In terms of its implications for work and production, studies of teamworking have generally relied on concepts of autonomy and flexibility. An in-depth, qualitative case study of the UK Inland Revenue reveals a form of teamworking in which both autonomy and flexibility play little part. It is argued that teamworking in this case is best conceptualized by giving greater weight to interdependence. In particular, teamworking in the Inland Revenue works through the outcome interdependence engendered by the emphasis on the team’s work targets. This form of teamworking is given the name ‘target-based teamworking’. Certain aspects of the nature of production appear to encourage this form of teamworking. More generally, the case promotes interdependence as a means of understanding teamworking, and suggests that the key to this understanding is an analysis of the relationship between interdependence and autonomy.
Appelbaum, E. & Batt, R.The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press , 1994.
2.
Batt, R.Strategic segmentation in front-line services: Matching customers, employees and human resource systems . International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2000, 11, 540-561 .
3.
Benders, J. , Huijgen, F. & Pekruhl, U.Measuring group work: Findings and lessons from a European survey . New Technology, Work and Employment, 2001, 16, 204-217 .
4.
Benders, J. & Van Hootegem, G.Teams and their context: Moving the team discussion beyond existing dichotomies . Journal of Management Studies, 1999, 36, 609-628 .
5.
Boxall, P. & Purcell, J.Strategy and human resource management. London: Palgrave Macmillan , 2003.
6.
Buchanan, D.Principles and practice in work design. In K. Sisson (Ed.), Personnel management: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice in Britain, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell , 1994, pp. 85-116.
7.
Buchanan, D.An eager and enduring embrace: The ongoing rediscovery of teamworking as a management idea. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan , 2000, pp. 25-42.
8.
Cohen, S. & Ledford, G.The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment . Human Relations, 1994, 47, 13-43 .
9.
Cully, M. , Woodland, S. , O’Reilly, A. & Dix, G.Britain at work. London: Routledge , 1999.
10.
Currie, G. & Procter, S.The interaction of human resource management policies and practices with the implementation of teamworking: Evidence from the UK public sector . International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2003, 14, 581-599 .
11.
Delbridge, R. , Lowe, J. & Oliver, N.Worker autonomy in lean teams: Evidence from the world automotive components industry. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds) Teamworking. London: Macmillan , 2000, pp. 125-142.
12.
Dunphy, D. & Bryant, B.Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance?Human Relations, 1996, 49, 677-699 .
13.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J.Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey , 1993.
14.
Kiggundu, M.Task interdependence and the theory of job design . Academy of Management Review, 1981, 6, 499-508 .
15.
Kiggundu, M.Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1983, 31, 145-172 .
16.
Koch, C. & Buhl, H.ERP-supported teamworking in Danish manufacturing?New Technology, Work and Employment, 2001, 16, 164-177 .
17.
Liden, R. , Wayne, S. & Bradway, L.Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between group control and performance . Human Relations, 1997, 50, 169-181 .
18.
Manz, C.Self-leading work teams: Moving beyond self-management myths . Human Relations, 1992, 45, 1119-1140 .
19.
Marchington, M.Teamworking and employee involvement: Terminology, evaluation and context. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan , 2000, pp. 60-80.
20.
Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A.Direct participation. In S. Bach & K. Sisson (Eds), Personnel management: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice, 3rd edn.Oxford: Blackwell , 2000, pp. 340-364.
21.
Mueller, F.Teams between hierarchy and commitment: Change strategies and the ‘internal environment’ . Journal of Management Studies, 1994, 31, 383-404 .
22.
Mueller, F. , Procter, S. & Buchanan, D.Teamworking in its context(s): Antecedents, nature and dimensions . Human Relations, 2000, 53, 1387-1424 .
23.
Parker, S. , Wall, T. & Cordery, J.Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2001, 74, 413-440 .
24.
Procter, S. , Hassard, J. & Rowlinson, M.Introducing cellular manufacturing: Operations, human resources and high-trust dynamics . Human Resource Management Journal, 1995, 5, 46-64 .
25.
Procter, S. & Mueller, F.Teamworking: Strategy, structure, systems and culture. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan , 2000, pp. 3-24.
26.
Saavedra, R. , Earley, P. & Van Dyne, L.Complex interdependence in task-performing groups . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78, 61-72 .
27.
Shea, G. & Guzzo, R.Groups as human resources. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 1987a, pp. 323-356.
28.
Shea, G. & Guzzo, R.Group effectiveness: What really matters?Sloan Management Review, 1987b, Spring, 25-31 .
29.
Sinclair, A.The tyranny of a team ideology . Organization Studies, 1992, 13, 611-626 .
30.
Sprigg, C. , Jackson, P. & Parker, S.Production teamworking: The importance of interdependence and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction . Human Relations, 2000, 53, 1519-1543 .
31.
Thompson, J.Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1967.
32.
Thompson, P. & Wallace, T.Redesigning production through teamworking: Case studies from the Volvo Truck Corporation . International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1996, 16, 103-118 .
33.
Wageman, R.Interdependence and group effectiveness . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40, 145-180 .
34.
Whitfield, K. & Poole, M.Organizing employment for high performance: Theories, evidence and policy . Organization Studies, 1997, 18, 745-764 .
35.
Wilkinson, A.Empowerment: Theory and practice . Personnel Review, 1998, 27, 40-56 .
36.
Womack, J. , Jones, D. & Roos, D.The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates , 1990.
