Self-Directed Teams

Irene van der Spoel, 2018

Foto

Self-directed teams are gaining popularity in organisations (Glenn, Snyder, Dahnke & Kuether,
2016), and are often set up because it has been found that it is linked to, amongst other things,
increased productivity, job-satisfaction, and organisational commitment (Cohen & Bailey, 1997;
Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhil, & Richards, 2000). Self-directed teams are also known as self-
managing teams, self-regulating teams, or autonomous teams. In this research, these are seen as
synonyms, however, self-directed teams will be the used term to avoid confusion. The definition
of self-directed teams for this research is groups of individuals with a diversity of skills and
knowledge, who have the collective responsibility to plan, manage, and execute tasks
independently to reach a common goal (Magpili & Pazos, 2018; De Jong, De Ruyter, & Lemmink,
2004).

To enable this, according to Caramanica, Ferris & Little (2001), all group members determine
priorities, solve problems, divide workloads, and cross-train each other. The role of team leader
may rotate, to generate shared responsibility. According to research, characteristics of self-
directed teams are shared responsibility, autonomous decision-making and problem solving, and
self-determined leadership (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, Zenger, & Perrin, 1990). This is
confirmed by two other studies, who claim that key in well-functioning self-directed teams are
shared responsibility and considerable discretion for the conducted group work (Kirkman & Rosen,
1999; Batt, 2004). The main difference between other team structures and self-directed teams, is
that self-directed teams tend to exert substantive influence on work-related decisions (Cotton,
Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Levine & Tyson, 1990). The adoption of self-
directed teams is often interpreted as a signal that the organisation values and appreciates their
employees’ contributions (Allen, et al, 2003), which is frequently perceived by employees as an
organisation’s commitment to them (Brown, Geddes, & Heywood, 2007). In the next paragraph,
additional advantages and disadvantages of self-directed teams will be discussed.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Self-directed teams gained popularity in the 1950s. The first study on it was an evaluation of
British coal-mining teams (Trist & Bamforth, 1951). When returning to specialised teams instead of
self-directed teams, the productivity decreased, job satisfaction lowered, and absenteeism
increased (Trist, 1981). Later studies found that self-directed teams had lowered violations of
health and safety, generated positivity, decreased absenteeism, and increased productivity. This
was due to a sense of autonomy concerning work methods, break periods, and work-related issues
(Trist, Higgin, Murray, & Pollock, 1963). In addition, a longitudinal study by Cordery, Mueller, and
Smith (1991) showed significantly higher scores of intrinsic motivation, work role autonomy,
extrinsic satisfaction, and job commitment of employees working in self-directed teams, as
opposed to employees working under traditional work structures.
The implementation of self-directed teams is often a result of innovation efforts, as well as
‘flattening’ organisations (Janz, 1999). It can counter the effects of vertical organisations, such as
motivational dysfunction (Pearce, 2004; Pink, 2011), because promoting team autonomy helps
enrich jobs and empowers team members (Kauffeld, 2006; Kirkman & Rosen, 2001). Apart from
that, the increased flexibility in hierarchical structures within an organisation, is a promoting factor
for undergoing organisational changes (Nonaka, 2007; Adler, 1993). Lastly, team members of a
self-directed team tend to become more autonomous and, it tends to accelerate the members’
ability to respond to changes (Johnson, Hollenbeck, Scott DeRue, Barnes, & Jundt, 2013). An
unintended negative effect of self-directed teams can be elevated levels of stress, due to increased
responsibilities and peer pressure. This effect may be worsened if performance-based rewards are
introduced (Roy, 2003; McCalman, 1998).

Promoting and impeding factorsThe implementation of self-directed teams concerns both

promoting and impeding factors. These factors can be put into three categories: Factors
concerning the organisation, the team, and the individual team member. First, the factors
concerning organisation will be addressed.

Organisation level

In order to establish and develop self-directed teams, it is important to determine whether teams
are ready to start this process (Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). Before setting up the teams, the
initiator of the self-directed team ought to present a framework as to why self-directed teams will
benefit their work, and how this will be established. The latter should contain ground rules. Apart
from that, the support from management needs to be addressed, as well as the
professionalisation it will require from the team. Thirdly, it is also important to set short-term
objectives, in order to book quick, and early successes. Lastly, there ought to be room for
suggestions, questions, and input from the team (Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). These factors
can both impede and promote the commencement of self-directed teams, depending on how the
aforementioned steps are carried out.

