Int. J.

of Human Resource Management 16:2 February 2005 185201

Teamwork: a case study on development and performance

Ben S. Kuipers and Marco C. de Witte

Abstract The most popular model of team development in Dutch socio-technical literature is a linear approach, which states that teams develop in four successive phases. A method for dening the particular phase a team is in was developed a number of years ago and was recently used in a large-scale survey at Volvos cab manufacturing plant in Umea (northern Sweden). Thirty-seven semi-autonomous teams were studied at this plant during a seven-month period. This paper examines the development of the teams and addresses the effects of team development on overall team performance. The aspect of team development was correlated to both performance in terms of quality of working life (QWL) and business performance (BP), which is an empirically unexplored eld within team literature. The linear phase approach of team development could not be proved. Nevertheless, teams were found to develop in four important areas, with each aspect signicantly affecting team performance. Keywords Teamwork; team development; team performance; quality of working life; business performance; empirical study.

Introduction Few empirical studies on the relationship between teamwork and performance have been carried out, while, as far as we know, there is no study on the relationship between team development and team performance. Existing studies examining the relationship between teamwork and performance have generally focused on subjective performance criteria, such as experienced team effectiveness and several aspects of quality of working life (QWL). We have studied several examples and have identied three category areas within the literature: (a) Generally assumed relationships between teamwork and performance (b) Relationships between teamwork and subjective performance (c) Small-scale studies of the relationships between teamwork and business performance (BP), such as product quality, productivity, delivery precision, etc. After describing the literature in the three identied categories we dene teamwork, team development and team performance. Following that, we present our case study at
Ben S. Kuipers, University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization, Department of Human Resource Management, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands (e-mail: b.s.kuipers@bdk.rug.nl). Marco C. de Witte, University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization, Department of Human Resource Management, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands (e-mail: m.c.de.witte@bdk.rug.nl).
The International Journal of Human Resource Management ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/0958519042000311390

186 The International Journal of Human Resource Management Volvos cab manufacturing plant in Umea (northern Sweden). Based on the ndings of this large empirical study we discuss the relationship between team development and both quality of working life and business performance. Literature analysis and conceptual framework Literature on the relationship between teamwork and performance Much of the literature on teamwork is limited to generating assumptions about expected team performance. The theory postulated by Van Amelsvoort and Scholtes (1994) and Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort (2000) is a good example. They describe how teams develop and what can be done to support teams to develop in steps (i.e. by adjusting leadership style to the current phase of the team). The assumption is that the team will develop into a completely self-managing unit that will improve based on its own initiative. However, the expected team performance at this stage is not based on empirical study. De Leede (1997) carried out an empirical study which did not emphasize actual team performance but rather closely examined the contribution of autonomous teams to continuous improvement (product and process development). This study suggested that the teams made a clear contribution to the continuous improvement of the organization in terms of observations, ideas and suggestions towards improving production, quality (of both product and process) and QWL. However, concrete improvement in production, quality and QWL was not studied. Two examples of studies focusing on the relationship between teamwork and subjectively measured performance are Cohen and Ledford (1994) and the 1999 EPOC survey. Cohen and Ledford (1994) carried out an extensive study on the effects of self-managing teams at an American telecommunications company. More than eighty self-managing teams were compared to eighty traditional working groups or departments. This study showed that the self-managed teams had signicantly better outcomes on QWL, particularly concerning different dened types of satisfaction. Perceived group functioning and performance were also much higher for the selfmanaged teams compared to the traditional groups. By asking the team managers about the actual performance criteria, the researchers also believed that they had identied signicantly higher performance levels within the self-managing teams. Almost 6000 organizations within Europe were involved in the EPOC survey by Benders et al., (2001) and were divided into different grades of team organization from weak group-delegation to team-based. The survey examined how the degree of teamwork affected team performance. The conclusion of the study stated that the reported economic effects are signicant and are stronger the more intensely groupdelegation is applied. These gures represent the managements perception of the economic effects and concern reductions in costs and throughput time, as well as improvement in quality and increased output. Within the area of QWL, lower illness and absenteeism rates were reported within team-based organizations compared to organizations with lower degrees of group delegation. The rst of two studies on the relationship between teamwork and BP was carried out by COB/SER (1991) the Social Economic Advice Council for the Dutch government. This study was carried out at nine production companies in the Netherlands. Although this study emphasized mainly the effects of the information system within the company on QWL and the exibility and controllability of production, much was learned regarding the effects of production design in general. The study revealed that organizations working with a stream-designed production system have a better QWL

