|
Article Excerpt
The present study aims to investigate the impact of self-directed group work (1) on team competence. With the increasing popularity of self-directed work teams in organizations, research has begun to examine consequences of self-directed team work. Researchers have linked self-directed work teams to productivity, behavioural outcomes (e.g. absenteeism, turnover) and job-related attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational commitment) with varying degrees of success (2) (for an overview, see Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhil, & Richards, 2000). Furthermore, the contribution of self-directed group work to the development of competence is frequently referred to in relevant theorizing (e.g. Frohlich & Pekruhl, 1996; Hackman, 1987; Locke & Wagner, 1997; Wegge, 2000). However, although the development of competence is assumed when self-regulating work groups are introduced, competence is not considered as a process or dependent variable in existing studies (for an overview, see Sundstrom et al., 2000). This is particularly true for the group level of analysis.
Thus, it remains uncertain what teams really learn in self-directed group work and what the fundamental elements that promote work-related competence in self-directed teams actually are. In the current paper, I address this issue by investigating the relationship between participation and competence. Therefore, I first compare the team competence of traditional work groups with that of self-directed work groups. Second, I assess the self-managing teams with respect to six work characteristics identified by Frieling, Freiboth, Henniges, and Saager (1997) and relate these characteristics to team competence. The aim of the current study is to provide empirical evidence regarding the impact of self-directed work on competence at the group level of analysis.
Theoretical background
Focusing on the relationship between participation (3) and human performance, researchers assume that process as well as outcomes have to be considered (Campbell, Glasser, & Oswald, 1996). Process-oriented approaches concentrate on knowledge, attitudes and behaviour that yield performance outcomes (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999; McIntyre & Salas, 1995). A process-oriented model that both emphasizes human resources and describes a relationship between participation, competence and performance outcomes is the human resource model (HRM). The HRM presumes that participation results in a better utilization of the human potential, which in turn leads to superior performance (Miles, 1965). Thus, the model could be regarded as a concrete specification of an input-process-output model of group effectiveness (e.g. Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hackman, 1986; Hackman & Morris, 1975).
The relationship between participation and competence, the first part of the HRM, is supported by basic statements regarding learning potential in the job at the individual level of analysis. Involving employees in decision-making processes and in designing the working environment calls upon and promotes their competencies more than carrying out highly structured tasks. In combination with a high degree of decision latitude, learning will occur (cf. Baitsch & Frei, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987; Karasek, 1979), At the individual level, it can be shown that individuals with greater activity latitude, higher task variety, greater transparency as well as more opportunity for participation in the organization rate their levels of competence to be higher (cf. Bergmann, 2000). With the exception of these individual-level analyses using subjective ratings, however, there is little empirical evidence on the impact of participation on competence.
Nonetheless, it can be assumed that the participation granted to teams promotes competence at the group level. Self-directed teamwork stands for the change from behaviour-oriented to result-oriented management. Under behaviour-oriented management, which refers to traditional group work, work teams are directed by supervisors who decide what is done, how it is done and who does it. Under result-oriented management, which refers to self-directed group work, the team itself is left to decide how best to attain the goals set by management. Thus, decision latitude (cf. Langfred, 2000) and 'complete working acts' (Hacker, 1978, 1985; Volpert, 1990) as a result of self-directed team work emerge primarily for the team as a whole and not for the individual team member. Using self-reporting measures at the group level of analysis, Druskat and Kayes (1999) showed empirically in two small samples of 22 production and 11 maintenance teams that autonomy was positively related with cross-boundary team competencies in all teams and with proactive problem-solving in the maintenance teams. Therefore, I assume that self-directed teamwork provides the framework and determines the development of team competence.
Before formulating concrete hypotheses, I will clarify what I mean by competencies in teams in terms of three specific aspects: (1) competence as a group-level variable, (2) the relation to demands and action and (3) the facets of competence.
Competence as a group-level variable
Competence is interpreted as a more or less specialized system of abilities, proficiencies or skills, which enables a person, team or organization to act and react when completing concrete and familiar as well as novel working tasks (for an overview, see Weinert, 2001). If the conventional approach to identifying competence is used, the primary unit will be the individual. The team-level construct 'team competence' emerges from the lower level construct 'individual competence'. Team and individual competence have similar meanings across levels, However, the processes across levels are not entirely isomorphic. There are reciprocal relationships: team-level competence will be influenced by individual-level competence and vice versa. From a system theory point of view, treating groups as equivalent to individuals implies that the whole is considered as the sum of the individual group members and that these individuals are independent of each other. However, group members interact with each other. Through interaction, the behaviour, knowledge, attitudes and opinions of individual team members are mutually influenced, thus changing the group as a system (Bergius, 1976). Moreover, one feature of teams is their ability to compensate for the lack of competence in individual members by calling upon those of other team members. This idea corresponds with more recent reflections from action theory, which views groups as units: 'Groups are acting as units, they act as a whole. They exist to act and they cease to exist if they cease to act' (Cranach, 1996, p. 150). Competence, similar to group process, occurs simultaneously at the group level and at the individual level. However, in the present study I focus solely on the team (group-level) competence.
Demand and action relation: Assessment setting
Competence occurs in the performance context of the workplace when successfully coping with concrete job requirements (cf. Fischer, Bullock, Rotenberg, & Raya, 1993; Kozlowski et al., 1999). Therefore, competencies cannot be defined and examined abstractly. To measure team competence, a team setting in which competencies are linked to coping with concrete, relevant working tasks has to be identified. Meetings in which team members are expected to solve work process problems, increase cost effectiveness and improve workplace design are fundamental elements of teamwork (cf. Frieling et al., 1997); further, they fulfil these requirements. These 'optimization discussions' are central to various management programmes (e.g. total quality management, continuous improvement schemes, organizational learning and knowledge management).
Facets of competence
The definition of competencies is not consistent across scholars (for an overview, see Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). In the following I will focus on the classification into professional, methodological, social and self-competence, which shows a clear analogy with the theoretically based systematization of learning outcomes from vocational training programmes (cf. Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). Arguably, optimization discussions allow teams to exhibit each of these four facets of competence.
Self-directed group work and facets of competence
As mentioned before, I assume that self-directed teamwork is beneficial to team competence; but are positive effects to be expected on all four facets of competence, or only on particular areas?
Professional competence
Professional competence is regarded as the sum of organizational-, process-, task- and workplace-specific professional skills and knowledge of a team. Moreover, the ability to classify and to assess organizational knowledge, to identify problems and to generate solutions is an integral part of professional team competence. The implementation of self-directed teamwork enhances the group's field of responsibility. Professional competence of teams is increased on the one hand by access to information about order processing, material availability and production capacity, and on the other hand by communication and argumentation within the group as well as with interface areas. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Self-managing teams show more professional competence than traditionally managed teams,
Methodological competence
Methodological competence describes the ability of a team to make means and resources available and to use them for the accomplishment of tasks. Methodological competence is revealed when the team structures tasks by, for example, introducing procedural suggestions, establishing priorities or visualizing main topics. Structuring is often considered as an appropriate measure to minimize process loss in group work (Steiner, 1972). Because the emphasis in self-directed workgroups has shifted from how the work is done to results-achieved, self-directed teamwork, there is a greater need for thorough structuring of the group. I therefore hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Self-managing teams show more methodological competence than traditionally managed teams.
Social...
|
