-line employees.

3.5

5.2

3.9

4.1

4.7

3.8

5.0

4.0

4.7

4.2

4.5

4.4

5.1

3.6

4.3

4.9

4.4

4.1

4.8

3.9

4.9

3.9

4.5

3.9

4.2

3.7

4.7

4.2

3.3*

3.9*

3.9

4.1

4.2*

3.7

4.5*

3.3'

3.8*

3.2*

4.1

3.9

4.4

3.7

4 2 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Comparing Manager, Team Leader, and Team Member Responses to the Team Culture Readiness Survey

Statement

16. Front-line employees have the skills needed to taJie greater control of their jobs.

17. Management is willing to invest the money in training all employees to be able to move toward a team-oriented company.

18. Team leaders are willing to share control and authority as the plant moves tovî ard team decision making.

19. Team leaders believe that front-line employees can and should make the majority of decisions that affect hov/ they do their work.

20. Team leaders are willing to adjust responsibility down- ward and radically change their own roles and behaviors.

2 1 . Team leaders understand that developing teams is a lengthy, time-consuming, and labor-intensive process, and are willing and able to make the investment.

Manager

3.8

5.0

4.1

—

—

Leader

4.4

5.2

4.7

—

—

Member

4.6

4.3*

3.2*

3.3

3.1

3.6

*Denotes mean score is significantly lower than other(s);

were cited as barriers to implementation. In addition, the interviews revealed that the

skills required by the team members in a compa- ny needed to change as the organization empow- ers work teams. For example, the role of the team leader (supervisor) now becomes one of a coordinator, facilitator, negotiator, communicator, and listener. Consequently, the skills the team leader needs are different than those of the tradi- tional manager. The team leader should have basic job knowledge but does not have to be the technical expert all members rely on to deal with issues as they develop. In contrast, interpersonal communication and coaching activities become the dominant skill-set required of the effective team leader.

Likewise, the skills required to be an effective employee are quite different from those needed to be an effective team member. Organizations in the past have provided employees with the tech- nical training required to perform their jobs. However, the team approach mandates an addi- tional set of skills. Skills such as solving prob- lems, conducting meetings, communicating non- defensively, listening, performing statistical and

mathematical analysis, and resolving conflict now are needed. In organizations that empower teams, management has to allocate both the money and time to adequately train employees in areas beyond the technical. Further, management has to be prepared to view such training as an ongoing activity, not a one-time expense.

DISCUSSION The implementation of team-based management has been widely embraced by the academic liter- ature as a useful strategy for improving organiza- tional performance and employee morale (Faston, 1991; McGourty, Reilly, & De Meuse, 1994; Overman, 1994). In most cases, little attention has been given to how it should be implemented, how fast it should be implemented, or what barriers might make implementation dif- ficult. This study attempted to assess a plant's readiness to incorporate higher degrees of team empowerment. The findings suggest that man- agers, team leaders, and team members may express a readiness to increase empowerment but may simultaneously lack the understanding to effectively implement it.

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 4 3

Although managers

offered their verbal

support of the team

concept, their unwilling-

ness to provide the

necessary meeting time,

adjust production

schedules, manage rapid

growth, be available

during second and third

shifts, and control

excessive mandatory

overtime spoke louder

than their words.

Matiagers, teatn leaders, and teatn members all expressed a favorable view of the team concept in this study. A surprising result was that managers did not generally view the organization more ready for the team concept than team leaders did. It appeared that the managers did not possess a shared vision of what team empowerment entails. Managers showed a lack of confidence in team leaders and team members. Specifically, managers expressed concerns with the plant's information systems (Question 15), as well as with team member skills needed to take greater control of their work (Question 16). Although managers offered their verbal support of the team concept, their unwillingness to provide the nec- essary meeting time, adjust production schedules, manage rapid growth, be available during second and third shifts, and control excessive mandatory overtime spoke louder than their words. Consequently, team members questioned man- agement's underlying commitment to team-based management. That may, in part, account for the fact that team members had consistently lower scores on the Team Culture Readiness Survey than managers and team leaders.