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

187

compared to organizations with a more traditional production system.1 The study also indicated that these organizations have good opportunities to improve exibility and controllability, especially when they aim at shortening through-put time and improving delivery precision (COB/SER, 1991). Similar conclusions were drawn by Vink et al., (1996) regarding the relationship between teamwork and BP in the Dutch postal service. This study compared the organization of two different postal sorting facilities on the effects on QWL and productivity. The study compared the teamwork approach to traditional working methods. It appears that teamwork had a positive impact on the QWL, particularly as the autonomy of the operators is increased. Moreover, BP was inuenced by teamwork when compared to traditional working methods: productivity signicantly increased within the team environment. In addition, the teams were better at utilizing machine capacity and handling uctuations within the production process, and even showed increasing improvement in the latter. Finally, we should also like to highlight the study by Yeatts and Hyten (1998), which summarized the existing models in relation to self-managed work teams (SMWTs) and performance. The models, which they use to build their own model, are a combination of theories that assume a relationship between teamwork and performance and theories based on empirical studies on the relationships between subjective performance (usually QWL) and BP. They combined well-known models, such as the models of McGrath (1964), Hackman and Oldham (1980), Campion et al., (1993) and Cohen (1994). The distinction they made between a SMWT and a normal work team (replicating the work of Hackman and Oldham, 1980) is that the team members of a SMWT have the authority, as a team, to make decisions about the work and to handle internal processes as they see t to generate a specic team product, service or decision. In this respect, their model differs from the one we will develop in this paper, since we want to measure the extent to which this authority is utilized by the team in terms of team development within four areas. It is notable that most of the large-scale surveys described here study exclusively the subjective performance of teams. Specically, the perceptions of the people involved are studied, rather than the actual BP gures particularly regarding the relationship between teamwork and BP. Many studies are obliged to use these subjective BP criteria, which may be the best form of data available. However, when there is no need to make a comparison among different cases, the use of objective performance data, if available, is clearly preferable. Looking at other studies within the eld, we expect a positive impact of teamwork on QWL from the research at the Volvo plant in Umea (VLU). The effects of teamwork on BP criteria appear less evident in the above-mentioned studies. Nevertheless, we minimally expect a positive impact from teamwork on productivity and delivery precision considering Benders et al. (2001), Vink et al. (1996) and the COB/SER (1991). The majority of other research projects did not study the direct relationship with product quality. However, from De Leedes (1997) study we might expect that, because of a teams contribution to continuous improvement, the product quality should be positively inuenced as well. Moreover, Benders et al. (2001) indicated a positive effect of teamwork on quality, when considering managements perception of improved quality. It is worth noting that the other studies measured performance mainly among autonomous teams and other working forms, while our research concentrates on the impact of team development on performance. In this respect, we consider a dynamic approach to teamwork in which potential differences among teams are viewed along with the various levels of empowerment achieved over time, although these teams are organized according

188 The International Journal of Human Resource Management to the same concept. Our study concentrates on two research questions: 1 2 How do teams develop? What is the impact of team development on team performance?

Teams: a denition We prefer to view teams as semi-autonomous rather than autonomous, since we do not believe that teams in a production setting, which have to meet pre-dened company goals, could or should be expected to reach full autonomy. Such teams work in a wider organizational framework and are responsible for their own part in reaching common business goals. This framework, of course, should be adjusted to the teams needs to develop and improve itself and its performance, but it will always be restricted and in line with the organizations mission and goals. Based on earlier denitions of teams by Katzenbach and Smith (1993) and Van Amelsvoort and Scholtes (1994), we have dened a semi-autonomous team as:
A permanent group of people with a dened number of members. These members are committed, and they hold joint responsibility for a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach. These goals are based on customers demands. The team performs in all areas with a high degree of independence and with continuous focus on improvement.

The extra demand we place on continuous improvement implies that the team should constantly develop its responsibility (and responsiveness), performance goals and approach in order to remain competitive in respect to changing customer demands (internal and external). This continuous improvement can be characterized as a process of team development, which results in improved team performance. Team development For the denition of team development, we follow Hut and Molleman (1998), in which team development is viewed as empowerment of a team in several stages over time (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Team development (based on Hut and Molleman, 1998)