Before starting the implementation process of self-directed teams, an organisation must also
consider whether the tasks carried out by the teams fit this organisational structure. Certain
assignments are more suitable for self-directed team than others. Assignments that feature for
instance high uncertainty (Cordery, et al., 2010), high task innovativeness (Patanakul, Chen, &
Lynn, 2012), and low task routineness (De Jong, et al., 2004; Rousseau & Aubé, 2010), tend to be
more appropriate for self-directed teams. Two other studies confirmed that the complexity of jobs
and the uncertainty of assignments facilitates a self-directed team to perform (Powel & Pazos,
2017; Smith & Offodile, 2008).

In alignment with assignments, objectives need to fit the self-directed structures as well. A positive
correlation has been found between clear organisational objectives and self-directed team
performance (Wageman, 2001). Despite the responsibility to set its own goals, self-directed teams
must adhere to the organisation and thus rely on feedback from the organisation to make sure
their work is aligned (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). By determining clear objectives beforehand,
disappointments can be avoided and self-directed teams can increase in performance (Chen &
Kanfer, 2006; Hu & Liden, 2011).

Apart from the type of assignments and clear objectives, the culture of an organisation can
influence the performance of self-directed teams greatly (Park, 2012). Promoting factors that can
be found in an organisation’s culture are accountability, constant learning, risk taking, and
continuous change (Hawkins, 2013; Phakathi, 2002). Organisations where risk-taking and
experimenting is seen as a merit, often benefit from self-directed teams most, as opposed to
organisations who solely focus on consistent quality (Sethi & Sethi, 2009). Apart from that, a top-
down organisation of self-directed teams will often scrutinise the positive effects, and prevent
teams from self-organising (Hoda, et al., 2011). Another part of an organisation’s culture that can
jeopardise the performance of self-directed teams, are corporate policies. Autonomy and
creativity can disappear when limits are too tight, and flexibility is decreased (Cohen & Ledford,
1994; Rolfsen & Langeland, 2012). Research has shown that employees may avoid taking risks in
fear of violating organisational norms (Phakathi, 2002; Tata & Prasad, 2004). This is also affected
when managers or leaders are used to practising hierarchical organisational structures, and do not
allow the self-directed teams to operate autonomously (Roufaiel & Meissner, 1995).

The role of managers and leaders in an organisation with self-directed teams does not disappear.
Despite a self-directed team being fully autonomous, it often still requires an external leader or
manager, who is not involved with daily tasks, but solely helps to manage team boundaries and
provide direction when needed (Morgeson, 2005). The role of the external leader is to support the
team and to adapt the approach to this support to the maturity of the team (Ayas, 1996; Powel &
Pazos, 2017). Successful external leaders tend to monitor the self-directed team’s progress, and
actively encourages the autonomous state of the team (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). This is done by
promoting self-reflection, self-criticism, and self-reinforcement to members (Mcnair, et al., 2011;
Short, 1993).

In short, for organisations to successfully implement and support self-directed teams, a clear aim
for the implementation must be available. Assignments, objectives, and the culture of an
organisation must fit the self-directed teams, and should be made known to the employees who
are going to be part of the team. This should be done by the initiators of the teams. Managers and
leaders outside of the team must not interfere with daily tasks, but are solely responsible for
facilitation and enabling. In the next paragraphs, the impeding and promoting factors for self-
directed teams on team level will be addressed.

Team Level

The most important factor, as it occurs in the definition of self-directed teams is team autonomy.
Team autonomy is the ability of the team to complete tasks as a team, without requiring leaders
outside the team to intervene or assist. It is a key component in any successful self-directed team
(Lee & Xia, 2010; Powell & Pazos, 2017; Rolfsen & Langeland, 2012). Certain factors may influence
the desired level of autonomy. These factors can be a lack of skills or experience within the team
(Conchúir, et al., 2009), insufficient support from management (McCalman, 1998; Powell & Pazos,
2017), team members who do not want to take on the role of a leader (Pais, 2010), rigid
organisational structures (Scribner, et al., 2007), and negative peer pressure (Rolfsen & Langeland,
2012). These factors will be addressed more elaborately later on.

