Teaching Methodology Essay

Methodology

INTRODUCTION

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            In order to efficiently analyze the impact of self-managed teams to the different organizations, this study shall make use of both quantitative and qualitative aspect. For the quantitative aspect, a survey questionnaire shall be used to obtain the opinions of one hundred and fifty (150) respondents who shall receive the data collection tool personally. This chapter shall be devoted to the discussion of the different methodologies that the researcher would use in the study. It would not only present a definition of the different methods to be used but it would also give the advantages for using such method.

            For the qualitative part of this study, articles published regarding the topic shall be used. These articles would be essential in determining the need to develop self-managed teams in different organizations. These shall then be applied in the analysis of the strategies adopted by the organization being studied. In the same manner, the articles and books that the researcher shall be using for this study would help in determining the impact of the development of self-managed teams to the different organizations. Aside from this, the researcher believes that these secondary sources would help in finding out the strong points of having self-managed teams.

            As it has been mentioned, this study shall make use of several methodologies in order to review the benefits that the adoption of self-managed teams brings to the different organizations. These methodologies would be of vital importance as this paper delves into the current status of self-managed teams in Maruti, the organization being studied.

RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

Maruti is less known for experimentation in the area of teamwork at their car and automobiles division. Researchers are less familiar with Maruti’s work regarding team-work implemented at their car and service division. The teams in the service sectors have been working with a large degree of autonomy in short flows for several years now. This plant renders services packages for 3000 to 5000 cars monthly. Besides, there are many other several supporting departments which help them to make their work easier like the press-shop, welding, the paint-shop and final assembly. Our research focused on the teams that worked in this service sector, where 150-200 people work. For organisational reasons, this has been divided into two departments of equal size and similar activities. The shop floor for assembling consisted of ten teams work in two-shift system and all work during the daytime hours. A complete team consists of twenty operators who work together and are responsible for rendering services to at least 7 to 8 cars per workday. The general idea is that each team is headed by four people who are working on specific tasks to attain customer satisfaction, while there are two extra people to fill in for sick leave, vacation and training of team members. The teams are responsible for getting the cars which will be left out by the customers at the service outlets who will be given an acknowledgement for leaving behind their vehicles.

Within the framework of an organisation development programme, the teams are responsible for reaching their weekly targets and the required level of quality and delivery precision; they are also responsible for a number of team administrative tasks. Problems with the service packages, quality and delivery are discussed by the team during the weekly team meetings. As long as the problems are within the boundaries of the team, the team holds the principal responsibility for developing their own solutions. Moreover, the team also holds the principal responsibility for on-the-job training. The workers learn skills on a department-by-department basis – management estimates that an average worker learns all departments in about 6 months and the worker appraisal system is largely based on how many departments a worker can perform. The team instructs new members among themselves during working hours. The team is also responsible for the education and training budget. In most cases, the team is also involved in the recruitment process for new members. These responsibilities together form the basis for the autonomy of the team, where tasks concerning engineering, quality and management are delegated to the team. The teams therefore formulate their own goals and plans, based on the organisations goals. The results and achievements of the goals are formally followed up once a week. The results are discussed more thoroughly every six months, and goals and plans are also updated.

RESEARCH TECHNIQUES

QUANTITATIVE DESIGN

            The study adopts a descriptive quantitative design, attempting to provide the general determinants of the success of the adoption of self-managed teams. It would basically look into three important aspects of the organizations: (1) the work environment; (2) the well being of the employees; (3) the performance of the organization in terms of an increase in sales yet retaining customer satisfaction. The use of a quantitative style is advantageous such that it can standardize the varying nature and perceptions of members of organizations with regard to the impact of the adoption of self-managed teams.

In a study which is quantitative in nature, the researcher intends to gather data so that a valid conclusion may be arrived at regarding the outcomes of broadly comparable experiences. An objective or positivist approach is adopted by those who utilize this design which is applicable in this paper. The main principle underlying this approach is that knowledge and facts are measurable and that complicated problems may be comprehended more effectively if they are broken down into less complicated parts. Moreover, this approach becomes more potent in the quest for universal laws which explain reality – and which lend themselves to observation.

The quantitative approach has several advantages – among them is the fact that they have clearer boundaries with regard to data gathering. While it is an advantage in itself, it does not come without weaknesses. For this approach to yield valid conclusions, the tool that is used for data gathering has to have acceptable psychometric properties. The construction of the research tool must be subjected to rigor and careful analysis. One other limitation for quantitative methods is the need to use a substantially large sample to be able to garner more valid results.

            In this study, the quantitative portion shall be carried out through the administration of survey questionnaires to one hundred fifty (150) respondents who are members of the organization being studied. This would help the researcher in determining the positive impacts of the adoption of self-managed teams. Moreover, this survey would also be essential in finding out the effectiveness of such initiative, as determined by organization members.

Survey questionnaires that have been deployed for research have two specific objectives. One is to quantitatively depict certain facets of the group being investigated. The analysis of the questionnaires may be mainly focused on associations between variables or with making estimates in a descriptive manner to a well defined group of respondents. Next, it is also an effective means of gathering data by soliciting individual evaluations through predetermined items or questions. Their responses, which may pertain to their own views, compose the data set subject for statistical analysis (Fowler 2002).

            Lanthier (2002) defines the questionnaire method or survey, from its name per se, as the set of questions given to the people who serves as respondents for a particular study. Basically, the purpose of applying such method is to obtain information about their respondent’s attitudes, thoughts, behaviours, and the like pertaining to the topic at hand. Through this, the researchers applying this particular method are given a clearer picture of a group’s opinion based on the compilation of answers obtained from the survey participants.

            The use of the questionnaire method in this study is used to its advantage due to the method’s capacity of finding out the attitudes, thoughts and perceptions of a large group of people through the use of a certain percentage of their population, the sample. Simply put, the questionnaire method allows the researcher to be more confident in generalizing their findings as compared with the use of the case study method (Lanthier 2002). Lanthier further adds that the use of this method allows for easy decision making due to its feature that has been previously discussed.