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

189

Hut and Molleman developed a method to make a more dynamic and realistic version of the team development model of Van Amelsvoort and Scholtes (1994) by combining it with the work group characteristics theory by Campion et al. (1993). Hut and Molleman (1998) suggested that the term stages might give an incorrect impression that they believe in a linear-one-best-way form of team development, in which the beginning and the end of each stage is clearly marked, as presented in the model of Van Amelsvoort and Scholtes. With regard to Hut and Molleman, we also believe that there are many ways to empower teams, that their stages might be mixed, and that their sequences may change. In addition, we also believe that team development is not an ending story, as a stage model might suggest. Rather, in a dynamic environment, it is better to regard it in a perspective of continuous improvement. They also say that when developing teams it is not possible to pay attention to all aspects at the same time. Hence, they dene four stages of team development as issues rising in complexity, changing attention from routine to non-routine tasks, from individual to group, and from inwards oriented to outwards directed. They still use the term stages to express the fact that it is not possible to focus on all aspects simultaneously, although they suggest a possible overlap, as can be seen in their model.
Stage 1: job enlargement

Hut and Molleman (1998) stated that the team concentrates on the redundancy of functions, and multi-functionality is their motto. All members of the team must be able to perform the primary tasks of the team; in the case of VLU, this means that all team members are able to rotate on all stations of their workow, as we will describe later. Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort (2000) identied this phase as technical prociency. Hut and Molleman (1998) stated that the principal characteristic of this stage is minimal critical specication and the redesign of the control structure. The greatest degree of delegation of control tasks is used here. The team takes over control tasks from their manager, as well as from supporting departments, such as quality and planning activities. Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort (2000) identied this phase as managerial autonomy.

Stage 2: job enrichment

Stage 3: co-operation

Hut and Molleman (1998) described this as the self-reliance of the team. The team has to work as a team, and this involves teambuilding, working on communication and joint decision-making. The team must become autonomous and independent of its supervisor. Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort (2000) identied this phase as social maturity.

Stage 4: high performance According to Hut and Molleman (1998), the principles of this stage are double-loop learning the capacity to solve most non-routine problems, or, as van Amelsvoort and Scholtes (1994) put it, improving ones own initiative and management of team-boundaries. This last aspect is based on Katz and Kahn (1978) and is about the management of relationships with other teams but also concerns customers and suppliers. Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort (2000) call this the phase performance focus.

Team performance As discussed in our literature overview, there are several approaches regarding the team performance concept. Our study includes performance indicators related to both the QWL

190 The International Journal of Human Resource Management and BP, in addition to subjective and objective performance indicators. We utilize the concept developed by Suzaki (1993), in which he expressed an organizations performance (or effectiveness) based on customer satisfaction: in continuously satisfying our customers with high-quality (Q) products or services, at less costs (C) and shorter delivery periods (D) and clearly dening QCD, everyone can effectively work together to address these aspects. Suzakis view is that all employees are also internal customers. According to Suzaki (1993), if we add safety (S) and morale (M) to address employee concerns, QCDSM become the major criteria for an organizations success . . . in other words, if we focus on these 5 items, we should be able to cover most of the major concerns of the organization. Some additional remarks must be made regarding the utilization of Suzakis ideas in terms of QWL and BP and applying these at the Volvo Truck Umea (VLU) plant. First, the safety aspect could not be used in the research at VLU, since we did not have access to the gures concerning work-related sick leave or injuries, among other things. We therefore used only indicators of morale as measures for QWL. Morale was not clearly dened by Suzaki (1993); he indicated that several types of measurements and ratings might be used. We used two subjective measurement criteria: individual satisfaction and involvoment (this term demonstrates the way in which team members feel committed to Volvo and their work). Second, for BP, we used the gures for quality and delivery precision. Quality at VLU is measured as a percentage of direct OK products, which means the percentage of products that leave the process directly without quality defects. Delivery precision is expressed as a percentage of products produced according to the production schedule. Furthermore, cost measurements were not available for most teams at VLU. In place of the cost aspect, productivity was used, in combination with high-quality and good delivery precision. Due to greater effectiveness and efciency, high productivity also gives an indication of lower costs. Research model The model used for this research is based on a simple process-output approach to teamwork. The process of teamwork is the development of a team in each of the previously mentioned aspects of empowerment, which are expected to lead to a certain team output (the dened criteria for QWL and BP). This paper will examine only how teams develop and what impact this development has on team performance. We are aware of its importance, but due to the limitations of this paper we do not take the previously mentioned organizational framework into consideration (for the complete conceptual model, see Kuipers, 2000). Case study and research methods Research environment Volvo is well known for experimentation in the area of teamwork at their former car division (e.g. Womack et al., 1990; Adler and Cole, 1993). However, researchers are less familiar with Volvos work regarding team-work also implemented at their truck and bus division (Berggren, 1993; Thompson and Wallace, 1996). The teams in the nal assembly area at VLU have been working with a large degree of autonomy in short ows for several years now. Both the management and the union at the plant have been experimenting with this concept for some time, and the management wanted to obtain an objective view on the progress of their teams, and this objective forms the basis for carrying out this study.