At the start of self-directed teams, the assembly of teams can have an effect on the productivity,
efficiency, and effectivity of a team, and thereby its autonomous qualities. Research by Wax,
DeChurch and Contractor (2017), has found that deep-level homogeneity may lead to inferior
performance, and that teams based on friendship are oftentimes more successful. The latter can
be achieved in practice by enabling self-assembly of teams (Wax, DeChurch, & Contractor, 2017).
However, according to Fraser, Gunawan, and Goh (2013), the assembly of teams benefits more
from a mix of skills than of friendship. Apart from that, the work experience of team members is
also an important factor (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). A lack of work experience often leads to
decreased team-based autonomy, which threatens the existence of self-directed teams (Pais,
2010; Conchúir, Holmström, Ågerfalk & Fitzgerald, 2009). Consequently, when a team consists of a
mix in terms of work experience, the members with the most experience tend to lead the team
(Eseryel & Eseryel, 2013). However, this is not always most beneficial, as work experience may also
inhibit the ability to change, and thereby be innovative (Hoda, et al., 2013).

Apart from the assembly of a team, communication, training, and teamwork are the most
important human factors in increasing level of service, and elevating delivery performance (Roper
& Phillips, 2007). The communication ought to be formalised, open, and clear. In terms of
teamwork, it is important that the team members’ skills complement each other. Three areas of
skills are technical or functional expertise, problem-solving and decision-making skills, and
interpersonal skills. These skills should overlap within a team, without overrepresenting one of the
three (Roper & Phillips, 2007). The final key factor, training, is critical to enhancing knowledge and
skills, but should also focus on human skills of being an effective team player. Training must be
viewed as an opportunity for personal, group, and organisational development, which requires
departments to commit to lasting, and effective training (Fraser, Gunawan, & Goh, 2013; Andrès,
et al., 2015; Levi & Slem, 1995).

Effective training also enables another factor of successful implementation and functioning of self-
directed teams, namely job rotation. Job rotation has been linked to increased team
responsiveness to an organisation’s needs (Bernstein et al., 2016), elevated trust, and improved
negotiation within the team (Cook, Gerrish, & Clarke, 2001). A requirement for job rotation is
overlapping skills within the team (Perry, et al,. 2013), as has been mentioned in requirements for
team assembly.

Apart from promoting factors, there are also factors threatening a healthy team. Especially when it
concerns self-directed teams, unnoticed self-organised dynamics can have a deteriorating effect
on the autonomy of a team. Although autonomy and independent decision-making should be
promoted, self-organisational patterns can negatively affect an organisation or team when it is
based on deeply-held perception of itself (Henning, 2008). These patterns are often a reflection of
the system’s collective memory (Cilliers,1998), and its beliefs about its identity (Maturana, &
Varela, 1980). When team members only operate within one team, and do not calibrate thoughts
and processes, self-organised dynamics may cause suffering from ignorance, decreased corporate
growth, and lowered employee satisfaction. This can be forestalled by communication within and
outside teams. Apart from that, it is also important that these patterns are noticed, monitored,
and mentioned by team members and managers. Awareness of negative self-organisation within
teams majorly decreases the chances of affecting the organisation (Connaughton, Shuffler, &
Goodwin, 2011).

Aside from self-organisation as an impeding factor, stress may contribute as well. This can be
caused by the increased responsibility of self-directed teams, combined with augmented roles,
and may lead to performance losses (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). Augmented roles may lead to
members losing focus or having trouble prioritising tasks (Bernstein, et al., 2016).

In short, teams must focus on team autonomy, and stray from individual autonomy or self-
organisation. For the assembly of teams, work experience, skills, and friendship must be taken into
account. Both before and during the process of self-directed teams, communication is very
important. The same goes for training. An impeding factor can be elevated stress levels in
employees. This must be monitored by all team members of the self-directed team. Apart from
requirements for organisations and teams, the individual team member needs to fit the self-
directed teams as well. The promoting and impeding factors for individuals will be reviewed
below.

Individual Level

Factors impeding the start of self-directed teams in terms of attitudes of individuals, can often be
allocated to resistance to change (Liebowitz & Holden, 1995; Strydom, 2002). Reported reasons
for this are a preference for structure, lack of experience, fear of decreased job security, aversion
to increased workload, and fear of the unknown (Kim & McNair, 2010; Mcnair, et al., 2011;
Thursfield, 2015). To reduce this resistance, a clear explanation of what self-directed teams
include and how they operate, has shown effective. Another successful strategy is to show
dissenting employees an example of operating self-directing teams, so they can see and possibly
experience the direct effect (Roufaiel & Meissner, 1995).