            However, this method also has its own disadvantages. First is the sensitivity of how questions are constructed. Lanthier (2002) calls for the proper construction of questions in order to obtain the exact responses needed by the researcher. According to the author, the way a question is worded can definitely alter the way that the people may answer the question. The second disadvantage of this method is how the sample would be selected (Lanthier 2002). Apparently, random sampling is the best way to choose respondents in this kind of study. However, obtaining these people through the said method ay be quite difficult since not all participants are really selected randomly.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The primary tool that would be used for data collection under the quantitative design of this research would be of course, the questionnaire. The questionnaire shall make use of two kinds of questions: (1) close-structured question; and (2) a Likert-type 5 point style questions. The questions shall be based from the findings of the previous researches.

            According to the Colorado State University Writing Guides (2008), the use of close ended questions are very advantageous to the researcher since these are more easy to analyze since the answers could be given a number or value to make statistical interpretation possible. It is also more specific, thus could be used to communicate similar meanings.

SAMPLING

            The respondents were selected using purposive sampling. The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) should be a staff member of Maruti for at least three (3) years; (2) has explicitly confirmed awareness of the organization’s adoption of self-managed teams; and (3) has expressed consent on his willingness to participate in the study.

QUALITATIVE DESIGN

            To augment, understand and better explain the statistics that will be gathered from the instrument, an investigative research of the secondary data analyzing, explaining and describing the benefits of adopting self-managed teams and its impacts on organizations, their staff members, and their sales. In the same manner, the results of the qualitative and quantitative researches would be compared vis-à-vis each other. Upon finding common denominators then, the researcher would explain the factors that are essential for the analysis of the said initiative.

The primary edge of the comparative analysis employed in this study is that it is impartial and easy to comprehend as compared to interviews where a researcher’s manner and tone of questioning may greatly affect the answers of the respondent and where the respondent’s internal environment (i.e. mood, current thoughts or feelings, etc.) can affect the way he/she answers the questions or the amount of information that can be gathered (Rainwater 2007). Moreover, the comparative analysis used in this study lends itself to the use of a limited number of respondents, which are not required to participate actively in this mode of data procurement.

Qualitative research in itself makes for an in-depth evaluation and analysis of human dynamics and the kind of reasons that motivate such behaviour and the reasons that revolve around such behaviour to spur out in the first place (Rainwater 2007). As compared to quantitative research, the qualitative method of analysis relies on the fundamental reasons behind the reactions of people when external factors are applied to a given situation. Simply put, it investigates the why and how of decision making, relative to what is being identified by the quantitative method of analysis – what, where, and when (Denzin & Lincoln 2000). For this reason, qualitative research only requires a relatively small group as compared to the relatively large yet most of if not all of the time are random samples. Qualitative research also identifies and sorts data into relevant and helpful patterns as the foundation for organization and the basis for reporting the kind of results for data (Yin 2003).

In the same manner, Qualitative analysis is perfect point-to-point, exact description; Quantitative research is more about gathering and observing information, which has been collected from database bundle (Yin 2003). It is recommended that qualitative data is used earlier and then Qualitative data later in and research project. Qualitative data design emerges as the study unfolds. Quantitative data – All aspects of the study are carefully designed before data is collected. In qualitative method researcher is considered to be the main data gathering instruments, but where as in Quantitative method a researcher uses to implement tools for collecting data (EXAMPLE: Questionnaires, interviews). Qualitative data is more ‘rich’, time consuming, and less able to be generalized. Quantitative data is more efficient, able to test hypotheses, but may miss contextual detail. “In qualitative method researcher tends to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter but in quantitative method researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter, Rainwater (2007) stresses.

            In relation to what has been mentioned above, the researcher also recognizes the fact that qualitative methods are used in order to construct the instruments and other data collection needed for a quantitative study which is only used in order to validate what has been researched using the qualitative approach. This means that the qualitative research allows for the in depth analysis of a certain issue because of its ability to cover different aspects of the study: the results and findings of previous studies and at the same time, still be able to obtain the views of new respondents through other methods such as focus group discussions and interviews (Rainwater 2007; Yin 2003).

The structure of applied research shall be used in order to analytically review the e-government initiative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Applied research is basically concerned with the application of research techniques, procedures, and methods that form the body of research methodology as applied to the collection of information about various aspects of a situation, issue, problem or information gathered can be issued for policy formation and administration (Krueger and Casey 2000).

Having used the techniques of applied research, this study shall also take into one of its forms, descriptive research. Descriptive research attempts to describe systematically a situation, problem, phenomenon, service or program, or provides information about, example, the living conditions of a community, or describes attitudes towards an issue (Babbie 1998). Using this particular form of research, the researcher would look into the e-government initiative as a whole. It would provide information about the said concept and how it affected the society and economy of Libya.

The research would also use content analysis. Content analysis is a technique used for gathering and analysing the content of the documents retrieved from the World Wide Web. The content shall be sorted into themes, analysing only what is in the text as the purpose of the writer of these articles could not be very clear to the researcher (Neuendorf 2002).

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE

            The data obtained from the use of the questionnaire method shall be analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences or SPSS. It would be highly descriptive in nature and would be presented using basic and simple statistics. It would also present means and standard deviations and lastly, correlate the efficiency of adopting self-managed teams and its positive impacts on the organizations.

            DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

            This part of the dissertation would present the results obtained by the researcher from the survey questionnaire developed. The researcher first provided the respondents with different statements regarding self-managed teams, rated based on the actually experience of the factor in the organizations to which the survey participants belong to.

            The first statement was concerned with the ability of self-managed teams to improve the engagement and the effectiveness of the staff based on their actual experience. In rating this particular statement, the respondents chose from a Likert-scale, with 5 (very apparent) being the highest; and 1 (not experienced at all), the lowest. Of the one hundred and fifty respondents, sixty (60) or 40% gave the aforementioned statement a 5 (very apparent); fifty or 33.3% gave a 4 (apparent); thirty eight (25.3%) were neutral and only 2 (1.3%) said that this particular factor is weakly experienced in their organization. Table 1 and Chart 1 graphically illustrate the results pertaining to the first statement.

Table 1.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: The ability of self-managed teams to improve engagement and effectiveness of staff

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2.00
2
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.0038
25.3
25.3
26.7
4.0050
33.3
33.3
60.0
5.0060
40.0
40.0
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 2.

The ability of self-managed teams to improve engagement and effectiveness of staff

As earlier mentioned, the highest rating given to the first statement was a five (very apparent) while the lowest was a two (weakly experienced). The differences in the answers of these respondents yielded a mean of 4.12 and a standard deviation of 0.83, revealing that in general, the respondents found that the factor concerning the ability of self-managed teams to improve the engagement and effectiveness of the staff is apparent based on their actual experience (See Table 11 for these numerical values).

