Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

Work team performance over time: three case studies of South African manufacturers
Anton W. Grtter a, , Joy M. Field b,1 , Norman H.B. Faull c,2
a

Department of Management, University of the Western Cape, P.O. Box X17, 7535 Bellville, Cape Town, South Africa b Wallace E. Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA c Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, 7701 Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa

Abstract In this paper, we report on three case studies of South African manufacturing rms that made signicant efforts to implement shopoor improvement teams. Following Merediths [J. Operat. Manage. 16 (1998) 441] suggestion to use case studies as a basis for theory formulation, insights from the cases were used to extend existing theory by generating hypotheses pertaining to the timing and sustainability of performance gains following the implementation of performance improvement teams, focusing, in particular on ongoing performance improvement teams. Because of the richness of the case study data, we delve deeper than other studies into the actions of teams and management to better understand how and why successful performance improvement teams evolve as they do. Stated in temporal order, our main hypotheses are: work team engagement is positively associated with early implementation credibility-building activities; both outcome-orientation and substantive participation are positively associated with a rapid rate of performance gains; and team institutionalization is positively associated with sustaining performance gains. The ndings of the case studies and the associated hypotheses are summarized in a time-phased framework for work team implementation. Limitations and directions for further research are discussed. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
JEL classication: M11 business administration: production management Keywords: Work teams; Manufacturing; Case study research

1. Introduction The realization that constructive involvement of shopoor employees is critical to the success of operationsin particular, operations managed on the basis of the principles of management approaches such as world class manufacturing (WCM) (Schonberger, 1996) or lean production (Womack and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +27-21-959-3682; fax: +27-21-959-3219. E-mail addresses: agrutter@uwc.ac.za (A.W. Grtter), eldjo@bc.edu (J.M. Field), nfaull@gsb.uct.ac.za (N.H.B. Faull). 1 Tel.: +617-552-0442; fax: +617-552-0433. 2 Tel.: +27-21-406-1433; fax: +27-21-406-1096.

Jones, 1996)has led to a continuing interest in work teams by practitioners and researchers. This paper attempts to identify the key characteristics of the successful implementation of performance improvement work teams at three manufacturing rms in South Africa and to distil them into a number of hypotheses related to their effect on performance over time. The research arose out of the Best Practice Initiative (BPI) of the Manufacturing Roundtable, a research unit at the Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town. The objective of the larger project was to research the adoption of shopoor improvement teams and to disseminate the capability to improve shopoor work practices by way of training workshops and the

0272-6963/02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 6 9 6 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 1 - 1

642

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

reporting of research ndings (Faull et al., 1996). The case studies reported on in this paper were researched as part of the Effectiveness of Shopoor Improvement teams (ESIT) project which arose out of the BPI to specically investigate the role of shopoor improvement teams on operational performance. One purpose of the ESIT study was to gain insights into the longitudinal nature of operational performance following the implementation of performance improvement teams. With the exception of a few studies (e.g. Banker et al., 1996; Grifn, 1988), empirical research on the effect of work teams on operational performance over time is sparse. Further, while a number of theoretical frameworks exist that are either explicitly or implicitly suggestive of the longitudinal nature of work team implementation (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; Marks et al., 2001; Mohrman and Novelli, 1985; Yeatts and Hyten, 1998), the frameworks do not specically address ongoing performance improvement work teams that are found in most manufacturing environments and, increasingly, in service environments as well. The ubiquity of ongoing performance improvement work teams requires a theoretical framework that, while incorporating the contributions of previous frameworks, is tailored to these teams and directly informs the actions of both the team members and management. It was decided to undertake the research in two phases. In the rst phase, we used case studies to document the experience at rms where signicant efforts had been made to implement performance improvement teams. The objective of this phase was to extend current theory by generating hypotheses of what makes for effective teams over time. Thereafter, the second phase of research is intended to test the hypotheses generated in the rst phase by way of further case studies complemented with quantitative data. This paper does not report on the second phase of research. The word shopoor refers to teams that work mostly in direct production, and therefore, excludes strategic management and other teams at higher organizational levels. Improvement is any change of the production process or work practices to improve an operational performance parameter, whether in terms of productivity, quality, time-based, or other kind of performance outcome. Teams can exist for a few days or many years. However, for the purpose of this

phase of the investigation, rigorous qualifying criteria (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) for work teams were not applied. In two of the cases, the teams were permanent shift-based teams that met at the beginning or during their shifts. In the third case, the teams were non-permanent teams that undertook process or work practice improvement assignments as part of a permanent program of process improvement by these teams. In all cases, the objective of the teams was to improve operational performance. Comparing the three cases provides a basis for developing hypotheses associated with performance improvement teams. The rst and third cases are characterized by team continuity in terms of their membership and long-term orientation. While the second case lacks these types of continuity, the performance improvement mandate underlying the formation of the non-permanent teams is, in fact, a permanent feature of the environment. Thus, the three cases provide an opportunity to better understand implementation differences between ongoing and project-oriented improvement teams. Other differences among the cases include varying managerial tactics of implementation, implementation environments, and work team composition. Yet, all cases have been judged as successful examples of work team implementation. In this study, we aim to understand, despite the differences among these teams, which common characteristics can help explain this.