During the past year, the plant appears to have made little progress in implementing the team concept. Based on conversations with several team leaders, production quotas continue to take precedence, meeting times remain problematic, managers are unwilling to share responsibility, and training In skills needed for team develop- ment lags. The plant manager has put on hold any further movement toward team-based man- agement. Although the ratings on the survey generally were favorable, the team concept has stagnated. The presence of favorable attitudes toward the team concept did not ensure that the organization achieved team empowerment.

Executive Implications for Implementing Team-Based Management / . Establish a clear vision and role definition. The importance of concretely communicating what management intends (desires) to implement cannot be overemphasized. Unless organizational members develop a common definition of the team concept and agree on how to initiate team- based management, there is a high likelihood that the effort will fail. Because of the ambiguity of the concept, employees and managers alike may envision teams differently, resulting in indi- viduals placing different priorities on goals, behaviors, time frames, and uses of resources.

Steven Gross, vice-president and managing director for Hay Management Consultants, observed that the lack of clearly communicating what is expected of employees is a key reason many team programs fail (Barton, 1995).

Survey research has an implicit assumption that favorable employee attitudes will result in an effective implementation of the change program (Dunham & Smith, 1979). Clearly, the results of this case analysis do not support this contention. A key missing ingredient in the present change effort was a strong intemal leader. Several authors have reported the necessity of a strong internal proponent (e.g., Peters, 1991). In the early stages of the intervention, a "champion" must occupy a high level within the management hierarchy. As the team concept evolves, champions must be sprinkled throughout the organization.

A meaningful change in the way the organiza- tion utilizes its human resources can be accom- plished only if a cross-sectional team approach is used to establish the team concept. This approach demonstrates clearly to all employees what is operationally meant by the team concept, and develops the suitable mental image among work- ers. In addition, it symbolically reinforces the value of employee empowerment.

2. Allocate sufficient resources. Organizations must provide adequate money to fund training but likewise must be willing to commit sufficient time to make the change effective. The dollars needed to fund training are easy to quantify and include in future budgets. However, a larger cost associated with team-based management is the time needed to (a) hold staff meetings, (b) com- municate schedules across shifts, (c) engage in problem solving, (d) coordinate inter-unit activi- ties, and (e) free employees to obtain the process training needed. These time requirements often are overlooked and underestimated. Top manage- ment must recognize that the team approach to management will require additional time resources and must budget accordingly. This may initially require hiring additional staff to provide existing employees time to devote to the team concept. In the long-run, the organization's over- all efficiency and effectiveness will increase to make the move cost-effective.

It has heen our experience that top manage- ment does not hesitate to commit the resources to launch the company's movement toward the team concept. In one instance, a manufacturing plant closed for the entire day to kick-off self- managed work teams and engage in some team

4 4 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

building activities. In another organization, top executives were flown in from around the world to announce the company's efforts to initiate team-based management. For executives at cor- porate headquarters, a motor coach was rented to transport them to a remote site to attend a "secret meeting." At the meeting, 14 consultants were used to announce the company's new direction toward teams. In both of the above examples, top management committed hundreds of thousands of dollars for these initial ceremonies. Ironically, top management in both organizations was reluc- tant to commit future resources to sustain the team approach.

3. Communicate across teams and shifts. Ongoing, effective communication is an essential ingredient in the development of teams. Organizational and interpersonal communication needs to occur within work teams, across work teams, and across shifts. Organizations should develop training programs to improve interper- sonal communication, managing conflict, con- ducting meetings, and facilitating problem solving. In addition, the organization must review its formal communication network to ensure that it is accurate and that informa- tion reaches all units in a timely manner. One large international cor- poration displays the minutes for all team meetings on a plant-wide bul- letin board located in the hallway leading to the employee cafeteria. This approach has proven to be a very effective means of communicat- ing what teams are doing and plan- ning on doing. It also has enhanced trust and cooperation among teams.