            The second statement is then concerned with the ability of self-managed teams to encourage creativity. The respondents were once again asked to rate this particular statement based on the Likert-scale mentioned above. The following results were obtained: (1) forty one respondents (27.3%) said that this factor is very apparent in their organization; (2) sixty (40.0) said that it was apparent; (3) thirty seven (24.7) were neutral; (4) eight respondents (5.3%) said that this was weakly experienced; and finally, (5) only four respondents or 2.7% said that they do not experience the presence of this factor in their organization at all. These results are graphically illustrated in both Table 2 and Chart 2.

Table 2.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Ability of Self-managed teams to encourage creativity

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.00
4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.008
5.3
5.3
8.0
3.0037
24.7
24.7
32.7
4.0060
40.0
40.0
72.7
5.0041
27.3
27.3
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 2.

Ability of Self-managed teams to encourage creativity

            The varied responses to the second statement produced a mean of 3.84 with a standard deviation of 0.98, showing that in general, all respondents reveal that the ability of self-managed teams to encourage creativity is neither apparent nor not experienced. Rather, they were relatively neutral with regard to this particular item (See Table 11 for the numerical figures).

            The third statement is then concerned with the positive effects of the adoption of self-managed teams to the customers’ experience with the organization. These once again, received varied responses from the survey participants; with 32 (21.3%) gave it a five (very apparent); 47 (31.3%) gave it a 4 (apparent); 40 (26.7%) gave it a 3 (neutral); 24 (16.0%) gave it a 2 (weakly experienced); and lastly, only 7 (4.7%) gave it a 1 (not experienced at all). Table 3 and Chart 3 present a graphical illustration of the survey respondents’ with regard to the third statement.

Table 3.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: the ability of self-managed teams to affect the experience of customers with the company positively.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.00
7
4.7
4.7
4.7
2.0024
16.0
16.0
20.7
3.0040
26.7
26.7
47.3
4.0047
31.3
31.3
78.7
5.0032
21.3
21.3
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 3.

The ability of self-managed teams to affect the experience of customers with the company positively

            The varied responses of the survey participants with regard to the third item produced a mean of 3.49 and a standard deviation of 1.13, only showing that the respondents neither find the said factor apparent or not apparent in their organization (see Table 11 for these figures).

             Afterwards, the researcher then looked into the ability of self-managed teams to help in increasing the sales of the organization whilst retaining customer satisfaction. The survey yielded the following results: (1) seventy eight respondents or 52% said that this is very apparent based on their actual experience; (2) sixty three or 42.0% find this factor apparent; and lastly, (3) only nine or 6.0% were neutral. These results are summarized in Table 4 and Chart 4.

Table 4.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Self-managed teams and its ability to help in increasing the sales of an organization while retaining customer satisfaction

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
3.00
9
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.0063
42.0
42.0
48.0
5.0078
52.0
52.0
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 4.

Self-managed teams and its ability to help in increasing the sales of an organization while retaining customer satisfaction

Compared with the previous items, the responses of the survey participants with this particular item were not that varied. As a result, these responses yielded a mean of 4.46, with a standard deviation of 0.61, showing that in general, all respondents find the fourth factor apparent within their organizations (see Table 11).

The next factor subject to analysis was the efficiency of self-managed teams in empowering the members of the staff. The results of the survey reveal that of the one hundred and fifty respondents: (1) forty nine (32.7%) find it very apparent; (2) sixty four (42.7%) find it apparent; (3) thirty five (23.3%) were neutral; and (4) only 2 (1.3%) said that this factor was weakly experienced within their organization. Table 5 and Chart 5 present these results graphically.

Table 5.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Empowerment of staff to be empowered through the self-managed team approach

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2.00
2
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.0035
23.3
23.3
24.7
4.0064
42.7
42.7
67.3
5.0049
32.7
32.7
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 5.

Empowerment of staff to be empowered through the self-managed team approach

            The different responses to the fifth item produced a mean of 4.46 and a standard deviation of 0.61, showing that in general, the survey participants find the fifth factor apparent in their organization.

            The sixth statement then looked into the ability of self-managed teams to increase the job satisfaction of the employees. Fifty two out of one hundred fifty respondents (34.7%) said that this particular factor is very apparent within their organization. Fifty six out of one hundred respondents (37.3%) on the other hand, said that this is apparent in their organization. Forty (26.7%), meanwhile, were neutral. Finally, only two respondents (1.3%) say that this particular factor is weakly experienced within their organization. This is graphically illustrated in Table 6 and Chart 6.

Table 6.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Ability of Self-managed teams to Increase the Job Satisfaction of the Employees

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2.00
2
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.0040
26.7
26.7
28.0
4.0056
37.3
37.3
65.3
5.0052
34.7
34.7
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 6.

Ability of Self-managed teams to Increase the Job Satisfaction of the Employees

            The responses to this particular item revealed a mean of 4.05 and a standard deviation of 0.82, revealing that in general, all respondents find the sixth factor apparent within their own organizations.

            Aside from this, the researcher also looked into role ambiguity as a consequence of the adoption of self-managed teams. The results of the survey yielded the following results: (1) six our of one hundred fifty respondents (4%) said that this particular item is very apparent within their organization; (2) forty nine respondents (32.7%) said that this was apparent;; (3) forty eight (32.0%) were neutral; (4) forty one (27.3%) said that this was weakly experienced; and finally, (5) only six respondents (4.0) said that this factor is not at all experienced in their organization. Table 7 and Chart 7 graphically illustrate these numerical values.

Table 7.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Role Ambiguity as a Consequence of the Adoption of Self-Managed Teams

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.00
6
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0041
27.3
27.3
31.3
3.0048
32.0
32.0
63.3
4.0049
32.7
32.7
96.0
5.006
4.0
4.0
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 7.

Role Ambiguity as a Consequence of the Adoption of Self-Managed Teams

            The varied responses of the survey participants to this particular survey produced a mean of 3.05 and a standard deviation of 0.96. This then only shows that in general, the respondents are relatively neutral when it comes to role ambiguity as one of the consequences of the adoption of self-managed teams (See Table 11).

