| Effects of Self Managing Work Teams as an Organization Development Intervention: A Literature Review |
| | Guner, Ozgur | Bowling Green State U. | ssulliv@opie.bgsu.edu | (419)-372-2366 |
| | Sullivan, Sherry E. | Bowling Green State U. | ssulliv@cba.bgsu.edu | 419-372-2366 |
| | Baugh, S. Gayle | U. of West Florida | gbaugh@uwf.edu | (850)-474-2206 |
| | This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the outcomes of self managing work teams. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the implementation of self managing work teams really fulfills its promise. Comparison of the theoretically predicted and the actual empirical outcomes of self managing work teams reveals that the majority of the theoretically predicted effects of self managing work teams have not been tested in empirical studies. The existing empirical evidence only supports the prediction of an increase in job satisfaction after the implementation of self managing work teams. The common predictions in the theoretical literature of increases in employee motivation and organizational commitment and decreases in absenteeism and turnover are not supported in the empirical literature. Implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners are discussed. |
| | Keywords: Self managing work teams |
| Field of Dreams: High Performance Work Systems in Greenfield Plant Start-Ups |
| | Becker, Wendy S. | Pennsylvania State U. | wsb111@psu.edu | (814)-867-0276 |
| | Greenfield plant start-ups provide opportunities for organizations to experiment with innovative work systems. Historically, implementations of new work systems vary on a continuum from approaches that maximize management control to approaches that maximize employee commitment. High performance work systems, while not yet well defined in the organizational literature, involve implementation of ideal sets of work practices and are often tried in greenfield settings. This research examined greenfield manufacturing plant experiments, specifically, the work practices associated with successful outcomes in greenfields. 72 managers and 129 employees from 35 greenfield plants completed surveys and individual interviews. The participating plants represent Fortune 500 organizations from a diverse manufacturing group, including automotive parts suppliers, food and beverage producers, household and consumer products suppliers, heavy manufacturing and steel producers, and pharmaceutical producers. Plants range in size from 61 to 1150 employees; 2 of the 35 plants currently have union representation. Labor costs as a percentage of total plant operating costs ranged from 6% to 50%. Several plants in this sample represent an overall capital investment in excess of $200 million. Management vision and work practices varied widely across the new plants. Many new plants were attempting to implement high performance work systems through a vision for team-based operations; however, having an early vision in place for teams was not sufficient for early plant success, as measured by the managers. Greatest challenges for managers of greenfields are overwhelmingly in the people systems, specifically, identifying and training the new workforce. Stages of greenfield plant development are discussed.
|
| | Keywords: greenfield; high performance; start-ups |
| High Performance Work Organizations: Toward a Common Definition and Propositions for Implementation |
| | Kirkman, Bradley L. | U. of North Carolina, Greensboro | brad_kirkman@uncg.edu | (336)-334-3096 |
| | Lowe, Kevin B. | U. of North Carolina, Greensboro | kevin_lowe@uncg.edu | (336)-334-3055 |
| | Young, Dianne P. | Center for Creative Leadership | youngd@leaders.ccl.org | (336)-286-4014 |
| | Palmer, Ashley A. | U. of North Carolina, Greensboro | aapalmer2@uncg.edu | (336)-334-2383 |
| | In this paper, we integrate the diverse literatures of the high performance work organization (HIPO) and advance our own more comprehensive definition of the HIPO. Our review uncovered five components that are generally associated with the HIPO that include: (1) self-managing work teams; (2) employee involvement, participation, and empowerment; (3) integrated production technologies; (4) the learning organization; and (5) total quality management.
We define the HIPO, not as a simple conglomeration of the five components, but as an organizational system that continually aligns its strategy, goals, objectives, and internal operations with the demands of its external environment to maximize organizational performance. Thus, we view the HIPO not so much as what it is but what it does - systematically adjust to environmental change. The present day HIPO uses the five components to make these adjustments.
We also offer several propositions that relate to how high organizational performance is attained. Organizations are higher performing to the extent that they: (1) utilize the five components effectively; (2) overcome resistance to each of the components; (3) match the components to environmental and strategic demands; (4) resolve the tensions between the components effectively; and (5) use permanent integration structures to aid in this tension resolution. We conclude with implications for change agents charged with implementing HIPOs and researchers interested in the study of HIPOs.
|
| | Keywords: high performance work org.s; change implementation; organizational performance |