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

191

Volvo Lastvagnar Umeverken (VLU: Volvo Trucks Umea Plant) is Volvos European manufacturer for truck cabins. This plant builds between 45,000 and 55,000 cabs annually (mostly for the European market), from steel plate to completely tted cabs which are ready to be assembled at their platforms at Volvo Gothenburg or Gent. Besides several supporting departments, four main production processes take place at this plant the press-shop, welding, the paint-shop and nal assembly. Our research focused on the nal assembly teams, where 500800 people work. For organizational reasons, this has been divided into two departments of equal size and similar activities. These departments can be further divided into three main activity areas: 1) short ows where the cab trimming takes place, 2) dashboard and pedal-plate assembly and 3) the adjustment area. When a painted body enters the cab buffer, it awaits trimming and nal assembly. Based on the customer order sequence, the cab is taken out of the buffer and taken to a short ow, where they will be trimmed. Simultaneously, an order leaves for dashboard and pedal-plate assembly, to ensure that the specic dashboard and pedal-plate for this cab are delivered to the short ow at the time they need to be installed in the cab. The complete cab is then put through to the adjustment area where a quality check and adjustment is performed to classify the cab as 100 per cent OK. The shop oor for cab trimming2 is divided into eighteen short ows, where thirty teams work in a two-shift system and three teams work during daytime hours. A complete team consists of thirteen operators who work together at six stations in the short ow, and they are responsible for trimming four to six cabs per workday. The general idea is that each station is manned by two people (and one for the last station) working on the specic tasks for that step in the short ow, while there are two extra people to ll in for sick leave, vacation and training of team members. The team is responsible for getting the next painted body from the buffer when the rst station has completed its work. The cab goes through the six stations in a xed sequence, with each station having the same throughput time (approximately one-and-a-half to two hours, depending on type and specications). In a well-trained team, the members are capable of manning all stations, so they can follow the cab around the short ow. At the nal station a complete quality check is performed, in addition to adjustments that the team is able to perform itself. Due to the nature of the job, the situation in the dashboard and pedal-plate assembly is different. Here, a team consists of eleven members, and the operators generally complete a dash-board in pairs at their own workstation, while they individually complete the pedal-plate. They receive on-the-job training to build both products and rotate between pedal-plates and dash-boards. The operators deliver the nished dashboard and pedal-plate to the short ow that ordered it. A total of eight teams work in this area. The adjustment area is the nal area. Here, a shift consisting of two teams of eleven people each is responsible for the nal checks and adjusting cabs that are delivered by the short ows. Within the framework of an organization development (OD) programme, the teams are responsible for reaching their weekly production targets and the required level of quality and delivery precision; they are also responsible for a number of team administrative tasks. Weekly planning is carried out in co-operation with the production leader. Problems with production, 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 operators learn skills on a station-by-station basis management estimates that an average operator learns all stations in about two years and the worker appraisal system is largely based on how many stations an operator can perform. The team instructs new

192 The International Journal of Human Resource Management members among themselves during working hours. In collaboration with the production leader, 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 OD goals and plans, based on the plants 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. These responsibilities and processes are similar for all the teams: short ows, dashboards and pedal-plates and adjustment. Research method This study commenced with a large survey of forty-three teams in the nal assembly area. Most questions required answers based on the Likert scale, similar to the original questions conducted by Hut (1996) in which the respondents could answer to what extent they agree with a statement based on a 5-point scale: varying from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). The eighty-one items in the survey were grouped in sections of similar items. Respondents had the option of writing comments after each item. Their remarks helped to improve the questions, such as making items clearer for the second measurement. The survey was administered twice: September 1999 for measurement t0 and February 2000 for measurement t1.3 All teams in the nal assembly (forty-three in total) had the opportunity to complete a survey and to return it within a few weeks. The team members lled out the questionnaire individually and anonymously during one of their weekly team meetings. The individual questionnaires from a single team together represented the whole team, and in this way no attention was paid to individual answers. Of the approximately 550 workers in the nal assembly section, 479 returned the rst questionnaire at t0 (response rate: 90 per cent) and 425 returned the second questionnaire at t1 (response rate: 80 per cent). To obtain an accurate picture of the team, more than half the team members had to have completed the questionnaire, and only those teams which lled out the questionnaire both times were included, since otherwise it was not possible to compare the results over time. Finally, thirty-seven teams were included for further analysis. Of these teams, four worked in dashboards and pedal-plates assembly, and two teams were responsible for adjustment. The remaining teams (thirty-one) were short-ow teams (trimming cabs). In summary, thirty-seven cases (86 per cent of the total population) were included in the research over a six-month period, and the team was the object of measurement and analysis. Some minor changes were made to Huts questionnaire (1996). Some items appeared redundant regarding the Volvo teams. Job enlargement was measured using a total of twenty items, job enrichment consisted of twenty-two items, co-operation sixteen items and high performance nineteen items. Reliability of the scales forming the four different stages was proved using a Cronbachs alpha test. All calculated alphas showed a value of at least 0.84. The validity of the dimensions had already been assured in Huts (1996) study, but we had to take into account that the translation of the questionnaire into Swedish could have inuenced the validity. However, the validity of the translation was also secured by extensively examining the questionnaire with the production leaders and a test team, as well as by questioning many respondents during and after completing the questionnaire regarding the interpretability of the items.