            Another consequence of the adoption of self-managed teams was analyzed and this was its ability to encourage the collective active involvement of all staff members. The responses to this particular item remained confined to only two levels: very apparent and apparent. For majority of the respondents (one hundred nineteen out of one hundred and fifty) or 79.3%, this consequence is very apparent in their actual experiences as an organization. On the other hand, only thirty one respondents or 20.7% reveal that this is apparent to their organization (these are graphically illustrated in Table 8 and Chart 8). These responses then produced a mean of 4.80 with a standard deviation of 0.41, showing that in general, respondents find this consequence of the adoption of self-managed teams apparent in their organizations (see Table 11).

Table 8.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Collective Active Involvement as a Consequence of the Adoption of Self-Managed Teams

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
4.00
31
20.7
20.7
20.7
5.00119
79.3
79.3
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 8.

Collective Active Involvement as a Consequence of the Adoption of Self-Managed Teams

            The capacity of self-managed team to provide companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues was also examined. The following ratings with regard to this item were obtained: (1) one respondent (0.7%) gave it a five (very apparent); (2) eighty seven respondents (58.0%) gave it a 4 (apparent); (3) twenty respondents (13.3%) gave it a 3 (neutral); (4) forty one (27.3%) gave it a 2 (weakly experienced); and lastly, (5) only one respondent (0.7%) gave it a 1 (not experienced at all). These results are graphically illustrated in Table 9 and Chart 9.

Table 9.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: The ability of self-managed teams to provide companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.00
1
.7
.7
.7
2.0041
27.3
27.3
28.0
3.0020
13.3
13.3
41.3
4.0087
58.0
58.0
99.3
5.001
.7
.7
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 9.

The ability of self-managed teams to provide companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues

            The respondents’ ratings to the aforementioned item produced a mean of 3.31 with a standard deviation of 0.90, showing that in general, they are neutral with regard to the ability of self-managed teams to provide companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues (see Table 11).

            Lastly, the researcher looked into the capacity of self-managed teams to provide an environment that advances the well-being of employees. According to the results of the survey: (1) thirty nine or 26% find this consequence apparent; (2) ninety-five or 63.3% were neutral; and lastly, (3) only sixteen (10.7) said that this is weakly experienced within their organizations. These results are summarized in Table 10 and Chart 10.

Table 10.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Self-Managed Teams and its Capacity to Provide an Environment that advances the well-being of employees

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2.00
16
10.7
10.7
10.7
3.0095
63.3
63.3
74.0
4.0039
26.0
26.0
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 10.

Self-Managed Teams and its Capacity to Provide an Environment that advances the well-being of employees

            Without a doubt, the responses of the survey participants were only confined on three rates: (1) 4 – apparent; (2) 3 – neutral; and (3) 2- weakly experienced. It produced a mean of 3.15 with a standard deviation of 0.59, showing that in general, the respondents are neutral with regard to this particular consequence of the adoption of self-managed teams. Table 11 (below) presents these numerical values.

Table 11.

Min, Max, Mean and Standard Deviation: Self-managed Teams and the Organizations’ experience

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
I
150
2.00
5.00
4.1200
.83481
II
150
1.00
5.00
3.8400
.97678
III
150
1.00
5.00
3.4867
1.13360
IV
150
3.00
5.00
4.4600
.60899
V
150
2.00
5.00
4.0667
.78293
VI
150
2.00
5.00
4.0533
.81748
VII
150
1.00
5.00
3.0533
.96089
VIII
150
4.00
5.00
4.7933
.40627
IX
150
1.00
5.00
3.3067
.90448
X
150
2.00
4.00
3.1533
.58776
Valid N (listwise)
150

            Aside from the aforementioned, the survey questionnaire also dealt with the overall outcomes of having self-managed teams within the organizations of the respondents. Three factors were analyzed: (1) the improved quality of the work environment for the employees; (2) an increase in the overall performance of the organization; and lastly, (3) the increase in the customers’ satisfaction.

            Of the one hundred and fifty respondents, fifty five or 36.7% say that it is very apparent that the work environment for their employees improved as a result of the existence of self-managed teams. On the other hand, ninety five survey participants (63.3%) say that the said outcome is apparent in their organization. These results are summarized in Table 12 and Chart 12.

Table 12.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Improved Quality of the Work Environment as a Consequence of having Self-Managed Teams

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
4.00
95
63.3
63.3
63.3
5.0055
36.7
36.7
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 12.

Improved Quality of the Work Environment as a Consequence of having Self-Managed Teams

            Considering that the responses of the survey participants with regard to the visibility of the aforementioned outcome to their organization were only confined on two levels of the Likert-scale, a mean of 4.37 and a standard deviation of 0.49 were produced. These results only show that in general, the respondents find this particular outcome apparent within their organizations (see Table 15).

            Meanwhile, varied responses were given to the second outcome of self-managed teams that this research aims to assess. This second outcome is concerned with the ability of self-managed teams to increase the overall performance of an organization, based on the extent that the respondents see it within their own company. The survey revealed the following results: (1) forty nine respondents (32.7%) find it very apparent; (2) fifty seven respondents (38.0%) find it apparent; (3) forty two respondents (28.0%) were neutral; and lastly, (4) only two respondents (1.3%) find it weakly experienced within their organization (see Table 13 and Chart 13). These then yielded a mean of 4.02 and a standard deviation of 0.81, showing that in general, the survey participants find the second outcome apparent in their organization’s experiences (see Table 15).

Table 13.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Increase in the overall performance of an organization as a consequence of the adoption of self-managed teams

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2.00
2
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.0042
28.0
28.0
29.3
4.0057
38.0
38.0
67.3
5.0049
32.7
32.7
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 13.

Increase in the overall performance of an organization as a consequence of the adoption of self-managed teams

            The last outcome analyzed was the ability of self-managed teams to increase customers’ satisfaction. Out of the one hundred and fifty participants, (1) forty three (28.7%) find this outcome very apparent within their organization; (2) fifty eight (38.7%) find it apparent; (3) forty seven (31.3%) were neutral; and finally, (4) only two (1.3%) said that this was weakly experienced in their organization (See Table 14 and Chart 14). This produced a mean of 3.95 and a standard deviation of 0.81, showing that in general, the respondents were relatively neutral with regard to the extent of the visibility of this outcome in their organizations (Table 15).

Table 14.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: Increased Customer Satisfaction as a Consequence of the Adoption of Self-managed Teams

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2.00
2
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.0047
31.3
31.3
32.7
4.0058
38.7
38.7
71.3
5.0043
28.7
28.7
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 14.