Being able to take the lead as a member of a self-directed team is an important factor (Magpili &
Pazos, 2018). In this, it is important to realise that communication is key when it comes to
leadership (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). To be more precise, it is a critical and defining
aspect of leadership (Fairhurst, 2007), and contributes greatly to adaptive performance (Marks,
Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000). Leadership behaviours within a self-directed team has been postulated
a key factor for success in self-directed teams (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). High-performing self-
directed teams tend to have individuals that display and exhibit more leadership behaviours than
those in low-performing self-directed teams (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006). In self-
directed teams, the role of a leader is often rotated, to increase a feeling of shared responsibility
(Caramanica, Ferris & Little, 2001). Shared leadership has also shown to have a positive effect on
the performance of a self-directed team (McIntyre & Foti, 2013; Carte, et al., 2006), through
increased awareness of fellow members’ roles and their significance to the team (Fausing,
Jeppesen, Jønsson, Lewandowski, & Bligh, 2013).

Team members who take on the rotating role of team leader within the self-directed teams, must
have certain skills and attitudes. Firstly, they ought to have expertise concerning the topic at hand
(Banai et al., 2000; Eseryel & Eseryel, 2013), and they must be able to monitor performance
quality (Pais, 2010). Apart from that, they are required to act as boundary spanners (Rolfsen &
Langeland, 2012), a mentor (Hoda, et al., 2013), and a coach (Banai, et al., 2012). Helpful attitudes
in successful leadership in self-directed teams, are delegating tasks when needed, and showing
commitment to the team (Doorewaard, Geert, & Huys, 2002; Heffron & Rerick, 1997).

Leadership within a team is an important skill to acquire, but self-leadership can be even more
important. Self-leadership is the team member’s ability to assign tasks, plan and schedule work,
and to take initiative when problems arise (Noe, Hollenbeek, Gerhart, & Wright, 2007; Kirkman &
Rosen, 1999). In order to function within, and contribute to, a self-directed team, team members
require to possess certain skills. Self-directed team members who complete their own tasks as well
as team tasks effectively, were great contributors to the team’s process (Houghton, Neck, & Manz,
2003; Manz & Sims, 1987, 2001; Neck & Manz, 2007). Self-directing is often driven by self-
discipline over behaviour, intrinsic motivation (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), and the ability to cope
with frustrations and setbacks without letting it influence the process (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997).
These skills tend to develop inconsistently over time, when partaking in a self-directed team
(Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Wageman, 2001).

In this process, it can be helpful to delineate external behaviour-focused rewards, and instead let
the team members discover their internal drives and rewards. This can be done by introducing
natural reward strategies (Neck & Houghton, 2006), to motivate themselves by noticing or
embedding intrinsic rewards into their work. For instance, through determining the long-term
effect of an action, or the short-term response of someone who is helped, even in mundane tasks
(Gagné & Deci, 2005). Apart from that, employees can use positive self-talk, visual imagery of
performance execution, and rational counterarguments for dysfunctional beliefs to increase self-
regulation and self-efficacy (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). The combination of these three strategies,
as displayed in Figure 1, lead to self-leadership; an important skill as a team member of a self-
directed team (Millikin, Horn, & Manz, 2010).

Figure 3: Strategies Leading to Self-leadership (Millikin, Horn & Manz, 2010).

However, there is a major difference between self-leadership and individual autonomy. Individual
autonomy can actually impede successful implementation of self-directed teams. The combination
of low self-autonomy and high team-autonomy showed to be most successful and sustainable in
self-directed teams (Langred, 2004; 2005). This problem becomes most apparent when team
members make decisions without consulting the rest of the team (Moe, Dingsøyr, & Dybå, 2010).
Apart from that, it may also have a negative effect on self-directed teams, because stressing
individual autonomy entices the focus on individual tasks, rather than group assignments, which
can hinder skill acquisition, cross-training and job rotation (Thursfield, 2015; Barney, Moe, Dybå,
Aurum & Winata, 2009).