2. Literature review A review of existing frameworks relating work teams to operational performance can be found in Yeatts and Hyten (1998). Most of the theoretical models reviewed by them have an inputprocessoutput (IPO) structure in which the constructs and relationships are represented in varying degrees of complexity. These frameworks are suggestive of the importance of a common understanding of the role and goals of the teams between the teams themselves and the organization in which they operate. Researchers have found that inputs to the teams, such as role and goal clarity, rewards and (dis)incentives, resource availability, and organizational support, should be in alignment with the organizational goals in order to achieve the desired outputs (Gladstein, 1984;

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

643

Hackman, 1987; Klein and Sorra, 1996; Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). Focusing, in particular, on the introduction and early implementation of changes, Nutt (1986) delineates four general categories of implementation tactics (i.e. inputs) used by managers, including implementation by intervention (key executives justify the need for change), participation (stakeholder representatives determine change features), persuasion (experts attempt to sell a change they devise), and edict (sponsors issue directives requiring adoption). Measuring success as the adoption of the change, Nutt nds the highest success rate for the intervention tactic, with mixed results for the other tactics. While the IPO structure points to a longitudinal process, these frameworks do not address the cyclical nature of ongoing performance improvement teams that move from project to project as previous projects are completed. Further, they do not address the changing nature of the inputs, process, and outputs as the team matures. One recent framework that incorporates the cyclical nature of ongoing performance improvement teams is the recurring phase model of team processes (Marks et al., 2001). The framework is based on the idea that teams perform in goal-directed IPO cycles or episodes where episodes are dened as distinguishable periods of time over which performance accrues and feedback is available (Marks et al., 2001, p. 359). Outputs from earlier cycles can serve as inputs to subsequent cycles after transition periods in which the team evaluates the outcomes of the previous action (i.e. taskwork) cycle. For example, learning from a previous action cycle can serve as an input into the next action cycle, thereby most likely improving its performance outcome. In terms of the cumulative performance over time, this framework is consistent with the performance improvement S-curve (Banker et al., 1996), in which teams get better at making performance improvements as they mature. In their work, on quality circles, Mohrman and Novelli (1985) propose two general models of the causal relationship between work team processes and performance outcomes. In the rst model, implementation of improvement ideas is the precursor to productivity improvement. In the second model, job satisfaction and worker motivation are presumed to lead to improved productivity. Most

empirical evidence tends to support the rst model (e.g. Anderson et al., 1995; Latham and Steele, 1983; Tanskanen et al., 1998). Despite the contributions these models make to understanding the processes by which work teams achieve performance gains, they do not address longitudinal issues such as the timing and sustainability of performance gains (i.e. the performance trajectory). However, in light of Lawler and Mohrmans (1989) report that initiatives to introduce quality circles tend to fade after an initial honeymoon period of 1824 months, it is necessary to address these issues. This need is further highlighted by the results of a meta-analysis study by Locke and Schweiger (1979), which found that while job satisfaction increased in most of the studies of employee participation that they analyzed, they found improved job performance in only a minority of the studies. While the study by Mohrman and Novelli (1985) and subsequent empirical research support the critical role of work teams for implementing improvement ideas for achieving performance gains, the issues of timing and sustainability of performance gains require a more detailed understanding of the work team environment, team characteristics, and actions of the team and managementall of which, as suggested by Marks et al. (2001), are changing over time. One study that specically addresses the timing of performance gains following work team implementation and the moderating effects of work team environment and team characteristics over time is Banker et al. (1996). They proposed that the introduction of work teams could be viewed as a soft technology. As such, performance outcomes would be subject to the same S-curve phenomenon associated with performance gains over time experienced with the introduction of hard technologies. As with the other empirical studies cited earlier, they found that performance gains stemmed directly from the implementation of improvement ideas (i.e. Mohrman and Novellis rst model). However, the work team environment, team characteristics, and actions of the team and management all impact the timing of the performance trajectory. In a follow-up study exploring the sustainability of performance gains, Banker et al. (2001) suggest environmental and team characteristics that promote sustainable performance gains include mandated team membership,

644

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

decision-making authority, and management involvement and support. The intent of this study is to delve still deeper into the actions of the team and management to better understand how and why successful performance improvement teams evolve as they do. For this purpose, we examine the cases of three South African manufacturers that implemented performance improvement teams. A number of researchers suggest a case study approach when, as in this case, theory development is the primary objective (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). For example, Meredith (1998) contrasts rationalist and case research and characterizes the two approaches as objective versus interpretative. Rationalist research focuses on explaining what happens and how, and proceeds primarily by means of methodologies based on quantitative analysis. Case study and eld research aim at understanding why phenomena happen and use both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis. Meredith suggests that case study and eld research are better suited to generating or extending theory because these research methods help the researcher to understand the principles underpinning the events and mechanisms identied by rationalist research. By contrast, the strength of rationalist research is to test theory by conrming or disproving the predictions made on the basis of theory. Further, case studies may actually be the best way to examine highly varied implementation situations, such as those found with shopoor improvement teams (McCutcheon and Meredith, 1993). The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief discussion of the South African national context and rm specic circumstances is presented. Second, the case studies are reported. Third, case study based hypotheses are delineated. Finally, conclusions, contributions to the literature, limitations, and future research directions are offered.

3. The South African and rm context Developments in South African industry generally reect the socio-political context of the time. Prior to the political emancipation of the country, the previous government followed a policy of inward industrialization with the purpose of becoming self-sufcient in most of its industrial needs. Also, the country was

subject to international sanctions. Among many other consequences, this led to the isolation of the South African manufacturing industry. As a consequence, local companies were late in the adoption of contemporary operations management approaches such as world class manufacturing (WCM) and lean production. Since the early 1990s, a policy of export orientation has been adopted and was reected in South Africa becoming a signatory to the World Trade Organizations regime of tariff reductions. Increased competition and the inuence of multinational rms led to an increase in the adoption of contemporary operations management approaches. However, tariff reductions have also led to stiff competition from overseas rms, and employment in the manufacturing sector has fallen badly behind the growth in new entrants to the job market (Bhorat and Hodge, 1999). In the three companies studied, employee involvement was seen as particularly important, primarily because operational performance improvement was expected from involving shopoor employees in process improvement initiatives. However, in two of the three cases, most shopoor employees were black, and these initiatives were also seen as a form of social empowerment. The involvement of black shopoor employees was a major challenge, given the historical under-investment in the education of black people, and poor industrial relations. Other than these challenges, the three companies studied operated in much the same way as conventional rst world corporations. All the rms where the case studies were conducted were well-established manufacturers with large complements of shopoor employees. DrinksCo was one of the packaging plants of a manufacturer of beverages. CarCo was a vehicle assembler. BoxCo fabricated and assembled jet engine gearboxes. All the plants were unionized. While the introduction of teams formed part of larger organizational restructuring initiatives at DrinksCo and BoxCo, there were no other initiatives such as the introduction of new technology, that signicantly affected the performance outcomes. The three operations chosen for the case studies represented different process types to extend the scope of the investigation. At DrinksCo, we studied the introduction of a team-based work organization on a high-volume bottling line that runs continuously. The case study at CarCo focused on its program of team-based workshops aimed at making process