Increased Customer Satisfaction as a Consequence of the Adoption of Self-managed Teams

Table 15.

Min, Max, Mean and Standard Deviation: The Extent to which Overall Outcomes of having self-managed teams are seen in Organizations.

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
XI
150
4.00
5.00
4.3667
.48351
XII
150
2.00
5.00
4.0200
.81488
XIII
150
2.00
5.00
3.9467
.80923
Valid N (listwise)
150

            The last item found in the survey asked the respondents to rate the overall effectiveness with which self-managed teams are being developed and managed in their organizations. A Likert-scale, was once again used, following this scale: 5 – very effective; 4- effective; 3- neutral; 2- Slightly Effective; and lastly, 1 – Ineffective.

The following ratings were obtained: (1) twenty nine respondents (19.3%) gave it a 5 (very effective); (2) forty nine respondents (32.7%) gave it a 4 (effective); (3) forty seven (31.3%) gave it a 3 (neutral); (4) eighteen (12.0%) gave it a 2 (slightly effective); and lastly, (5) only seven (4.7%) gave it a 1 (ineffective). These are presented in Table 16 and Chart 16. These varied responses produced a mean of 3.5 and a standard deviation of 1.08, only stressing the differences in perspectives. Nonetheless, they generally are neutral with regard to the efficiency of practices related to self-managed teams (Table 17).

Table 16.

Frequency and Percentage Breakdown: The Overall Effectiveness with which Self-Managed Teams are being Developed and Managed in Organizations

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.00
7
4.7
4.7
4.7
2.0018
12.0
12.0
16.7
3.0047
31.3
31.3
48.0
4.0049
32.7
32.7
80.7
5.0029
19.3
19.3
100.0
Total150
100.0
100.0

Chart 16.

The Overall Effectiveness with which Self-Managed Teams are being Developed and Managed in Organizations

Table 17.

Min, Max, Mean and Standard Deviation: The Overall Effectiveness with which Self-Managed Teams are being Developed and Managed in Organizations

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
XIV
150
1.00
5.00
3.5000
1.07909
Valid N (listwise)
150

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS:

A CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH

            Table 18 presents the statistical analysis between the different factors of self-managed teams and its visibility within the organization of the respondents. The Correlation is significant at both the 0.05 (*) and ) 0.01 (**) levels.

Table 18.

The Correlation between the Different Factors and Overall Outcomes of Self-Managed Teams

Outcome I
Outcome II
Outcome III
Factor I

0.924 (**)
0.864 (**)
Factor  II
-0.259 (**)

Factor III

0.229 (**)
0.211 (**)
Factor IV
0.221 (**)

Factor V

0.808 (**)
0.779 (**)
Factor VI

0.855 (**)
0.796 (**)
Factor VII

-0.276 (**)
-0.238 (**)
Factor VIII
-0.671 (**)

Factor IX
0.601 (**)

Factor X
0.250 (**)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

            Based on the table presented above, one can see that at the 0.01 level (**) the following factors are positively correlated with the first over all outcome of self-managed teams – improved quality of work environment for employees – (1) the ability of the adoption of self-managed teams to encourage creativity; (2) the ability of the adoption of such initiative to help in increasing sales while retaining customer satisfaction; (3) the encouragement of collective active involvement of all staff members; (4) providing companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues; and finally, (5) its capacity to provide an environment that advances the well-being of employees.

            Meanwhile, the following factors are then the ones significantly correlated with the second outcome at the 0.01 level (**) – (1) an increase in the overall performance of an organization – (1) improved engagement and effectiveness of the staff; (2) affect the experience of the customers with the organization positively; (3) cause staff to be more empowered through the self-managed team approach; (4) increase the job satisfaction of the employees; and finally, (5) put forth clear roles within the self-managed teams’ members.

            Finally, the following factors are then the ones significantly correlated with the third and last factor at the 0.01 level (**) – the increase in the customers’ satisfaction – (1) an increase in the overall performance of an organization – (1) improved engagement and effectiveness of the staff; (2) affect the experience of the customers with the organization positively; (3) cause staff to be more empowered through the self-managed team approach; (4) increase the job satisfaction of the employees; and finally, (5) put forth clear roles within the self-managed teams’ members.

            Table 19, on the other hand, presents the correlation between the ten factors of the adoption of self-managed teams and the overall effectiveness of the strategies for developing and managing self-managed teams within organizations.

Table 19.

The Correlation between the different Factors and the Overall Effectiveness of Self-Managed Teams

Over-all Effectiveness
Factor I
0.216 (**)
Factor  II

Factor III
0.963 (**)
Factor IV

Factor V
0.222 (**)
Factor VI
0.205 (*)
Factor VII
– 0.162 (*)
Factor VIII
– 0.161 (*)
Factor IX

Factor X

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

            As seen in the table above, the following factors, at the 0.01 level (**) are positively correlated with the perception of respondents with regard to the over all effectiveness of self-managed teams: (1) improve engagement and effectiveness of the staff; (2) affect the experience of customers with the company positively; (3) cause staff to be more empowered through the self-managed team approach.

            On the other hand, the following factors are then positively correlated with the perception of the respondents regarding the overall effectiveness of such initiative at the 0.05 level (*): (1) increase in the job satisfaction of the employees; (2) put forth clear roles within the self-managed teams’ members; and lastly, (3) encourages the collective active involvement of all staff members.

            Lastly, Table 20, presents the correlation between the three overall outcomes of self-managed teams with the overall perception of the respondents with regard to the effectiveness of the said initiative.

Table 20.

The Correlation between the Overall Outcomes and Overall Effectiveness of Self-managed Teams

Over-all Effectiveness
Outcome I

Outcome II
0.210 (**)
Outcome III
0.200 (**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Based on the aforementioned table, one can see that only two outcomes are positively correlated with the overall effectiveness of the initiative concerning the adoption of self-managed teams. These outcomes are the following: (1) the increase in the overall performance of an organization; and (2) an increase in the customers’ satisfaction.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

The conceptual framework presented above shall govern the discussion of the results previously discussed. As repeatedly mentioned in the previous chapters of this dissertation, the use of different methods concerning strategic human resource management has been very important, most especially in this era of intense competition brought about by globalization. The adoption of self-managed teams, the main topic of this dissertation, is one of the strategies that are perceived to help organizations compete properly with other companies. This is because of three expected outcomes: (1) the improved quality of work environment for the employees; (2) an increase in the overall performance of the organization; and finally, (3) an increase in the customers’ satisfaction. The presence of these overall outcomes then obviously affects the over-all effectiveness of self-managed teams. In the same manner, the presence of these three outcomes is greatly affected by the proper development and management of self-managed teams.

DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

            The concept of self-managed teams is widely recognized by many organizations. In fact, they have introduced this particular initiative in order to bring about major improvements to their organization to sustain it even during a time of intense competition. After all, innovative work practices, when implemented internally, bring about numerous benefits for the organizations applying them (Hunter 2000; Seal, Kayes, Sass and Bailey 2007). According to Tricordant Ltd (2007), the concept behind self-managed teams is basically the fact that they are managing themselves autonomously so that they could learn how to best deliver their externally set purpose. This basically serves as a tool for their empowerment which then, in turn, releases their creativity and energy (Yeats and Hyten 1998; Pyzdek 2003). Without a doubt, the adoption of self-managed teams within organizations brings about many benefits, with the three overall outcomes previously discussed being the most important. However, as also noted in the preceding part of this dissertation, the manner by which these teams are developed and established should given paramount importance. As Tricordant Ltd (2007) puts it, the adoption of Self-management teams, when done without sufficient care and consideration, would be disappointing and might eventually fail over time. Hence, the aforementioned organization suggests that the organization design be patterned after what the company really needs and not based on a pre-belief in a particular solution (Tricordant Ltd 2007).

            The results of the survey that were earlier discussed show that there are many factors that are related with the adoption of self-managed teams. These factors, as also earlier presented, varies in terms of its visibility within the practices of the organization. In the same manner, there is to some extent, an influence of these factors to the overall outcomes of the adoption of self-management. As earlier said also, these two previously discussed factors also greatly influence the perception of the respondents with regard to the effectiveness of such aspect of strategic human resource management. However, one must pay special notice to the effects of the proper development and management of these teams to its success, thereby, concurring with the statement of Tricordant Ltd (2007). Nonetheless, it can not be denied that self-managed teams bring about many benefits to the different organizations adopting such strategy. These shall be later on discussed in lieu with self-management teams being an essential part of strategic human resource management.

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

            Most organizations make use of strategic human resource management in order to bring about major improvements into their business practices, their work environment, the commitment of their employees, etc (Yeats and Hyten 1998). More or less, their policies and practices that fall under one organization’s commitment to human resource management must fit with its strategy in its competitive environment and with the immediate business conditions that it faces, Bratton (n.d.) discusses. As a result, it is in relation with this that they restructure their organizations in order to meet their business goals (Bratton n.d.)

            Once again, the adoption of self-managed teams is an essential part of the strategic human resource management practices being used by many corporations, establishments and organizations as they wish to remain competent during the era of globalization. In fact, it was considered a productivity breakthrough in the 1990s as project managers find that these teams could produce high-quality work. It is because of this then that the adoption of self-managed teams is incorporated into the umbrella of innovative work practices. According to Hunter (2000), the adoption of innovative work practices in most organizations are beneficial not just to the firms but to the workers as well. This is because of its capacity to increase the commitment of the management, transform the workplace, make systems more highly involved, make production systems more flexible, and lastly, produce high performance work systems (Hunter 2000; Shashkin 2003).

            Moreover, Bratton (n.d.) puts the adoption of self-managed teams within the framework of business-level strategies. This is because at this particular level, decisions and actions are made regarding each particular business unit and how they would compete. It generally deals with the leadership of each business unit in order to bring about their competitive advantage (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2002). In self-managed teams, the responsibility and authority regarding management decisions are handed over to a group of people who are expected to perform interdependently (Meritt and Reynolds n.d.; Kline 2002) . The duties these people fulfill are then geared towards the accomplishment of an assigned task. Their overall goal then is to provide solutions to certain problems. As a result, the costs are reduced without actually cutting services through the use of self-managed teams (Merritt and Reynolds n.d.). Moreover, this kind of teams is also seen to provide flexibility, facilitate communication and reduce bureaucracy, thus helping organizations to efficiently respond to the needs of their customers (Karwowski 2001).

            Basically, strategic human resource management is concerned with the proper training and involvement of the employees in working towards the achievement of the organization’s goals. Through this, the business practices would then be positively transformed in order to cater to the needs of the firm and its customers whilst also providing the demands of its employees (Karwowski 2001).

TRAINING

            Training is said to be very important in ensuring the success of self-managed teams. As reflected in the presentation of the survey results, the overall effectiveness of the development and management of these teams is seen to greatly affect the overall outcome of the initiative in the organization (Kline 2002). Zawacki and Norman (1994) suggest that the evolution of self-managed teams happen in five stages. From their discussion, one could assume the importance of training in the adoption of this kind of teams. The five stages are the following: (1) the typical hierarchical structure wherein the leader continues to provide one on one supervision; (2) the leader slowly evolves into a group manager who plays a very important role as he or she transits into a team coordinator or coach; (3) this group manager eventually becomes the team coordinator thus provides a structure wherein his or her team members begin to receive the necessary training in order to receive more leadership tasks; (4) the team now assumes many of the duties that were previously given only to the group manager; and lastly (5) the group manager only becomes a resource for the team (Pyzdek 2003; Cushman and King 1995).

            Without a doubt, based on the aforementioned stages of the adoption of self-managed teams, training is crucial to its success (Silverman and Propst 1996). This is because all members of the team would then be prepared to undertake the roles that only the team leader plays before the use of such strategy (Nickels, McHugh and McHugh 2002). Through this, there would be a clear transition and at the same time, assure the organization of the success of adopting self-managed teams (Wever 2001). Moreover, members of self-managed teams, through training, would learn essential skills such as group problem-solving and decision making (Batt 1997). It is also through training that the members of the self-managed teams would be able to properly fulfill the duties being required of them in order to meet the goals of their organization (Silverman and Propst 1996; Korten 1999; Wever 2001).

            Finally, according to Tricordant Ltd (2007), job flexibility is very important in the establishment of self-managed teams. As a result, cross-training must be given importance to as it would strengthen the team roles. Moreover, it would motivate the members of the teams to work towards achieving their goals. Tricordant Ltd (2007) further asserts that sufficient team flexibility needs to be built-in to meet the peaks in customer demand that will inevitably arise. Without a doubt, the need for the proper training of the members of self-managed teams is once again highlighted.