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study Findings Team development

193

There are two types of results concerning the development of a team: 1) team scores, the level of a team within the four dimensions at a certain measurement time t0 or t1, and 2) team development, the development of a team which took place between the two measurements t0 and t1, i.e. the difference between the team scores at t0 and t1. This section discusses both the team scores and the team development. Each team had individual results (for use in further analysis).4 The data were copious therefore the average gures of all teams involved in the research are shown. In order to make comparison easier,5 the gures presented in Figure 2 are constructed in the same way as the research by Hut and Molleman (1998; Hut; 1996). The bars in the gure for September 1999 show the average team scores of all teams studied at t0. Note the rather low level of each stage; all are less than one-third of the reachable level, and high performance in particular is lagging, despite the fact that a great deal of attention was paid to high-performance items within the OD programme. From the average gure of all thirty-seven teams, it might be concluded that there is a hierarchy in the four dimensions. However, only ve of the thirty-seven teams have the highest level in stage 1 followed by 2, 3 and 4; i.e. only ve teams show the step pattern Hut and Molleman described in their 1998 study. A similar picture can be drawn for t1. Although the teams showing a stairway pattern have doubled here (ten teams), it is still a minority within the entire sample. The average level of the teams at t1 (February 2000) is also shown in Figure 2. The team scores for each of the stages improved, and job enrichment even reached a slightly higher level than job enlargement.

Figure 2 Average team scores at t0 (September 1999) and t1 (February 2000)

194 The International Journal of Human Resource Management Between the two measurements, average job enlargement (JL) rose by 9.6 percentage points, job enrichment (JR) increased by 11.6 percentage points, co-operation (CO) climbed by 6.9 percentage points and high performance (HP) increased by 4.3 percentage points. Although the level of high performance improved signicantly in percentage terms (almost doubling), its level is still considerably lower than the others. The teams also differ widely here with some teams even experiencing negative development. At this point, the gures indicate that at all four stages the teams seemed to develop at the same time and in no specic order. We believe that it is more appropriate to refer to them as dimensions a term which we will use henceforth. Nevertheless, team development (or its pattern) is not a goal in itself, and therefore we will look at its impact on performance, which can assist in developing an improved approach to work with team development. Performance development This section discusses the performance of the teams in the nal assembly. As explained earlier, performance can be divided into QWL and BP. Our study measures QWL perceived by the teams on the basis of satisfaction and involvoment. BP was measured using the percentage of direct OK products produced by the team, the delivery precision and the productivity of the team. For reference purposes, the average QWL gures for the thirty-seven teams are shown in Table 1 (the individual team results were used for the actual analyses). These gures are based on a 5-point response scale. As can be seen from the gures, the scores for satisfaction are situated somewhat in the middle. This means that the performance in terms of QWL was not impressive, but neither can it be called alarming. In this respect, involvoment sets itself apart. When it comes to QWL development, it can be seen that both gures generally developed positively, although the standard deviations of the development in percentage terms are rather high; both satisfaction and involvoment were valued more highly at the second measurement. Table 2 shows the average BP gures at t0 and t1 for the 37 teams (see the section on team performance for a description of the BP indicators). The most important gures for analysis are the scores at t1 and the development gures. At this point, we see that the quality gures are already high, especially when compared with the gures of about six years ago when the level of direct OKs was approximately 40 per cent. The development of 11 per cent during our six-month research period was quite good. There is still room for improvement to approach the 100 per cent area. There were differences among the teams when considering the standard deviation for the proportional development of quality. Similar remarks can be made concerning delivery precision, although these gures were not measured for long periods within the nal assembly department.

Table 1 Average performance scores and development for the quality of working life criteria QWL scores t0 Satisfaction Involvoment 2.70 3.48 QWL scores t1 2.86 3.63 QWL development 1 6% 1 4% Signicance development 0.011** 0.006* SD development 0.17 0.1

Notes * Signicant at the 1 per cent level. ** Signicant at the 5 per cent level one sample t-test with test value 0 development.