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

645

improvements on an assembly line. At BoxCo, we documented the implementation of teams responsible for machining the components of aircraft gearboxes. The cases are based on eldwork by one of the authors who visited the three rms several times over a period of 2 years to collect data. The primary data consisted of handwritten notes of open-ended interviews with the managers most directly involved in the initiatives, support staff (such as human resource managers and training staff), and union representatives. Team meetings were observed, and the team leader and members were interviewed in their work environment. Company documents and performance data were also collected and studied. The nal draft of each of the cases was sent to the senior manager responsible for the area in which the research was conducted to check factual accuracy and authorize release of the case. 4. The case studies Summaries of the three case studies are presented later. The full case studies are available from the corresponding author. 4.1. DrinksCo DrinksCo held the dominant market share in the country. It was known as a progressive company with a reputation for seeing projects through and was held in high regard by analysts. The introduction of a new work organization on the high-speed lling line of the DrinksCo plant was one of the nal phases of an unfolding strategic plan by the company that started several years earlier with the formulation of a manufacturing strategy for the companys operations. This led to a production upgrade initiative, which initially focused on quality and later evolved to a WCM initiative encompassing the documentation of best operating practices (BOP). An integrated management process, which incorporated an annual planning cycle, improved communication with employees. At the same time, a performance management system was implemented. Benchmarking against plants overseas led to the conclusion that a similar or better level of performance could only be achieved with people with higher skill levels and a team-based work organization. The union at the plant, with a total of approximately 600 employees, was consulted before the process to

change the work organization commenced. A representative steering committee was formed where all obstacles to the implementation of the initiative were dealt with. The company management emphasized from the outset that the initiative was considered essential to the future of the business. Therefore, its implementation was driven hard, although a lot of effort was made to involve employees early in the process. For instance, during the planning phase a study group consisting of management and employee representatives went on a study tour to overseas plants and the International Labor Organization. The company also agreed to pay for consultants to advise the union on how to respond to the restructuring proposals. Prior to the changes, all employees of the company were given basic education and work skills training where necessary to address the poor skill level of the workforce. A talent audit throughout the company (which included a component on propensity for teamwork) identied high potential individuals from the shopoor. The company made a big investment in the individuals who were assigned to pilot the new team-based form of work organization on one of the lling lines before all the other lines were also re-organized into teams. They were taken off normal production for several months and given extensive training in machine operation, process quality and performance maintenance, interpersonal skills, and the principles of world class manufacturing. These employees requested, and received, pay at the highest grading in lieu of their shift-work bonus while they were being trained. When they returned to the line, the new team-based work organization was introduced. The 60 employees on the pilot line were divided into four shift-based teams to run the line on a 24/7 schedule. At the same time, the number of people on a shift was reduced by 28%, although wage costs increased due to the higher job grades in the new structure. Maintenance and quality staff were incorporated into the shift teams, and problem-solving as well as shift hand-over meetings were introduced. Team members were certied to run all the machines according to the BOP, as well as to perform basic quality and maintenance checks in their section. The teams themselves determined their work allocation. When production problems occurred, they were dealt with on the spot where possible. If the problem

646

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

could not be resolved at that time, it would be taken up at the team meetings. Improvement recommendations were logged and followed-up until implemented or escalated up to a multi-disciplinary team at the next higher level of management for resolution. Initially, the line manager facilitated team meetings, but he soon scaled down his involvement. As this was the pilot line for the new form of work organization in the company, all the related policies and job-grading systems had not yet been decided by the time teamwork was being implemented. To make provision for negotiating these issues, the steering committee addressed them at the same time as the new work organization was being implemented. Getting the line performance to improve was not easy or quick. The new work relations took time to establish, and there were a number of disagreements even heated exchangesamong team members until the new work order settled down. Relations between the team members and the rest of the work force at the plant were not easy either. The team members were perceived to have become part of an elite group with better job prospects, whereas a strong collective bargaining ethic still prevailed among the rest of the workforce. It took time for skilled employees who previously setup machines to share responsibilities. For instance, a suggestion was made to make special setting tools permanently available at the machine, where it was required. However, the technician responsible delayed acting (but eventually did act) on the recommendation, because he

was concerned that the machine would be set incorrectly. In spite of the above-mentioned difculties, the team members took to the new responsibilities devolved to them. Regular team meetings took place in paid time where discussion centered on performance review and process improvement. The team identied performance gaps and proposed solutions or the need for more information. The responsibility for resolving each gap was assigned to team members, with the status discussed at further meetings until it was resolved. They were involved in their suggestions being acted on, and it was said by one of the team members that he appreciated the management support. Even the motives of the technician who delayed making the setting tools available were accepted as well-intentioned after being discussed in the team meeting. The context in which the teams operated also changed. Human resource development and industrial relations policies were changed and re-negotiated to accommodate team-based work organization requirements. For example, pay grades were re-negotiated; job specications and titles were changed (e.g. from shift supervisor to team leader); performance assessment for shopoor employees was introduced; and shift schedules were changed. Shift hand-over meetings between team leaders were instituted to facilitate communication between teams. Despite the initial problems, after a year of working in the new way, Figs. 1 and 2 show that indicators

Fig. 1. Operating efciency at DrinksCo.