4. Walk the talk. Senior management cannot sim- ply pronounce its workforce as empowered. They must provide a widely shared and robust process for supporting empowerment. Employees look ai: the actions of management to determine if top management truly means what it says. On one hand, if top management says staff meetings are a critical element of the communication process but does not allow time for team members to meet, it is not supporting their oral commitment. If top management declares a commitment to implement the team concept but continues to let production schedules dictate all work place deci- sions or refuses to hire the additional staff need- ed to make the team concept a reality, employees soon discover what actions management truly

Employees look

at the iictions of

manag<!ment to

deterrrine if top

management

truly means what

it says.

values. This lack of management credibility will undermine any movement toward the team approach. Greg Semler, president and CEO of Instromedix, believes that one of the essential ingredients to successful implementation of teams at his Oregon medical equipment manu- facturing firm was having senior management champion the new program (Barton, 1995).

It is not enough for top management to only champion the initial launching of the team con- cept; executives must remain actively involved in demonstrating the company's shift toward team empowerment. Employees will look for specific signs to indicate management is seriously com- mitted to teams (e.g., promotions, merit increases, job assignments that are consistent with team- based management). It is our experience that employees quickly become disenchanted and frustrated with the lack of follow-through after the initial announcement and introductory session(s). Even employees in upper-organizational levels tend to view such team-based activities in the same light as earlier efforts their company made

when introducing quality circles, management by objectives, TQM, process reengineering, etc.

5. Managers and supervisors "let- ting go" and employees "latching on." One of the most difficult actions taken by an organization that is moving toward team-based management is to change the way it does business. Managers and supervisors traditionally have been trained to retain control over opera- tions and to be held accountable for

the unit's performance. Employees have been indoctrinated to accept management's control and to operate under the belief that they are paid to "work not think." At Shelby Die Casting, employees resisted accepting authority even when they knew it was the only way the company could survive. The major barrier was employees feared supervisors who had never listened to them before. Top management decided to termi- nate the supervisors and train the employees in group dynamics, communication, and problem solving, so they could manage themselves (Caudron, 1994). In the organization under study, the inability to "let go" was more of a problem at the managerial level than at the team leader level. Managers did not have confidence in the skill levels of team members to allow them to take greater control of their work (see question 16).

rf1

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 45

To change the culture of an organization, it is essential to obtain commitment by the top man- agement team; they must be willing to push deci- sions down the organization. This requires the management team to engage in a very pointed discussion regarding the breadth and scope of decisions to decentralize. The lead taken by the plant manager in charge will determine the real sharing of power that will occur. In addition, all organizational levels must be involved in identi- fying the content of the training required by managers, team leaders, and team members, so they will he prepared to effectively carry out problem-solving activities.

Some team members will be reluctant to engage in the training being made available. In the past, team leaders and members have heard managers promise a variety of changes, only to find that they never came to fruition. All employ- ees will need to see examples of real changes occurring before they will fully commit to an extensive series of training sessions. An excellent way of demonstrating the new management approach is to truly empower the employees in the design and execution of the training program. In addition, the first real issues the newly empowered teams tackle will be a key test of the new management approach. If employees have input into the training program and have early positive experiences with the new decision mak- ing process, they will more likely embrace the notion of team-based management.

CONCLUSION Many organizations view the movement toward the team concept as a method to deal with the changing business environment facing US indus- try. The team concept requires organizations to alter the basic way they approach business. The barriers to implementation range from the design of the workflow to the willingness of managers, team leaders, and team members to fully accept new levels of power and accountability. A key element to the success of the team approach is the ability of all organizational members to adapt to a new employee-management relationship.