CONTROL

            The manner by which self-managed teams are controlled is seen of vital great importance considering that the latter should be granted autonomy to some extent. As earlier discussed, leadership in self-managed teams are no longer just the duty of the team leaders. Rather, it becomes a team effort especially in performing tasks and other responsibilities with regard to their job as a business unit (Pfeffer 1998; Cushman and King 1995).

            Aside from this however, the self-managed team’s control over their resources should also be analyzed. According to Slyke (n.d.), self-managed teams are usually given control over the resources that they would need in order to accomplish the goals of their project. More or less, the major resources are the following: (1) time and (2) the labour of the team members’. Because of this the total control over the assignments of each business unit are directly granted to them. The supervisors or other members of the administration simply serve as guides who continuously check if the assignments are made and no major tasks are missed. Moreover, the aforementioned people can give self-managed teams the idea on how much resources or time must they devote to a particular project or assignment.

            Basically, the lesser extent of control that the administration has on self-managed teams brings about positive effects to the manner by which the latter performs their duties. According to Wheatley (1995), today’s workforce no longer needs command and control. In fact, being in self-managed groups allows them to engage their intelligence and become more creative in their work.

REWARDS

            Rewards system is another important issue to be discussed upon the adoption of self-managed teams. The rewards that individuals receive under this particular organizational design are based on team performance. As a result, the adoption of self-managed teams entails the redesigning the organization-wide systems that would measure and reward performance through compensation. The importance of this rewards system lies on the fact that it could motivate and encourage the members of the self-managed teams in order to meet the goals of their organization (Reward Systems and Self-Managed Team Success 2004; Pfeffer 1998; Blanchard, Blanchard, Carlos and Randolph 2001).

ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE

            Many researchers have given importance to the adoption of self-managed teams as this positively affects the performance of their organization. In the presentation of the results, the researcher identified three overall outcomes of the said initiative. Through the adoption of self-managed teams, customers could have a better experience with the organizations because of the following (Harrington-Mackin and Mackin 1994): (1) the customers have a better opportunity in building a relationship with those who are serving them; (2) they are given the chance to interact rapidly with a person or team possessing the knowledge and scope in order to meet their needs; (3) find that if their first contact is defeated, his or her colleagues can give solutions to the customers’ problems; (4) have a person who takes on the responsibility for seeing that their request is settled in full and only closes the case when the right outcome has been reached; and lastly, (5) they would not experience being placed in queue when finding solutions to their problems.

            Aside from the aforementioned, the staff members are also empowered through the adoption of self-managed teams. The following are the factors that influence this particular overall outcome (Pfeffer 1998): (1) work becomes meaningful for the individual and their workgroup; (2) responsibilities and authorities match; (3) the technology used supports the team; (4) performance measures of the employees correlate to a well-done job for the customer and company; (5) the measures are challenging and stretching yet remains within the team’s sphere of control; (6) the staff belongs to a team with a positive social dynamic with which they can relate to; (7) the workgroup becomes a supportive team, cooperating and encouraging each other; (8) the work facilitates learning and the development of the whole person; and lastly, (9) the adoption of self-managed teams brings about a good spirit in the work place, making the duties fulfilling and rewarding.

            The following, in turn are the measures by which the managers know that their organization is performing well, as cited from the work of Tricordant Ltd (2007): (1) the work is cost-effective and meets targets; (2) individuals and workgroups are self-motivated, naturally cost-effective and responsive to most challenges and change; (3) good performance flows naturally out of the system rather than having to be driven out of it; (4) there is commitment to the work as evidenced by reduced staff turnover; and finally, (5) the organization becomes a learning organization.

SUMMARY TO THIS CHAPTER

This chapter looked into the adoption of self-managed teams as a very important process related to strategic human resource management. This particular initiative is said to be of vital importance in affecting three of the most vital parts of the firms: (1) the customers, (2) the staff members; and of course, (3) the overall performance of the organization. Moreover, in drafting the policies, processes and other parts of this initiative, organizations must focus attention on its different aspects, namely: (1) training, (2) control, (3) rewards systems, and most importantly (4) the performance of the entire organization.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

            As reflected in this paper, the team is very important to the smooth working of all organizations. A crucial factor that differentiates these teams from traditional ones is that the individuals who make them up are there not for who they are but their capacity to contribute something for the well-being of the team. But it is perhaps, the self-managed work teams that are seen to be of vital importance as this brings about the outcomes needed by the organizations in order to stay alive despite being caught up in the midst of an intense competition. The self-managed work team is derived from an autonomous work group which was seen to be an outcome of the socio-technical system theory developed in the 1960s and 1970s, Herbst (1962) discusses. Under this particular theory, both the technical and social systems of the organization are combined. As a result, the framework introduced by the said theory focuses more on the group rather than the individual.

            Without a doubt, this research, through the survey questionnaire developed by the researcher proved that the adoption of self-managed teams brings about the following overall outcomes: (1) improved quality of the work environment; (2) an increase in the overall performance of the organization; and lastly, (3) provide an environment that would focus on the well-being of the employees. Without a doubt, it is very essential in improving the performance of a certain organizations.

            Nonetheless, the success of the adoption of self-managed work teams is brought about by the efficient development and management of such. As a result, various aspects of the initiative must be properly paid attention to. These include the following: (1) the adoption of self-managed system as an essential part of human resource management; (2) the training of the members of self-managed teams; (3) the proper control of such teams; (4) the establishment of an efficient rewards system; and lastly, (5) the measures of organizational performance.

            This study was limited only to the members of the organization in question, Maruti. Because of this, the results of the survey may not be applicable to other organizations, much so those who are members of the other industries. As a result, future researches must be well grounded in order to avoid stumbling upon these limitations. Moreover, future researchers could include a company profile, including the measures by which the organizations’ performance is positively affected before and after the adoption of self-managed teams.

REFERENCES

Babbie, E.R. 1998. The Practice of Social Research. US: Wadsworth Publications, Co.

Batt, R. 1997. The Economic Costs and Benefits of Self-Managed Teams Among Skilled Technicians. UK: Cornell University.

Blanchard, K.H., Blanchard, K., Carlos, J.P. and Randolph, A. 2001. Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute. US: Berrett-Koehler.