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

647

Fig. 2. Cullet waste at DrinksCo.

such as factory efciency and cullet (broken glass) waste had improved substantially. Subsequent to the period for which data was collected, it was reported that operating efciencies above the target level were consistently being achieved. 4.2. CarCo The plant at which the work team initiative took place was a local subsidiary of a multi-national car manufacturer. At the time of the initiative, it employed about 6000 employees and was producing about 60,000 vehicles per year on ve platforms (i.e. vehicles built on the same basic chassis). This made it a medium-sized plant with a high variety of models compared to the industry standard. Several years ago, a team-based method of workshops aimed at production process improvement was developed at the company headquarters. Annual targets for a certain number of improvement workshops to take place in the plant were decided, and line managers were assessed on whether they met the target. The line manager chose the problem or the area in which the workshop was to be conducted. The relevant staff and production employees (on average 12 employees per workshop) were then assigned to the workshop. They met intensively for 35 days to investigate, analyze and decide (by using continuous improvement tools such as Pareto analysis and cause-and-effect diagrams) what actions to take. Thereafter, they met as necessary to monitor implementation, as the originating team had the authority to get their suggestions implemented. Upon completion, they disbanded after giving a short presentation to

an audience which also included senior management representation. An example of a workshop project was addressing the problem of a supplier of pressed fender/bonnet/etc. body parts who was delivering parts that did not t properly with other parts on the line. The team determined that the source of the problem was poor maintenance of the dies for the parts at the vender. The teams solution was to arrange to bring back the maintenance of the dies to the maintenance shop at the assembly plant. The implementation of this solution resulted in signicantly improved quality of these parts. The plant adopted the improvement program on instructions from the parent company, as did all of its plants around the world. However, it was readily accepted and was high on the list of the local companys strategic objectives. Although there was no employee representative committee dedicated to the program, its implementation was negotiated with the union and an agreement had to be made that employees who became redundant as result of the improvement workshops would be re-deployed elsewhere in the plant, rather than be retrenched. Three staff members of the local plant went to the company headquarters for 3 weeks to learn the workshop methodology, and how to report the results of the workshops to the parent company. The local plant then established an ofce with one full-time industrial engineer and an assistant to administer the program. Three years after the program started, 80 part-time facilitators had been trained to conduct the workshops. After initially training full-time facilitators, it was found that part-time facilitators with knowledge of the production process in the area where the workshops

648

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

took place were more effective. The facilitator training consisted of participation in a workshop, 3.5 h of classroom training, and shadowing another facilitator during a workshop. The improvement workshops took place on paid time and included line operators as well as team leaders and technicians. Participants were given a brief introduction that lasted less than 1 h. The workshop started with an explanation of the competitive environment that the plant faced and why continuous improvement was necessary. Then the workshop methodology (an 11-step problem-solving and implementation process) was explained. It was emphasized that the steps should be followed closely and that the workshop should focus on a limited number of improvements that could be rapidly implemented with little expenditure. They then left the training room and started their investigation on the shopoor. The outcomes of the workshops were two-fold. Every single person interviewed at the factory spoke highly of the program, and process improvements were valued at several million Rand per annum (at the time 1 US$ was about 6 Rand). Numerous photographs on display at the program ofce and at the entrances to the plant showed smiling participants exhibiting their improvements. At a team presentation following the completion of a workshop one participant made the following statement: I am an operator, but what I learnt from this workshop, working with the industrial engineer and the production foreman, now makes me understand why industrial engineering are taking people out of the line and why the production foreman is always pushing for total production. I learnt that teamwork really works. If you go in with a positive attitude you will get positive results.
Table 1 Summary workshop statistics at CarCo Year 1 Number of workshops Quality (defect reduction) (%) Productivity (improvement) (%) Work in progress (reduction) (%) Throughput time (reduction) (%) 6 35.7 20.0 40.6 50.2

Now I am going to apply the principles of the methodology in the rest of my own life. An industrial engineer, who was also a part-time facilitator, reported that she was initially skeptical about whether the workshops would work, given the long history of difcult industrial relations at the plant. However, her view had clearly changed, and she spoke with great pride and enthusiasm of the results achieved in some of the workshops she had facilitated. She said the improvement workshops had gained a lot of credibility because of the heavy emphasis and company support for getting team suggestions implemented. Table 1 summarizes the recorded process improvements of the workshops over the rst 5 years of the program. These gures need to be interpreted with caution, as the baseline for the calculation of the percentage improvement was an estimate. Nevertheless, given the consistency of the direction of the results reported, there can be little doubt of the positive nature of the improvements. Part of the workshop reporting requirements was to make an estimate of the rst years savings as a result of the improvements implemented. These estimates are signed-off by an internal accountant and amounted to several million Rand each year. The savings claimed were conservative estimates given that the benets from the improvements would last longer than 1 year. The improvements were recorded for each workshop in a global database maintained by the head ofce. This not only served the purpose of sharing experiences among the other plants in the group, but also served as a monitoring mechanism. If the local plant did not regularly make inputs into the database, they could expect a call from the parent to inquire about progress. To ensure that the workshops were prioritized, it was included as an assessment item in the annual performance review of line managers.

Year 2 182 49.8 32.3 26.4 36.4

Year 3 71 58.2 41.7 23.7 32.8

Year 4 136 42.8 37.1 18.2 29.5

Year 5 103 44.4 21.1 21.0 21.0

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

649

At the time of doing the eldwork, the program ofce was extending its promotion of the improvement workshops not only into the indirect service and administration departments of the plant, but also to suppliers and even the dealer network of the company. 4.3. BoxCo BoxCo was a division of an arms manufacturing conglomerate that had undergone extensive restructuring before the implementation of work teams in the division. Previously, the company was wholly owned by the state and operated as an extension of the military complex in South Africa. Not only was the Department of Defense its sole customer during the years of military sanctions against the country, it also had an autocratic military style of management during those years. At its height during the 1960s, the conglomerate employed in excess of 14,000 employees. During the 1990s, South Africas political situation was normalized. Military operations were scaled down drastically, and sanctions were lifted. This presented both opportunities and signicant challenges. On the one hand, government expenditures on arms were slashed, and a policy to commercialize the enterprise was adopted. On the other hand, export markets opened up, but previously excluded competitors were now also able to compete in BoxCos home market. Considerable expertise had been built-up due to the need to be self-sufcient, and the ability to manufacture certain types of aircraft and helicopters from the ground up was considered a core competence. A dynamic divisional manager, who jumped at the opportunity to conclude a contract with one of the worlds leading manufacturers of jet engines, led the BoxCo division. While the quality and delivery specications were extremely tight, the contract was seen as an opportunity to break into a lucrative international market. Although very experienced technicians were operating the sophisticated machining equipment, a culture of responsibility avoidance and poor performance permeated the workplace. Further, after several rounds of severe cutbacks on employee numbers, morale was low. In order to turn perceptions about the restructuring process around, a re-engineering initiative was embarked on. It was made clear that after the number of employees within the BoxCo division had been