Self-leadership is an important skill, just as assignment-related skills and knowledge. Individuals

partaking in a self-directed team, must have a variety of skills that can contribute to the team’s
tasks (Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002), because if they lack required skills, they tend to harbour low
expectations (Nicholls, et al., 1999) and focus on defending their job and reputation, rather than
improving themselves (Hoda, et al., 2013). Apart from that, absence of required skills can offset a
decrease in exercising autonomy, which is a key characteristic of self-directed teams (Mcnair, et
al., 2011). Individuals with multiple skills increase the flexibility of a team and improve
collaborative processes (Powell & Pazos, 2017; Wageman, 1997), which reap the most benefits
when some skills shared by multiple team members (Perry, et al, 2013). To achieve this, time and
resources to develop necessary skills must be available (Banai, et al., 2000; Druskat & Pescosolido,
2002).

As in any team, aside from aforementioned assignment-related skills, teamwork skills are
incredibly important in self-directed teams as well (Powell & Pazos, 2017; Weis,1992). Even when
all other factors are in place, the absence of teamwork skills can put a team in malfunction (Fazzari
& Mosca, 2009). Sub-skills concerned with teamwork that are important for self-directed teams,
are the ability to lead, communicate, and conduct meetings effectively (Banai, et al., 2000; Hoda,
et al. 2013).

In short, a team member of a self-directed team must possess certain knowledge, skills, and
attitudes. This starts with being open to change. Apart from that, shared, as well as rotating
leadership, tends to have a positive effect on team performance, as long as the leader possesses
the right skills. Apart from that, self-leadership determines the success of self-directed teams as
well. This is one of the skills a team member must possess, aside from skills concerning the tasks
the team must perform, and teamwork skills in general.

Conclusion and Implications

In conclusion, self-directed teams are teams with a diversity of skills and knowledge, who are
collectively responsible and accountable for planning, managing, and executing tasks to reach a
common goal. The main advantages of self-directed teams are increased job satisfaction, elevated
motivation, and stronger resilience to changes. These effects can be countered if employees
experience peer pressure or responsibility-induced stress.

Promoting and impeding factors for self-directed teams can be categorised on a(n) organisation,
team, and individual level. On the level of the organisation, the structure and culture is important.
Before the start of the self-directed teams, support from management must be made apparent,
and both the tasks and goals of the self-directed teams must be clear beforehand. The tasks
should also be low task routine, and high task innovativeness, in order for a self-directed team to
flourish. Management can support the self-directed teams by staying clear of rigid frameworks
and short-term deadlines. Apart from that, a requirement of self-directed teams is that the culture
of an organisation sees experimenting and risk-taking as a merit. This can be supported by
management through encouraging self-reflection, self-reinforcement, and self-criticism.

For a team, it is important to determine beforehand if the team is ready for self-directed teams. If
this is the case, short-term objectives must be formulated, and the initiator should present a
framework and elaborate on the benefits of self-directed teams. After this, the teams must receive
lasting and effective training on being team players within a self-directed team. During this
process, there has to be room for input, suggestions, and questions from team members. This is
also important during the assembly of teams, where mix of skills, mix of work experience, and
friendship need to be taken into consideration. In the establishment of self-directed teams, it is
important to address and include job rotation, as well as team autonomy. When the teams are
effective, communication within, as well as outside the team must be valued.

On an individual level, the employee must know beforehand what self-directed teams are and how
they operate. Secondly, employees must possess or develop team player, leadership, and self-
leadership skills. The professionalisation it requires from the individual, should be made known
beforehand. Apart from that, the employee must be made aware of the fact that team autonomy
is more important than individual autonomy.

Bibliography

Adler, P. (1993). The learning bureaucracy: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 15, 111.

Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M., and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), ‘The Role of Perceived Organizational Support
and Supportive Human Resource Practices in the Turnover Process,’ Journal of Management, 29, 1,
99–118.