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

195

Table 2 Average performance scores and development for the business performance criteria BP scores t0 Quality Delivery Productivity 82.2% 90% 23.4% BP scores t1 91.4% 96.0% 27.1% BP development 1 11% 1 6% 1 16% Signicance development 0.000* 0.010* 0.000* SD development 0.9 0.12 0.18

Note * Signicant at the 1 per cent level one sample t-test with test value 0 development.

Nevertheless, improvement during the period of research was evident, and the level at t1 was quite high. The differences (SD) between teams were even higher. Finally, productivity gures were expressed by the number of cabs produced per team per week. Knowing that the ofcial target was about twenty-seven and half cabs per week for each team, this amount was nearly reached at t1. Using these gures, we shall now start analysing the impact of team development on performance development and the team scores on the performance scores. The impact of team development on performance development The analysis in which the impact of team development on team performance is examined was divided into two parts. First, the actual team development of each of the teams was correlated to their performance development, both between t0 and t1; this is the diachronic or longitudinal analysis and will be discussed in this section. Second, the team scores of each team were correlated to the teams individual performance scores, both at t1; this is the synchronic or cross-sectional analysis, which will be discussed in the following section. Table 3 shows the results of the step-wise diachronic regression analysis on the relationship between the development of a team and its performance development between t0 and t1; the unit of analysis is the individual team, with N 37: The only signicant relationship found between team development as a combination of four dimensions and performance development is the development of quality

Table 3 Overview of signicant relationships between team development and performance development with step-wise multiple regression Dimension Quality 1 (job-enl.) 2 (job-enr.) 3 (co-operation) 4 (high-perf.) 1 (job-enl.) 2 (job-enr.) 3 (co-operation) 4 (high-perf.) R2 .073 .223 .228 .345 .122 .126 .171 .229 R 2D .073 .150 .005 .117 .122 .004 .045 .058 Signicance D 0.142 0.028** 0.668 0.041** 0.034** 0.679 0.190 0.132

Satisfaction

Note ** Signicant at the 5 per cent level. R2 cumulative regression value per dimension. R2 D difference in regression value compared to the preceding dimension.

196 The International Journal of Human Resource Management R 2 0:345 at the signicance level of 0.022). The relationship of the development of all four dimensions together with the development of satisfaction was not signicant, but the relationship was signicant for job enlargement (see Table 3). Analysis further demonstrated that 34.5 per cent of the quality development can be explained by development in the four dimension areas. A signicant part of this was due to the development of job enrichment R 2 D 0150 with sign: 0:028 and the development of high performance R 2 D 0:117 with sign: 0:041: In the area of work satisfaction, the relationship was little less apparent regarding development of the four dimensions. In this case, development of the combined dimensions did not lead to a signicant development in satisfaction. However, when separately examining the relationships of the dimensions, it can be seen that the development of job enlargement impacted on satisfaction by 12 per cent R 2 D 0:122 with sign. 0.034) during the six months of the research period. The impact of team scores on performance A synchronic step-wise regression analysis between the scores of a team at t1 and its individual performance scores at t1 was also performed; the unit of analysis is again the team, with N 37: Table 4 shows that the team scores affected the level of delivery precision R 2 0:390 with sign. 0:004; productivity R 2 0:328 with sign: 0:015 and involvoment R 2 0:260 with sign: 0:042: The analysis also showed that in terms of total team scores, the level of job enlargement and co-operation are the main causes of the present level of delivery precision at t1. The biggest impact was caused by job enlargement R 2 D 0:209 with sign. 0:006;

Table 4 Overview of signicant relationships between team scores and performance scores with step-wise multiple regression Dimension Delivery prec. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (job-enl.) (job-enr.) (co-operation) (high-perf.) (job-enl.) (job-enr.) (co-operation) (high-perf.) (job-enl.) (job-enr.) (co-operation) (high-perf.) (job-enl.) (job-enr.) (co-operation) (high-perf.) R2 .209 .210 .380 .390 .012 .028 .294 .328 .190 .193 .237 .244 .131 .233 .253 .260 R 2D .209 .001 .171 .010 .012 .017 .265 .034 .190 .004 .043 .008 .131 .101 .020 .006 Signicance D 0.006* 0.832 0.006* 0.486 0.537 0.462 0.002* 0.227 0.007* 0.694 0.181 0.568 0.027** 0.041** 0.349 0.602

Productivity

Satisfaction

Involvoment

Notes * Signicant at the 1 per cent level. ** Signicant at the 5 per cent level. R2 cumulative regression value per dimension. R2 D difference in regression value compared to the preceding dimension.