cut back from over 1500 people to about 600, no further retrenchment would take place as a result of the re-engineering process. Instead, there would be a focus on improving the manufacturing processes and support systems. In addition to a high-level Restructuring and Transformation Committee (RTC), a Permanent Negotiating Committee was formed where shopoor employee concerns could be dealt with. Financial statements and strategic plans were made available to the RTC so that they could make informed decisions. After a culture audit, it was realized that a radical change with respect to human resource management and work organization was necessary. A high-level project team undertook a strategic benchmarking project during which a number of overseas plants were visited. On the strength of their report and a survey of helicopter manufacturers conducted by a well-known American consultancy it was decided to: place much greater focus on their customers (internal and external); improve productivity and cycle time in the manufacturing process; break down functional hierarchies into crossfunctional teams; introduce new information and measurement systems to improve data distribution and decision making. In preparation for the implementation of work teams, the organizational layers in the division were reduced and new job specications were drafted. The new organizational chart showed teams as a permanent feature of the organizational structure. Internal applications were invited for the posts of team leader, and the applicants were screened against pre-set criteria using psychometric assessment and interviews to ensure their ability to lead teams. All employees were trained in teamwork and interpersonal skills and provided with education in business management. Everyone in a leadership position, from team leaders on up, was given transformational leadership training. At the time of doing the eldwork, a skills audit and training needs assessment system was being implemented to manage teamwork and team leadership skills needs. All employees on the shopoor were divided into teams according to the part of the process they worked in. They met briey every morning and afternoon in a

650

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

Fig. 3. Product features not to specication at BoxCo (as accepted by customer).

designated area to address obstacles to their production. These teams had decision-making authority over work allocation, scheduling and implementation of suggestions that did not require signicant resources. As at DrinksCo, each team identied problems and proposed solutions or the need for more information. Individual problems were assigned to team members to follow up and report back to the team for implementation. The walls of the meeting area were covered with information such as the teams code of conduct, work procedures, production schedules, and data on quality, delivery, and other performance parameters. There were before and after photographs of housekeeping initiatives and ipcharts with notes and diagrams of problem-solving and improvement projects. In part, the meetings focused on coordination of daily activities in order to achieve particular deadlines. This was due to about 25% of production at any time being expedited by means of an action plan. A group leader (coordinator of several teams) spent a lot of time chasing components required for gearboxes due for assembly. This problem was mostly due to unanticipated quality problems, but also because the MRP system did not always contain accurate information about stocks. The results of the workplace change initiative were encouraging. From 1 year to the next, the output of the division increased from 34 to 107 gearboxes (a more than three-fold increase with roughly the same number of employees). Lead time decreased from 7.5

months to 20 days (an 87% improvement), and quality improved dramatically as shown in Fig. 3. Given the crucial role of the technicians in achieving the extremely high specications and deadlines, it is fair to conclude that the teamwork on the shopoor played a signicant role in making these achievements possible. In his public and informal communications the divisional manager attributed these performance improvements to the new team-based work organization. 4.4. A comparison of the cases In the three cases, the initiatives appeared to be driven in different ways. At DrinksCo, the team managing the initiative was well resourced, and the implementation was based on an advanced system of best operating practices. At CarCo, the initiative was driven by the overseas head ofce through a sophisticated global database of the improvements recorded by all their plants. Despite a company-wide policy to transform the work organization in the corporation, at BoxCo, only the gearbox division, led by a charismatic leader, made the transition. Of the three companies, BoxCo was the only one experiencing any serious nancial difculties. In keeping with Nutts four tactics for implementation used by managers, an analysis of the cases nds a combination of intervention and participation tactics used by DrinksCo, edict and intervention tactics used by CarCo, and intervention and participation tactics by BoxCo.

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

651

Comparing the three cases provides a basis for developing hypotheses associated with ongoing performance improvement teams. Differences among the cases include varying managerial tactics of implementation, implementation environments (e.g. the three cases were different types of manufacturing operations), and work team composition (e.g. technicians at BoxCo versus less educated employees at CarCo). However, in all three cases, signicant efforts had been made, in terms of nancial investment and managerial time, to implement the respective initiatives. While all three performance improvement programs were permanent, in only two of the three cases (DrinksCo and BoxCo) were the teams themselves intended to be permanent. This provides an opportunity to compare the implementation characteristics of successful ongoing performance improvement teams with successful project-oriented teams that are part of a permanent performance improvement program. The hypotheses that follow, while focusing on ongoing performance improvement teams, reect the contingencies associated with these two team types.

Hypothesis 1. Work team engagement is positively associated with early implementation credibilitybuilding activities. Hypothesis 1a. Credibility-building activities associated with project-oriented teams will be primarily aimed at establishing credibility at the program level. Hypothesis 1b. Credibility-building activities associated with ongoing teams will be aimed at establishing credibility at both the work team and program levels. Hypothesis 1c. Work teams implemented in organizations with a history of abandoned work team initiatives will primarily engage in reactive credibility-building activities. Hypothesis 1d. Work teams implemented in organizations with no history of previous work team initiatives will primarily engage in proactive credibility-building activities. In Hypothesis 1, we distinguish between team formation (i.e. teams existing as an identiable organizational structure) and team engagement (i.e. initial efforts at goal-directed activities). Because the tactics of implementation varied among the teams, we cannot attribute team engagement to the implementation tactic directly. Further, while it is clear, based on past research and our observations, that role and goal clarity are important pre-conditions for work team engagement, they are not sufcient to explain engagement for ongoing performance improvement teams in particular. In fact, for these teams, the level of a priori goal clarity is limited because the actual performance improvement projects are determined later by the team. Rather, we observed something more fundamental in the actions of management and the teams, which we term credibility-building activities. Credibility-building activities are actions undertaken by management that indicate a real commitment to the stated goal or actions undertaken by team members to test that commitment. These activities take various forms, depending on whether the teams are project-oriented or ongoing, and whether the activities are proactive or reactive. While we saw credibility-building activities associated with each of the teams, fewer credibility-building