Andrés, M. R., Broncano, S. G., & Montoya Monsalve, J. N. (2015). Could innovative teams provide
the necessary flexibility to compete in the current context? Cuadernos de Gestión, 15, 145-163.
doi:10.5295/cdg.130446mr

Ayas, K. (1996). Professional project management: A shift towards learning and a knowledge
creating structure. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 131-136. doi:10.1016/0263-
7863(95)00080-1

Banai, M., Nirenberg, J., & Menachem, M. (2000). Leadership in self-managing organizations:
Orpheus and a date plantation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 3-17.
doi:10.1177/107179190000700301

Barney, H. T., Moe, N. B., Dybå, T., Aurum, A., & Winata, M. (2009). Balancing individual and
collaborative work in agile teams. In P. Abrahamsson, M. Marchesi, & F. Maurer (Eds.), Agile
processes in software engineering and extreme programming (pp. 53-62). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01853-4_8

Batt, R. (2001). The economics of teams among technicians. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
39, 1-24. doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00187

Batt, R. (2004), ‘Who Benefits from Teams? Comparing Workers, Supervisors, and Managers,’
Industrial Relations, 43, 1, 183–212.

Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016, July-August). Beyond the holacracy hype.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/beyond-the-holacracy-hype?
utm_campaign=harvardbiz&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Boonstra, J.J. (2008) Succesvol veranderen van organisaties. De Verandermanagementbox. Een
reeks van twintig luister cd’s voor succesvol verandermanagement. Schiedam: Managementboek.

Brown, M., Geddes, L.A., and Heywood, J.S. (2007), ‘The Determinants of Employee Involvement
Schemes: Private Sector Australian Evidence,’ Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28, 2, 259–291.

Caramanica, L., Ferris, S., & Little, J. (2001). Communication briefs. Self-directed work teams: use
with caution. Nursing Management, 32(12), 77.

Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual
teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7

Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-276. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0

Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge:

London.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes team work: Group effectiveness research from the
shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A

quasiexperiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43. doi:10.1177/001872679404700102

Conchúir, E. O., Holmström, H., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2009). Benefits of global software
development: Exploring the unexplored. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 14, 201-
212. doi:10.1002/spip.417

Connaughton, S., Shuffler, M., & Goodwin, G. F. (2011). Leading Distributed Teams: The
Communicative Constitution of Leadership. Military Psychology (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 23(5), 502-
527. doi:10.1080/08995605.2011.600147

Cook, G., Gerrish, K., & Clarke, C. (2001). Decision-making in teams: Issues arising from two UK
evaluations. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15, 141-151.10.1080/13561820120039874

Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task
uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31, 240-258. doi:10.1002/job.657

Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of
autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2),
464–476.

Cotton, J., Vollrath, D., Froggatt, K., Lengnick-Hall, M., & Jennings, K. (1988), ‘Employee
Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes,’ Academy of Management Review, 13, 1, 8–
22.

De Caluwé, L. & Vermaak, H. (2010). Leren veranderen; Een handboek voor de veranderkundige.
Deventer: Kluwer.
De Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the service
climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68, 18-35.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.18.27790

De Witte, M., & Jonker, J. (2014). De kunst van veranderen. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Doorewaard, H., Geert, V. H., & Huys, R. (2002). Team responsibility structure and team
performance. Personnel Review, 31, 356-370. doi:10.1108/00483480210422750

Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in
self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human Relations, 55, 283-
314.

Druskat, V., & Wheeler, J. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-
managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435−457.

Eseryel, U. Y., & Eseryel, D. (2013). Action-embedded transformational leadership in self-managing

global information systems development teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22, 103-
120. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.02.001

Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fausing, M. S., Jeppesen, H. J., Jønsson, T. S., Lewandowski, J., & Bligh, M. C. (2013). Moderators of
shared leadership: Work function and team autonomy. Team Performance Management, 19, 244-
262. doi:10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038

Fazzari, A. J., & Mosca, J. B. (2009). Partners in perfection. Human resources facilitating creation
and ongoing implementation of self-managed manufacturing teams in a small medium enterprise.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 353-376. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20017

Fraser, K., Gunawan, J., & Goh, M. (2013). Facility management teams. Journal of Facilities
Management, 11(3), 253-265. doi:10.1108/JFM-04-2012-0023

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331−362.