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

197

followed by co-operation R 2 D 0:171 with sign: 0:006: The level of productivity at t1 is mainly dependent on the co-operation score R 2 D 0:265 with sign: 0:002: Similar to the gures for the impact of team development on team performance (Table 3), the team scores showed the same effect on work satisfaction; although the cumulative impact on satisfaction was insignicant, the sole factor of job enlargement was signicant R 2 D 0:190 with sign: 0:007: Involvoment with the company is mainly dependent on the levels of job enlargement R 2 D 0:131 with sign: 0:027 and job enrichment R 2 D 0:101 with sign: 0:041: Conclusions Team development at VLU: how do teams develop? Of the thirty-seven teams included in the analysis, it appeared that all teams experienced varied development. The averages presented in Figure 2 exhibited a slightly linear development of the dimensions, as also described by Hut and Molleman (1998). The individual gures of each team, however, revealed a completely different picture; very few teams exhibited a linear pattern. This contradicts the strict theory of team development in subsequent phases, as hypothesized by Van Amelsvoort and Scholtes (1994) and Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort (2000). Moreover, the stages approach employed by Hut and Molleman (1998) is questionable. Hut and Molleman (1998) identied a step pattern in the teams they studied at Philips. The teams in our case study, however, did not develop a discernable pattern within the dimensions of team development. Further, the difference between the two measurements (Figure 2) clearly showed that the teams experienced development during our six-month study period. Team development and performance: what is the impact of team development on team performance? To ensure that team development does not become a goal in itself, and also to nd ways to make teamwork more effective, we sought to identify relationships between team development and performance criteria. Hard evidence gives much more condence to people working in teams, compared to theoretical assumptions about the effects of teamwork on performance. In this respect, we identied relationships between each of the team development dimensions. The relationship between the developments in job enrichment and high performance with the development in quality shows that increasing delegation of control tasks and an increasing capacity for improving initiative within the teams enabled the teams to reduce the number of defects in the assembled cabs. Having improved control capacity within the team, which means having more responsibility to make decisions, led to an improved response regarding quality defects. On the other hand, a higher level of doubleloop learning improved insights regarding the ability to solve non-routine problems within the area of product quality. In both the diachronic and the synchronic analyses, job enlargement was demonstrated to be related to satisfaction. This result is consistent with the socio-technical theory, in which the higher multifunctionality of workers and more variety in the work tasks increase work satisfaction (Van Eijnatten, 1993; Van der Zwaan, 1999). Concerning the relationship between job enlargement and co-operation compared to delivery precision, the multi-functionality of the operators appeared to create greater exibility in dealing with disturbances. In other words, since the operators possess

198 The International Journal of Human Resource Management a variety of skills and can substitute for colleagues, the production process is less dependent on a small group of operators holding specialized skills. However, multifunctionality is not enough; co-operation is also required for a smooth process, and good co-ordination within the team is needed in order to utilize the multi-functionality of all operators in solving delivery problems. Improved co-operation (communication, joint decision-making within the team and team building) was required to gain higher productivity. Synergy in production can apparently be achieved when the operators are not working independently but rather as a team. Finally, involvoment was shown to be affected by job enlargement and job enrichment. Having the opportunity to be a multi-functional worker (one aspect of involvoment) attracts employees to Volvo, compared to the more narrow and specialized jobs at other companies. The opportunity to have greater decision-making authority might also help bind workers to the company (another aspect of involvoment): responsibility and the space to make decisions increases employee involvement in the various processes at the company. With regard to the second research question, the gures revealed that there are links between team development and performance development, and between team scores and performance scores. It is worth noting that team development shows different relationships with performance compared to the team scores. We found that the relationship between team development and quality development was not signicant when analysing the relationships between the team scores and the quality level at t1. A possible explanation is the fact that the proportional importance of high performance is signicant in this relationship. High performance remained very low and was probably just starting to develop. However, this factor did improve a great deal during the period of our research. Its impact was likely to be higher during this six-month period, measured as the development between t0 and t1, compared to the level prior to measurement at t1. The reason that there was no discernibly signicant relationship found between team development and the development of delivery precision, productivity and involvoment, while there was an identiable relationship found between the team and performance scores, might be due to the fact that these relationships must be observed over a longer period. It is likely that the effect on these performance criteria appears at a slower rate than the development within the four dimensions. Discussion All four dimensions of team development showed signicant effects on one or more of the dened team performance criteria. These relationships seem to have an interesting pattern (see Figure 3). The dimensions of job enlargement and job enrichment seem to be more closely related to the criteria for QWL, while the dimensions of co-operation and the development of high performance seem to be more closely related to the BP criteria. This could indicate that the more traditional socio-technical areas (job enlargement and job enrichment) which are also key aspects of individual empowerment are important for developing good QWL in terms of (individual) satisfaction and involvoment. For a company, however, the development of actual teamwork can be more interesting. In our case study, co-operation, and to some extent high performance, appear to be related only to important BP criteria, such as productivity, delivery precision and product quality. Dunphy and Bryant (1996) utilized earlier literature and their own case research data to identify three team attributes: 1) technical expertise (comparable with job enlargement), 2) self-management (comparable with job enrichment)

