Self‐organizing groups: conditions and constraints in a sociotechnical perspective

Abstract

An increased level of self‐organization, particularly in autonomous work teams, is widely believed to be a necessary part of a successful firm and a factor in many modern restructuring initiatives. This article investigates the limitations of self‐organized groups and surveys these limitations from two important perspectives: (1) limits that are inherent to the production structure and equipment, and (2) limits that relate to the firm’s workforce. With respect to the first issue, the predictability of markets and the standardization of production situations provide strong reasons for limiting the opportunities for self‐organization. In terms of a firm’s workforce, problems such as learning capability, motivation, identity, ambition, and prestige must be taken into account before introducing self‐organizational practices. Additionally, the delegation of authority, the resulting redundancy of middle managers and the relevant compensation for the workers concerned must also be considered. In conclusion, self‐organizing teams relate to many constraints, all of which should be considered before putting these teams into practice.

Which conditions foster high-involvement work processes? A synthesis of the literature and agenda for research

“…In the Netherlands, the STS movement placed emphasis on the design of ‘whole-task groups’, in which substantial control over the production process was passed to teams of workers (e.g. De Sitter et al, 1997; Van der Zwaan and Molleman, 1998).…”

“…The value of particular types of work design – such as job enrichment or autonomous work groups – is not likely to be treated as an independent theoretical question but as an element in constructing the wider production system (Fenton-O’Creevy, 1998). Management will not necessarily support a high level of individual autonomy if it undermines performance in a highly interdependent team (Langfred, 2005), nor will management necessarily support autonomous groups if they create problems for inter-group coordination, depressing the efficiency and flexibility of the larger productive unit (Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen, 2012; Van der Zwaan and Molleman, 1998). The level of interdependence within a production system has major implications for the kind of employee involvement that management will consider useful.…”

“…A second line of argument is based on the degree of uncertainty that production entails (e.g. Brass, 1985; Clegg, 1984; March and Simon, 1958; Van der Zwaan and Molleman, 1998). This suggests that managers favour greater levels of worker autonomy when uncertainty cannot be engineered out of the production process.…”

Fostering the high‐involvement model of human resource management: what have we learnt and what challenges do we face?

“…Third, in parallel with this longstanding interest in practice, intellectual enquiry into high-involvement working enjoys a long history, including the pioneering theorisation of participative management in the Wisconsin School of institutional economics in the 1910s and 1920s (Kaufman 2001). A strong strain of support emerged in the 1950s in the theory of socio-technical work systems (STS), which encouraged greater employee control through autonomous or semi-autonomous work groups (also known as self-managing or self-directed teams) (Trist and Bamforth 1951;Van Der Zwaan and Molleman 1998;Winterton 1994). More recent intellectual influences include the job characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham 1980) in which 'job enrichment' through a process of enhancing autonomy (among other factors) is argued to foster employee motivation, learning and satisfaction, and the German action theory of work psychology, which argues that greater control allows employees to develop strategies to deal with specific situations and grow their capabilities (e.g.…”

Toward a Dynamic Description of the Attributes of Organizational Change

“…Sashkin (1984) even called it an ethical imperative. The STS approach emphasizes the democratization of the corporation by transferring real power to selfmanaging teams (Elden, 1986;van Eijnatten & van der Zwaan, 1998;van der Zwaan & Molleman, 1998;Van Hootegem, Benders, Delarue, & Procter, 2005). Dunphy and Stace maintain that each type of change requires a proper leadership style.…”