Glenn L. Taylor, Louis J. Snyder, Keith F. Dahnke & Gary Kuether (2016) Self-Directed R&D Teams:
What Makes Them Effective?, Research-Technology Management, 38:6, 19-23, DOI:
10.1080/08956308.1995.11674302

Hawkins, B. (2013). Gendering the eye of the norm: Exploring gendered concertive control
processes in two self-managing teams. Gender, Work & Organization, 20, 113-126.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00588.x

Heffron, B., & Rerick, R. (1997). Self-managed work teams at Harris Semiconductor, Mountaintop
operations. IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, Cambridge, MA.
doi:10.1109/ASMC.1997.630736

Henning, P. (2008). Self-organized patterns in the workplace: Obstacles to awareness. Systems

Research and Behavioral Science, 25(6), 733-742. doi:10.1002/sres.892
Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2013). Self-organizing roles on agile software development
teams. IEEE Transactions on software Engineering, 39, 422-444. doi:10.1109/TSE.2012.30

Houghton, J., Neck, C., & Manz, C. (2003). Self-leadership and superleadership. In C. Pearce, & J.
Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership (pp. 123−140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination
of goal and process clarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851-862. doi:10.1037/a0022465

Janz, B. (1999). Self-directed teams in iS: Correlates for improved systems development work
outcomes. Information & Management, 35(3), 171-192. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00088-3

Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Scott DeRue, D., Barnes, C. M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional
versus dysfunctional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural feedback for self-managed
teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 1-11.
Doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.006

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to
work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1−56.

Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 1-21. doi:10.1348/096317905X53237

Kim, K. S., & McNair, L. D. (2010, October 27-30). Self-managed teaming and team effectiveness in
interdisciplinary capstone design. 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC.
doi:10.1109/FIE.2010.5673590

Kirkman, B. I., & Rosen, B. (2001). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 48-66.
doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)88449-1

Kirkman, B.L., and Rosen, B. (1999), ‘Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of
Team Empowerment,’ Academy of Management Journal, 42, 1, 58–74.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 119, 254-284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual
autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal,47, 385-399.
doi:10.2307/20159588

Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of
task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31, 513-529. doi:10.1177/0149206304272190

Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field
data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34, 87-114.

Leifer, R., & Mills, P. K. (1996). An information processing approach for deciding upon control
strategies and reducing control loss in emerging organizations. Journal of Management, 22, 113-
137. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(96)90014-8
Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1995). Teamwork in research and development organizations: The
characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29-42.
doi:10.1016/0169-8141(94)00076-F

Levine, D.I., and Tyson, L.D. (1990), ‘Participation, Productivity and the Firm’s Environment,’ in
Paying for Productivity, ed. A.S. Blinder, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, pp. 183–243.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Futing Liao, T. (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science
research methods Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781412950589

Liebowitz, S., & Holden, K. (1995). Are self-managing teams worthwhile? A tale of two companies.
SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60(2), 11-18.

Magpili, N.C., & Pazos, P. (2018). Self-Managing team performance: A systematic review of
multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3-33. doi:10.1177/1046496417710500

Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-
managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,106−128.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings
and team interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 971–986.

Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical
test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,97−108.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F., (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Vol.
42). D. Reidel Publishing Company: Boston.

McCalman, J. (1998). Self-managing teams in high technology manufacture: Overcoming

technological barriers. Team Performance Management, 4(3), 93-112.
doi:10.1108/13527599810222068

McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. (2013). The impact of shared leadership on teamwork mental models
and performance in self-directed teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 46-57.
doi:10.1177/1368430211422923

Mcnair, L. D., Newswander, C., Boden, D., & Borrego, M. (2011). Student and faculty
interdisciplinary identities in self-managed teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 374-396.
doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00018.x

Millikin, J. P., Horn, P. W., & Manz, C. C. (2010). Self-management competencies in self-managing
teams: Their impact on multi-team system productivity. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 687-702.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.001

Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A
case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52, 480-491.
doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context
of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497-508. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.90.3.497

Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding
how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
271-287. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.00

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to
understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 1–39.

Neck, C., & Houghton, J. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past
developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,
270−295.