Bratton, J. n.d. Strategic Human Resource Management. Accessed October 20, 2008 <http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=0230001742>

Colorado State Writing Guides. 2008. Types of Questions. Accessed October 19, 2008 <http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/survey/com4a2a.cfm>

Cushman, D.P. and King, S.S. 1995. Communication and High-Speed Management. US: SUNY Press.

Fowler, F.J. 2002. ‘Survey Research Methods, 3rd d.’ Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. 2002. Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance. US: M.E. Sharpe.

Harrington-Mackin, D. and Mackin, D. 1994. The Team Building Tool Kit: Tips, Tactics and Rules for Effective Workplace Teams. US: AMACOM Div American Management Association.

Hunter, L.W. 2000. The Adoption of Innovative Work Practices in Service Establishments. International Journal of Human Resource Management 11 (3): 477-496.

Karwowski, W. 2001. International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. US: Taylor and Francis.

Kline, T. 2002. Teams that Lead: A Matter of Market Strategy, Leadership Skills and Executive Strength. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Korten, D.C. 1999. The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. US: Berrett-Koehler.

Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lanthier, E. 2002. Questionnaire. Accessed October 19, 2008 <http://www.nvcc.edu/home/elanthier/methods/questionnaire.htm>.

Meritt, E.A. and Reynolds, D.E. n.d. The Effect of Self-Managing Teams on Manager Commitment and Organizational Tenure in Private Clubs. US: California State Polytechnic University.

Neuendorf, K.A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nickels, W.G., McHugh, J.M. and McHugh, S.M. 2002. Understanding Business. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Pfeffer, J. 1998. The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. US: Harvard Business Press.

Pyzdek, T. 2003. The Six SIGMA Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green Belts, Black Belts and Managers at All Levels. NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Rainwater, D. 2007. The Benefits and Drawbacks of Qualitative Research. Accessed October 19,

2008.<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/210263/the_benefits_and_drawbacks_of_qualitative.html>

Rewards Systems and Self-Managed Team Success. 2004. Academic Exchange Quarterly.

Sashkin. M. 2003. Leadership that Matters: The Critical Factors for Making a Difference in People’s Lives and Organizations’ Success. US: Berett-Koehler.

Silverman, L.I. and Propst, A.L. n.d. Ensuring Success: A Model for Self-Managed Teams. US: Partners for Progress and Quality Transformation Service.

Slyke, C.V. n.d. Effective Self-Managed Teams. US: University of Central Florida.

Tricordant Ltd. 2007. A Whole Systems Approach to Self-Managed Teams. US: Tricordant Ltd.

Wever, K.S. 2001. Labour, Business and Change in Germany and the United States. US: W.E. Upjohn Institute.

Wheatly, M. 1995. How is Your Leadership Changing? Leader at Large (1995): 17-18.

Yeats, D.E. and Hyten, C. 1998. High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory to Practice. CA: Sage publications.

Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire

I.

On a Scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest (strongly agree) and 1, the lowest (strongly disagree), rate the following statements regarding self-managed teams, on the basis of your actual experience of the factor in the organization.

Self-manage teams:

Improve engagement and effectiveness of the staff.

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

2.  Encourage creativity

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

3. Affect the experience of customers with the company positively.

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

4.  Helps in increasing sales while retaining customer satisfaction

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

5. Cause staff to be more empowered through the self-managed team approach

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

6. Increase the job satisfaction of the employees

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

7. Put forth clear roles within the self-managed teams’ members

Importance
5 Very Important
4 Important
3 Neutral
4 Slightly Important
5 Unimportant
Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

8. Encourages the collective active involvement of all staff members

Importance
5 Very Important
4 Important
3 Neutral
4 Slightly Important
5 Unimportant
Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

9.  Provide companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

10. Provide an environment that advances the well-being of employees

Actual Experience
5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

II.

Rate the extent to which you see the following overall outcomes of having self-managed teams within the organization.

11. Improved quality of the work environment for employees

5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

12. Increase in the overall  performance of an organization

5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

13. Increase customers’ satisfaction

5 Very Apparent
4 Apparent
3 Neutral
4 Weakly Experienced
5 Not Experienced at All

III.

14. Rate the overall effectiveness with which self-managed teams are being developed and managed in your organization.

5 Very Effective
4 Effective
3 Neutral
4 Slightly Effective
5 Ineffective

Appendix B: Correlations

Correlations

XI
XII
XIII
I
Pearson Correlation
-.060
.924(**)
.864(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.467
.000
.000

N
150
150
150
II
Pearson Correlation
-.259(**)
.122
.091

Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.137
.268

N
150
150
150
III
Pearson Correlation
.150
.229(**)
.211(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.067
.005
.009

N
150
150
150
IV
Pearson Correlation
.221(**)
.076
.050

Sig. (2-tailed)
.007
.355
.542

N
150
150
150
V
Pearson Correlation
-.047
.808(**)
.779(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.566
.000
.000

N
150
150
150
VI
Pearson Correlation
-.152
.855(**)
.796(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.064
.000
.000

N
150
150
150
VII
Pearson Correlation
.073
-.276(**)
-.238(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.373
.001
.003

N
150
150
150
VIII
Pearson Correlation
-.671(**)
.114
.109

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.165
.184

N
150
150
150
IX
Pearson Correlation
.601(**)
.128
.105

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.118
.201

N
150
150
150
X
Pearson Correlation
.250(**)
.008
.003

Sig. (2-tailed)
.002
.927
.969

N
150
150
150
**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlations

XIV
I
Pearson Correlation
.216(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.008

N
150
II
Pearson Correlation
-.146

Sig. (2-tailed)
.074

N
150
III
Pearson Correlation
.963(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
150
IV
Pearson Correlation
.015

Sig. (2-tailed)
.852

N
150
V
Pearson Correlation
.222(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.006

N
150
VI
Pearson Correlation
.205(*)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.012

N
150
VII
Pearson Correlation
-.162(*)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.048

N
150
VIII
Pearson Correlation
-.161(*)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.049

N
150
IX
Pearson Correlation
.076

Sig. (2-tailed)
.358

N
150
X
Pearson Correlation
-.016

Sig. (2-tailed)
.847

N
150
**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

                                                                     Correlations

XIV
XI
Pearson Correlation
.122

Sig. (2-tailed)
.136

N
150
XII
Pearson Correlation
.210(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.010

N
150
XIII
Pearson Correlation
.200(*)

Sig. (2-tailed)
.014

N
150
XIV
Pearson Correlation
1

Sig. (2-tailed)

N
150
**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).