Managers, team leaders, and team members often are at different levels of readiness for change. It is critical that top management whole- heartedly commit to implementing the team con- cept throughout the whole organization. In order to have a successful implementation of the team concept, managers must focus on the following: (a) establishing a clear definition of the team approach, (b) allocating sufficient monetary and time resources, (c) improving communication across teams and shifts, (d) demonstrating (through managerial behaviors) support for their verbal commitment, and (e) encouraging willing- ness (on the part of managers and team leaders) to let go of decision making and (on the part of team members) to accept increased responsibility. Training is a key element and employee involve- ment in decisions relating to the training program is essential. The first real issues the newly empowered teams tackle will be the litmus test of the new way of doing business. All employees will more fully embrace the movement toward team-based management if they have meaningful input and have early positive experiences with the new decision making process.

4 6 HUMAN RESOURCE PtANNING

References

Barton, P. "Paying Teams - Compensation is a Crucial Component in Supporting a New Team Culture." ACA News, 38(\) (1995): 18-19.

Bruzzese, A. "Managed Work Teams." Human Resource Executive, 9 (1994), 21-24.

Case, J. Open-Book Management: The Coming Business Revolution. New York: HarperBusiness (1995)

Caudron, S. "Teamwork Takes Work." Personnel Journal, 7.? (1994), 41-49.

De Meuse, K.P. "Implementing Self-Managed Work Teams - More Than Saying "Let's Just Do It!" In J. McGourty (Chair), "Transitioning to Team-Based Organizations: Challenges and Opportunities." Symposium presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Nashville. (April, 1994)

Dumaine, B. "The Trouble With Teams." Fortune, 130, 86-92. (1994).

Dunham, R.B., & F.J. Smith, Organizational Surveys: An Internal Assessment of Organizational Health. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company (1979).

Easton, S. "The Road to Self-Managing Teams." Teehnical & Skills Training, April (1991), pp. 13-17.

Fisher, K. Leading Self-Directed Work Teams: A Guide to Developing New Team Leadership Skills. New York: McGraw-Hill (1993).

Francis, D., & D. Young, Improving Work Groups (Rev). San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company (1992).

McCann, J.E., 111., & M. Buckner, "Redesigning Work: Motivations, Challenges, and Practices in 181 Companies." Human Resource Planning, /7(4) (1994), 23-41.

McGourty, J., R.R. Reilly, & K.P. De Meuse, "New Pay Programs: Reinforcing Cultural Change in a Transforming Industry." In P. R. Theibert (Ed.), Lessons in Cultural Change: The Utility Industry Experience (pp. 77-101). Arlington, VA: Public Utilities Reports (1994).

Osterman, P. "How Common Is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts It?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47 {[994), 173-188.

Overman, S. "Teams Score on the Bottom Line." HRMagazine, 39(5), 82-84. (1994).

Peters, T. Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf (1987).

Shipper, F., & C C . Manz, "Employee Self- Management Without Formally Designated Teams: An Alternative Road to Empowermetit." Organizational Dynamics, 20(3) (1992), 48-61.

Stayer, R. "How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead." Harvard Business Review, 68(6) (1990), 66-83.

Vamey, G.H. Building Productive Teams: An Action Guide and Resource Book. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1990).

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

Biographical Sketches

Thomas J. Bergmann is a Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. He holds a Ph.D. from the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota. His primary interests include the human resource areas of compensation, interper- sonal conflict, and employee satisfaction. He has pub- lished over 30 articles in such journals as Personal Psychology, Compensation and Benefit Review, HRMagazine, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Business Research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Human Resource Management Journal

Kenneth P. De Meuse is a Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Previously, he was on the faculty of Iowa State University and the University of Nebraska. Eor the past decade. Dr. DeMeuse has been investigating the "human side" of corporate restructuring and downsizing. More than 100 universities and 150 corporations have contacted him regarding his research work in this area. He has appeared on Cable News Network, Associated Press Radio, and National Public Radio and has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Industry Week. Across the Board, Business Week, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and USA Today for his expertise on the impact corporate transitions have on employees. He has numerous articles on employee attitudes and organizational behavior in several leading professional journals. Dr. De Meuse received his doctorate in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the College of Business at The University of Tennessee.

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 4 7