5. Case study-based hypotheses We follow a similar approach to that taken by Narasimhan and Jayaram (1998) in their development of a process model for re-engineering service operations, by developing propositions associated with the implementation of performance improvement teams. Because we had the opportunity to follow these teams over a long period of time, we were able to observe longitudinal characteristics and/or changes in both management and team actions. The three sets of hypotheses below summarize the main insights derived from the cases. The rst hypothesis addresses the early implementation period when teams initially engage (or fail to engage) in goal-directed activities. The second hypothesis is relevant to the ongoing activities of the team and the rate of performance gains. Finally, the third hypothesis addresses the sustainability of performance gains over time. As previously discussed, the contribution of this study is to extend existing theory by focusing on the actions of both management and teams to determine how and why successful performance improvement teams evolve as they do.

652

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

activities were in evidence at CarCo than at DrinksCo or BoxCo. Further, the activities at CarCo were mostly aimed at establishing credibility at the program level as opposed to credibility at the team level. Because the temporary project-oriented teams at CarCo had shifting team membership and a very high level of goal clarity (projects were pre-specied), establishing credibility at the program level is likely to be sufcient to also establish credibility at the team level (Hypothesis 1a). On the other hand, the performance improvement teams at DrinksCo and BoxCo, with less specic goals (just an overall performance improvement mandate), stable membership, and a long-term orientation, would benet from credibility-building activities at both the program and team levels (Hypothesis 1b). Examples of credibility-building activities at CarCo include: sending local plant managers overseas to the parent company to be trained in the methodology of team-based improvement workshops; establishing an ofce to support implementation of the team-based improvement workshops; and including the program of team-based improvement workshops in the companys strategic objectives. All of these activities are aimed at the program level. DrinksCo and BoxCo had credibility-building activities at both the program and team levels. Examples of credibility-building activities at the DrinksCo include: involving labor representatives in a study tour prior to the implementation of work teams; making a big up-front investment by taking the team members off production for several months while they received training; employees requesting and receiving pay at the highest grading in lieu of their shift-work bonus while being trained; management support to facilitate early team meetings; and forming a representative steering committee early in the team implementation process where employee and management concerns could be dealt with. At BoxCo, credibility-building activities include: forming a high-level RTC and Permanent Negotiating Committee, where shopoor employee concerns could be dealt with; encouraging transparency, for instance, by providing company nancial statements to these committees; providing training to all team members and training team leaders on transformational leadership; and allocating team leader positions in the new team-based work organization not on the basis of seniority, but through

pre-determined job specications and a transparent selection process in which equitable allocations were seen to be made. Performance improvement teams were new to these companies; none of them had a history of past, possibly failed, attempts at introducing work teams. It is instructive to contrast these teams with teams in another study by Banker et al. (2001), where teams were re-introduced after previous failed attempts, to further understand the range of credibility-building activities that are found with ongoing performance improvement teams. In the study by Banker et al. (2001), the discussion of the initial implementation phase suggests that credibility-building activities primarily took the form of team members testing managements commitment to team implementation. For example, early improvement ideas put forth by the team members tended to be focused on individual, rather than systemic, issues (e.g. replacing a tool or xing a broken chair). According to the authors of the study, the team members used managements response to these issues to assess whether management was really committed to work teams in light of the numerous instances in the past of programs being introduced and then abandoned (Hypothesis 1c). However, because the South African companies did not have a history of previous attempts at implementing performance improvement teams, this type of reactive credibility-building activities did not occur (Hypothesis 1d). Comparing the teams in this study to those in the Banker et al. (2001) study also sheds some light on the initial performance improvement trajectory. The case data suggest that the use of proactive credibility-building activities is likely to result in earlier work team engagement than the use of reactive credibility-building activities. This is also consistent with the Marks et al. (2001) framework in which the timing of outputs, such as work team engagement, is affected by the timing of inputs, such as credibility-building activities. Following work team engagement, the case studies provide further insights into the timing of performance gains resulting from the efforts of the team. These insights are formalized in Hypotheses 2, 2a and 2b. Hypothesis 2. Both an outcome-orientation and substantive participation are positively associated with a rapid rate of performance gains.

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

653

Hypothesis 2a. Interpersonal issues and team process disagreements are more likely to surface with ongoing performance improvement teams than with project-oriented teams. Hypothesis 2b. As a result, the level of outcomeorientation over time will exhibit greater variability for ongoing performance improvement teams than for project-oriented teams. The Mohrman and Novelli (1985) model, in which the implementation of improvement ideas leads to performance gains, has been supported by many empirical studies (e.g. Anderson et al., 1995; Latham and Steele, 1983; Tanskanen et al., 1998). Further, inputs such as rewards and (dis)incentives, resource availability, and organizational support in alignment with organizational goals have been associated with desired outcomes (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Klein and Sorra, 1996; Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). However, Hypotheses 2, 2a and 2b extend existing theory by focusing on the actions of the team to help explain how and why this model works, as well as the timing of performance gains. In particular, because performance gains are linked to the implementation of improvement ideas, Hypothesis 2 identies two key characteristics associated with the implementation of improvement ideas: outcome-orientation and substantive participation. The specic performance improvement objectives for each team differed, although they all centered on productivity and quality improvement. For example, the teams at BoxCo focused on the plants strategic priority of on-time delivery. We dene outcome-orientation as a focus on achieving performance objectives. Substantive participation is the ability of the team to make and implement decisions. When aiming for a rapid rate of performance gains, an outcome-orientation hastens both idea generation and implementation, and substantive participation hastens idea implementation. Based on our observations each team exhibited an outcome-orientation and substantive participation to varying degrees. In the case of CarCo, the one company where the teams were project-oriented rather than ongoing, an outcome-orientation was in evidence from the beginning of each workshop. This is not surprising because of the limited focus of the

