Positive accounts of teamwork emphasise its potential not just to improve organisational performance, but to transform employees' experience of work in overwhelmingly positive ways. The key outcome is said to be enhanced employee discretion, which in turn contributes to satisfaction, commitment and positive views of management. Critical accounts of teamwork, which locate the phenomenon in the context of the labour process argue that enhanced organisational performance from teams results from an undermining of employee discretion, which contributes to work intensification and increased stress for employees. Differences between the two accounts have not been resolved, in part because of the fact that neither model has been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny using reliable large-scale statistical data which allow generalisations to be made about the impact of team membership on employees. Utilising the data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS98) it is possible to identify team members and non-members and to compare them in terms of discretion, commitment, satisfaction, relations with management, and stress. The analysis shows no statistically significant association between team membership and any of the outcome variables and on this basis, both positive and critical accounts are called into question.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appelbaum, E. , Bailey, T.Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
2.
Baldry, C. , Bain, P. and Taylor, P. (1998) “Bright Satanic Offices': Intensification, Control and Team Taylorism', Thompson, P. and C. Warhurst (eds.) Workplaces of the Future, London: Macmillan, 163-183.
3.
Barker, J. (1993) `Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams', Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.
4.
Barker, J. (1999) The Discipline of Teamwork: Participation and Concertive Control, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
5.
Batt, R. and Appelbaum, E. (1995) `Worker Participation in Diverse Settings: Does the Form Affect the Outcome, and If So, Who Benefits?', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 3, 353-378.
6.
Benders, J. and van Hootegem, G. (1999) `Teams and their Context: Moving the Team Discussion Beyond Existing Dichotomies', Journal of Management Studies, 36, 5, 609-628.
7.
Benders, J. , Huijgen, F., Pekruhl, U. and O'Kelly, K. (1999) Useful but Unused - Groupwork in Europe: Findings from the EPOC Survey, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
8.
Cohen, S. and Ledford, G. (1994) `The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-Experiment', Human Relations, 47, 1, 13-44.
9.
Cohen, S. , Ledford, G., and Spreitzer, G. (1996) `A Predictive Model of Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness', Human Relations, 49, 5, 643-676.
10.
Corderey, J. , Mueller, W. and Smith, L. (1991) `Attitudinal and Behavioural Effects of Autonomous Group Working: A Longitudinal Field Study', Academy of Management Journal, 34, 2, 464-476.
11.
Cully, M. (1998) A Study in Transition: The Design of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Department of Trade and Industry.
12.
Cully, M. , Woodland, S., O'Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at Work, London: Routledge.
13.
Cummings, T. (1978) `Self-Regulating Work Groups: A Socio-Technical Synthesis', Academy of Management Review, 3, 3, 625-634.
14.
Danford, A. (1998) `Work Organisation Inside Japanese Firms in South Wales: A Break from Taylorism?', Thompson, P. and C. Warhurst (eds.) Workplaces of the Future, London: Macmillan, 40-64.
15.
Delbridge, R. , Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000) `Worker Autonomy in Lean Teams: Evidence from the World Automotive Components Industry', in Procter, S. and F. Mueller (eds.) Teamworking, London: Macmillan.
16.
Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B. (1996) `Teams: Panaceas or Prescriptions for Improved Performance?', Human Relations, 49, 5, 677-699.
17.
Findlay, P. , McKinlay, A., Marks, A. and Thompson, P. (2000) “Flexible When it Suits Them': the Use and Abuse of Teamwork Skills', in Procter, S. and F. Mueller (eds.) Teamworking, London: Macmillan.
18.
Goodman, P. , Devadas, S. and Hughson, T. (1988) `Groups and Productivity: Analysing the Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams', in J. Campbell, R. Campbell and Associates (eds.), Productivity in Organisations, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
19.
Harley, B. (1999) `The Myth of Empowerment: Work Organisation, Hierarchy and Employee Autonomy in Contemporary Australian Workplaces', Work Employment and Society, 13, 1, 41-66.
20.
Janz, B. , Colquitt, J. and Noe, R. (1997) `Knowledge Worker Team Effectiveness: The Role of Autonomy, Interdependence, Team Development and Contextual Support Variables', Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904.
21.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organisation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
22.
Marchington, M. (2000) `Teamworking and Employee Involvement: Terminology, Evaluation and Context', in Procter, S. and F. Mueller (eds.) Teamworking, London: Macmillan.
23.
McCabe, D. (2000) `The Team Dream: the Meaning and Experience of Teamworking for Employees in an Automobile Manufacturing Company', in Procter, S. and F. Mueller (eds.) Teamworking, London: Macmillan.
24.
Moravec, M. (1999) `Self-Managed Teams', Executive Excellence, 16, 10, 18.
25.
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) (2000) Guide to Analysis of the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1998, London: NIESR.
26.
Neck, C. , Connerley, M., Zuniga, C. and Goel, S. (1999) `Family Therapy Meets Self-Managing Teams: Explaining Self-Managing Team Performance Through Team Member Perceptions', The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 35, 2, 245-259.
27.
Pil, F. and MacDuffie, J. (1996) `The Adoption of High-Involvement Work Practices', Industrial Relations, 35, 3, 423-455.
28.
Procter, S. and Mueller, F. (2000) `Teamworking: Strategy, Structure, Systems and Culture', in Procter, S. and F. Mueller (eds.) Teamworking, London: Macmillan.
29.
Ramsay, H. , Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. (2000) `Employees and High Performance Work Systems: Testing Inside the Black Box', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 4, 501-533.
30.
Sewell, G. (1998) `The Discipline of Teams: The Control of Team-based Industrial Work through Electronic and Peer Surveillance', Administrative Science Quarterly, 43,. 397-428.
31.
Sewell, G. (1999) What Goes Around Comes Around: Inventing a Mythology of Empowerment, Department of Management Working Paper in Human Resource Management, Employee Relations and Organisation Studies, number 7, Parkville: University of Melbourne.
32.
Singelmann, J. and Mencken, F. (1992) `Job Autonomy and Industrial Sector in Five Advanced Industrial Countries', Social Science Quarterly, 73, 4, 829-843.
33.
Spreitzer, G. , Cohen, S. and Ledford, G. (1999) `Developing Effective Self-Managing Work Teams in Service Organisations', Group and Organisation Management, 24, 3, 340-366.
34.
Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. (1995) Work Organisation: A Critical Introduction (second edn), London: Macmillan.
35.
Trist, E. and Bamforth, K. (1951) `Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal Getting', Human Relations, 4, 3-38.
36.
Wall, T. , Kemp, N., Jackson, P. and Clegg, C. (1986) `Outcomes of Autonomous Work Groups: A Long-Term Field Experiment', Academy of Management Journal, 29, 2, 280-304.
37.
Wood, S. (1999) `Human Resource Management and Performance', International Journal of Management Reviews, 1, 4, 367-413.
38.
Wood, S. and de Menezes, L. (1998) `High Commitment Management in the UK: Evidence from the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey and Employers' Manpower and Skills Practices Survey', Human Relations, 51, 4, 485-515.
39.
Yeatts, D. and Hyten, C. (1998) High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bill Harley