Neck, C., & Manz, C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal
excellence, 4th Ed. . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Nicholls, C. E., Lane, H. W., & Brechu, M. B. (1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico.
Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 15-25. doi:10.5465/AME.1999.2210310

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P.M. (2007), Fundamentals of Human
Resource Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Nonaka, I. (2007). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 85(7), 162–171

Orsburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., Zenger, J., & Perrin, C. (1990). Self-directed work teams:
The new American culture. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Pais, C. L. A. (2010). Self-managed teams in the auto components industry: Construction of a

theoretical model. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 16, 359-387.
doi:10.1108/13527591011090646

Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous teams and new product development
autonomous teams and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
29, 734-750. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00934.x

Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to
transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 47-57.
Doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12690298

Perry, E. E., Jr., Karney, D. F., & Spencer, D. G. (2013). Team establishment of selfmanaged work
teams: A model from the field. Team Performance Management,19, 87-108.
doi:10.1108/13527591311312114

Petty, G. C., Doo Hun, L., Seung Won, Y., & Fontan, J. (2008). The effect of self-directed work teams
on work ethic. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 49-63. doi:10.1002/piq.20022

Phakathi, T. S. (2002). Self-directed work teams in a post-apartheid gold mine: Perspectives from
the rock face. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14, 278-285.doi:10.1108/13665620210445582
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin.

Powell, A., & Pazos, P. (2017). Building high-performing autonomous teams in complex
manufacturing settings: A naturalistic research approach. Engineering Management Journal, 29(3),
206-219.

Rolfsen, M., & Langeland, C. (2012). Successful maintenance practice through team autonomy.
Employee Relations, 34, 306-321. doi:10.1108/01425451211217725

Roper, K.O. and Phillips, D.R. (2007), “Integrating self-managed work teams into project
management”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-36.

Roufaiel, N., & Meissner, M. (1995). Self-managing teams. Benchmarking for Quality Management
& Technology, 2, 21-37. doi:10.1108/14635779510081625

Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The
moderating effect of task routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35, 751-781.
doi:10.1177/1059601110390835

Roy, M. (2003). Self-directed work teams and safety: A winning combination? Safety Science, 41,
359-376. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00040-1

Ruijters, M. & Simons, R. (2006). Het leerlandschap in organisaties. Develop; Onderzoekend leren,
lerend onderzoeken, year 2006(2), 54-63.

Scribner, J., Sawyer, R., Watson, S., & Myers, V. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership:
A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 67-100.
doi:10.1177/0013161X06293631

Sethi, R., & Sethi, A. (2009). Can quality-oriented firms develop innovative new products? Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 26, 206-221. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00346.x

Short, P. M. (1993). School empowerment through self-managing teams: Leader behavior in

developing self-managing work groups in schools. ERIC. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED364983.pdf

Slavit, D., & McDuffie, A. R. (2013). Self-Directed Teacher Learning in Collaborative Contexts.
School Science & Mathematics, 113(2), 94-105. doi:10.1111/ssm.12001

Smith, A. D., & Offodile, O. F. (2008). Strategic importance of team integration issues in product
development processes to improve manufacturability. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 14, 269-292.doi:10.1108/13527590810898527

Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240−261.

Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2012). Peer-based control in selfmanaging teams:
Linking rational and normative influence with individual and group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 435-447. doi:10.1037/a0025303
Strydom, C. F. (2002). An evaluation of the self-directed work team concept as a means to improve
overall performance on South African gold mines. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, 102, 93-100. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10520/AJA0038223X_2779

Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000).Work groups: From the How thorne
studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
4(1), 44–67.

Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of
team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248-
265.http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604457

Thursfield, D. (2015). Resistance to teamworking in a UK research and development laboratory.

Work, Employment and Society, 29, 989-1006. doi:10.1177/0950017014559967

Trist, E. L. (1981). The socio-technical perspective. In A. H. Van de Ven &W. F. Joyce (Eds.),
Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 19–75). New York: Wiley.

Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall
method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.

Trist, E. L., Higgin, G. W., Murray, J., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London:
Tavistock.

Turner, D. M. (2016, March 1). Are your employees too tired to change? Retrieved June 21, 2018,
from https://thinktransition.com/change-fatigue/

Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams.
Organizational Dynamics, 26, 49-61. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90027-9

Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus
hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559−577

Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus
hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559-577.doi:10.1287/orsc.12.5.559.10094

Wax, A., DeChurch, L., & Contractor, N. (2017). Self-Organizing into winning teams: Understanding
the mechanisms that drive successful collaborations. Small Group Research, 48(6), 665-718.
doi:10.1177/1046496417724209

Weis, P. (1992). Achieving zero-defect service through self-directed teams. Journal of Systems
Management, 43(2), 26-28. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/docview/199815668/fulltextPDF/CE30D1D55D6048
D4PQ/1?accountid=12967

Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E.
Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-
disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–112). New York, NY: Psychology Press.