improvement workshops and the associated high level of goal clarity. It is also notable that the workshop objectives were not set by the team members, but were assigned by the line manager, thereby limiting the potential for workshop objectives that were not focused on process or work practice improvements. Further, each workshop team had the authority to directly implement their ideas (up to a certain cost level that accommodated most ideas). This combination of a project-driven outcome-orientation and substantive participation accelerated both idea generation and implementation. While we did not observe multiple companies with project-oriented teams, we did observe many workshops within CarCo that all exhibited a high-level of outcome-orientation. The teams at DrinksCo and BoxCo followed a similar process for identifying performance problems and implementing improvement ideas. Their method of focusing meetings on performance problems (termed gaps by DrinksCo), assigning responsibility for resolving the problem, and discussing progress toward resolving the problems, indicates an outcome-orientation. Based on our observations, team records, and interviews, the teams in both cases had a decisive role in seeing that good ideas were implemented. At DrinksCo tasks such as simple quality checks and maintenance activities were devolved to the shopoor teams, and quality assurance and technical staff were incorporated into the teams to strengthen the teams capacity to handle these tasks. Hand-over meetings between shifts were introduced to coordinate activities and alert the next shift of potential problems. The shift team members also had regular shift meetings. Each shift team structured their team meetings around an operational performance report that alerted them to problem areas where performance needed to improve. Numerous suggestions were generated and documented, with the implementation monitored by the teams. All suggestions from shopoor teams were recorded and followed-up until implemented to the satisfaction of the team. Progress reports were given at each team meeting. At BoxCo, the emphasis was on work coordination and scheduling because the nature of the fabrication process required exibility to meet delivery deadlines in spite of delays, such as uncertain availability of specialized raw materials and unexpected rework due to

654

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657

the very high product specications. Often more than one team meeting per shift took place when rescheduling of production was necessary. Many corrective and preventative actions were also generated and implemented by the team members. However, due to the permanent nature of the DrinksCo and BoxCo teams, interpersonal issues and team process disagreements were more likely to surface than with the project-oriented, short-term teams at CarCo (Hypothesis 2a). For example, a team at DrinksCo struggled with interpersonal issues that frequently shifted their focus away from performance outcomes. In one such instance, the team had decided on the importance of a certain housekeeping initiative, but one of the team members refused to participate. A signicant amount of time was spent on resolving this issue (which was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of all involved). However, it took time away from other goal-directed activities. In general, we observed more of these types of issues at DrinksCo than at BoxCo. As a result, we observed variability in the level and persistence of outcome-orientation and goal-directed activities among the teams at DrinksCo and BoxCo that we did not observe among the project-oriented teams at CarCo (Hypothesis 2b). Consistent with our observations, Table 1 and Figs. 13 provide some evidence that the rate of performance improvement was quite fast at CarCo, less so for BoxCo, and the slowest for DrinksCo. Finally, in Hypothesis 3, we address the persistence of performance gains over time and the role of team institutionalization. Hypothesis 3. Team institutionalization is positively associated with sustaining performance gains. The fact that the teams in each of these companies are in operation several years after their formation suggests that they have become institutionalized (i.e. a permanent organizational structure for how work gets done; in this case, with the purpose of maintaining the momentum of improvement activities). More specic evidence of institutionalization includes the following: at DrinksCo, shifts were re-organized into teams which included quality control and maintenance people; time was taken off production for team meeting on every shift; job specications were changed to include teamwork skills; and HR and industrial relations

policies were changed and re-negotiated to accommodate team-based work organization requirements (e.g. pay grades, training, performance assessment for shopoor employees was introduced, shift schedules were changed). At CarCo line managers budgeted for a certain number of workshops in their area of responsibility every year, and their annual performance reviews included an assessment of the actual number and effectiveness of improvement workshops conducted against the number of budgeted workshops. At BoxCo job titles, job specications and responsibilities changed to include teamwork; team meeting areas were permanently allocated; team meetings were permanently scheduled into the workday; and HR and industrial relations policies were changed and re-negotiated to accommodate team-based work organization requirements. Again, we need look to the actions of management and the shopoor teams to explain why institutionalization is associated with sustaining performance gains. We observed that institutionalization provides a mechanism for teams to revisit specic performance issues and evaluate the effectiveness of previously implemented solutions over time. Instances of revisiting performance issues and monitoring effectiveness were observed with teams at each of the companies. This is especially critical in the case of ongoing performance improvement teams. At CarCo performance issues can be revisited by convening another workshop. However, at DrinksCo and BoxCo, revisiting performance issues and monitoring previously implemented solutions were the responsibility of the shopoor improvement team itself. This reects the level at which institutionalization occurred. In the case of CarCo, the workshop program was institutionalized, while at DrinksCo and BoxCo the teams themselves were institutionalized. In the former case, maintaining performance gains was facilitated by the establishment of an ofce to administer the workshop program. One of the purposes of the ofce was to serve as an institutional memory to monitor team-initiated performance outcomes. In the latter cases, maintaining performance gains was facilitated by the continuity of the individual teams. In the article by Banker et al. (2001), the authors argued that mandated team membership promotes institutionalization. While the teams in all three companies had mandated membership (either permanently,

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657 Table 2 Implementation phases of performance improvement teams Implementation phase Early Management/team actions Moderators of management/ team actions Key performance metric(s)
a

655

Short- to medium-term Outcome-orientation and substantive participation Project-oriented or ongoing teams Rate of accrual of performance gains

Medium- to long-terma Institutionalization Continued performance gains and sustainability of prior gains

Credibility-building activities Project-oriented or ongoing teams, proactive or reactive activities Work team engagement

Outcome-orientation and substantive participation continues in the medium- to long-term.

as in the cases of DrinksCo and BoxCo or temporarily, as in the case of CarCo), mandated team membership is not the same as institutionalization. Rather, it is the persistence of goal-directed activities over time that is the true indicator of institutionalization. Table 2 summarizes the research hypotheses in a framework that delineates the evolving management and team actions, moderators of management and team actions, and key performance metrics for performance improvement teams over time.

6. Conclusions A literature review and three case studies of programs to introduce shopoor improvement teams were used to generate hypotheses and provide a framework for understanding longitudinal issues such as the timing and sustainability of performance gains following the implementation of performance improvement teams. We focused, in particular, on ongoing performance improvement teams. In temporal order, the hypotheses are given as follows: (1) work team engagement is positively associated with early implementation credibility-building activities ((1a) credibility-building activities associated with project-oriented teams will be primarily aimed at establishing credibility at the program level; (1b) credibility-building activities associated with ongoing teams will be aimed at establishing credibility at both the work team and program levels; (1c) Work teams implemented in organizations with a history of abandoned work team initiatives will primarily engage in reactive credibility-building activities; and (1d) work teams implemented in organizations with no

history of previous work team initiatives will primarily engage in proactive credibility-building activities); (2) outcome-orientation and substantive participation are positively associated with a rapid rate of performance gains ((2a) interpersonal issues and team process disagreements are more likely to surface with ongoing performance improvement teams than with project-oriented teams; and (2b) as a result, the level of outcome-orientation over time will exhibit greater variability for ongoing performance improvement teams than for project-oriented teams); and (3) team institutionalization is positively associated with sustaining performance gains. Taken together, these propositions suggest that management and team actions and key performance metrics change as the teams mature. Existing models such as Mohrman and Novelli (1985) and Yeatts and Hyten (1998) include a longitudinal dimension in the way constructs are related to one another. However, they do not address the timing of performance gains and the implications for the sustainability of performance gains. Even longitudinal studies such as Banker et al. (1996) and Banker et al. (2001) examine only one type of performance improvement team. Thus, the primary contribution of this paper to theory development is to extend existing theory to better understand how the actions of management and teams contribute to the success of performance improvement teams over time. One limitation is that the study was restricted to large corporate manufacturing rms in South Africa, possibly limiting the generalizability of the ndings. However, considering the diversity of situations in which work teams are formed, developed, and operate,

656

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657 preliminary empirical ndings. Decision Sciences 26 (5), 637 658. Banker, R.D., Field, J.M., Schroeder, R.G., Sinha, K.K., 1996. The impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: a longitudinal eld study. Academy of Management Journal 39 (4), 867890. Banker, R.D., Field, J.M., Sinha, K.K., 2001. Work-team implementation and trajectories of manufacturing quality: a longitudinal eld study. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 3 (1), 2542. Bhorat, H., Hodge, J., 1999. Decomposing shifts in labour demand in South Africa. The South African Journal of Economics 67 (3), 348380. Faull, N., Grutter, A., Lomofsky, D., 1996. Bringing Japan to the South African shopoor. In: Proceedings of the World Productivity Assembly. National Productivity Institute, Pretoria. Gladstein, D.L., 1984. Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (4), 499 517. Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies in Qualitative Research. Wiedeneld and Nicolson, London. Grifn, R.W., 1988. Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: a longitudinal assessment. Academy of Management Journal 31 (2), 338358. Hackman, J.R., 1987. The design of work teams. In: Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315342. Katzenbach, J.R., Smith, D.K., 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Harper Business, New York. Klein, K.J., Sorra, J.S., 1996. The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 10551080. Latham, G.P., Steele, T.P., 1983. The motivational effects of participation versus goal setting on performance. Academy of Management Journal 26 (3), 406417. Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., 1989. Quality circles: after the honeymoon. Organizational Dynamics 15 (4), 4254. Locke, E.A., Schweiger, D.M., 1979. Participation in decision-making: one more look. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 265339. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J., 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 26 (3), 356376. McCutcheon, D., Meredith, J., 1993. Conducting case studies for operations management research. Journal of Operations Research 11 (3), 239256. Meredith, J., 1998. Building operations management theory through case and eld research. Journal of Operations Management 16 (4), 441454. Mohrman, S.A., Novelli, L., 1985. Beyond testimonials: learning from a quality circles program. Journal of Occupational Behaviour 6, 93110. Narasimhan, R., Jayaram, J., 1998. Reengineering service operations: a longitudinal case study. Journal of Operations Management 17 (1), 722.

further theory development related to the longitudinal nature of work teams requires research that reects this diversity. Research in lesser-studied countries, such as South Africa, provides valuable insights into the application of the general principles of team-based process improvement within country-specic contexts. Another limitation involves the inherent difculty in eld studies of controlling for other factors that might impact the hypothesized relationships. This is especially true in a study, such as ours, in which other organizational changes are occurring contemporaneously. However, because we are examining the actions of management and teams and providing direct links between these actions and performance outcomes, we are condent that, even if other organizational changes help explain the performance outcomes, our hypothesized relationships are still valid. The study results and hypotheses suggest several directions for future research. In general, further empirical research is needed to test the theories proposed in this paper. Other possible directions for future research would follow from the substantiation of each of the hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 and 1a1d point to the need for research on the types of condence-building activities that are most effective for work team engagement. Hypotheses 2, 2a and 2b suggest the importance of better understanding how to develop and maintain a focused outcome-orientation. Hypothesis 3 suggests that research needs to be undertaken into the kinds of institutional mechanisms that are most effective at sustaining team-based shopoor improvement programs. Finally, it may be that a combination of Hypotheses 2 and 3 could provide explanations for the results reported by Lawler and Mohrman (1989) and Locke and Schweiger (1979).

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of three anonymous reviewers and the associate editor on an earlier version of this paper. References
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G., Devaraj, S., 1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method:

A.W. Grtter et al. / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 641657 Nutt, P.C., 1986. Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal 29 (2), 230261. Schonberger, R.J., 1996. World Class Manufacturing: The Next Decade. Free Press, New York. Tanskanen, T., Buhanist, P., Kostama, H., 1998. Exploring the diversity of teams. International Journal of Production Economics 56/57, 611619.

657

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 1996. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Simon and Schuster, New York. Yeatts, D.E., Hyten, C., 1998. High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory to Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.