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

199

Figure 3 Overview of the impact of the team development dimensions on team performance

and 3) self-leadership (a combination of co-operation and high performance). From a more theoretical perspective, they related these team attributes to three aspects of organizational performance: 1) cost (with indicators like labour and material costs), 2) value (involving indicators such as product quality and reliability) and 3) innovation (such as operational/strategic exibility and problem solving). Dunphy and Bryant (1996) argued that the three team attributes each impact differently on three types of performance. They see potential performance contributions for technical expertise on cost, for self-management on value and for self-leadership on innovation. We were not able to include costs in our research, and we did not have a performance indicator such as innovation either. However, innovation may contribute to quality, delivery precision and productivity. On the other hand, we used QWL measures which were not used by Dunphy and Bryant (1996). When comparing our models, we found conrmation for our argument that the more individual empowerment-related aspects of job enlargement and job enrichment besides being important for creating a good working environment in which employees feel satised and involved seem to form only a basic framework for business performance. However, in order to obtain more competitive and innovative teams with higher quality, delivery precision and productivity, a company might consider improving team-work and continuous development in terms of co-operation and high performance, or self-leadership based on Dunphy and Bryant (1996). As we previously concluded that team development does not follow a linear stepwise process, this is perhaps a wise and feasible approach. There is a need for further research into the causes and generalizations of our ndings. We realize that our case study is rather specic: it concerns teams in a specic industry (automotive) and involves only a special type of task structure (assembly work). Moreover, the period of six months (to which this study was limited) needs to be extended. In our continuing longitudinal study of three years (2001 3), a more in-depth analysis of the relationships between the four dimensions of team development and

200 The International Journal of Human Resource Management performance will be conducted that involves teams working in different types of task structures, both blue and white collar. Acknowledgements We thank all managers and employees of Volvo Trucks Umea, in the north of Sweden, for their support and participation in this study. Notes
1 In a stream designed organization, a team is responsible for producing a complete product or a complete part of the product. This organization type usually works with teams where the operators are able to perform a complete task, which is proved to have a positive effect on the QWL. 2 Thompson and Wallace (1996) give a description of the short ows in their article. However, a few changes have taken place since their 1993 5 study. The total short ows were increased (by two), two extra stations were added to each short ow, and thereby the team size was increased by four members. 3 The total length of the study was seven months. We were therefore limited to two measurements with a total period of six months in between. 4 We chose to use the average scores for further analysis because they provide the best opportunity to compare the development of the level of team scores over time. 5 For a more extended description and a comparison with the gures at Philips, please refer to Hut (1996) and Hut and Molleman (1998). This gure basically illustrates the average team scores per stage of team development at different points in time (t0 and t1). The scores per stage are calculated as a percentage of the maximum score.

References
Adler, P.S. and Cole, R.E. (1993) Designed for Learning: A Tale of Two Auto Plants, Sloan Management Review, Spring: 85 94. Amelsvoort, P. van and Amelsvoort, G. van (2000) Designing and Developing Self-directed Work Teams. Vlijmen: ST-GROEP. Amelsvoort, P. van and Scholtes, G. (1994) Zelfsturende Teams, Ontwerpen, Invoeren en Begeleiden. Oss: ST-GROEP. Benders, J., Huijgen, F. and Pekruhl, U. (2001) Measuring Group Work; Findings and Lessons from a European Survey, New Technology, Work and Employment, 16(3): 204 17. Berggren, C. (1993) Alternatives to Lean Production, Work Organization in the Swedish Auto Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Campion, A.M., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993) Relations between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups, Personnel Psychology, 46: 823 50. COB/SER (1991) Automatische Produktiebesturing Werkt Niet Vanzelf. Den Haag: Sociaal Economische Raad. Cohen, S.G. (1994) Designing Effective Self-managing Work Teams. In Beyerlein, M.M. and Johnson, D.A. (eds) Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Theories of Selfmanaged Work Teams. London: JAI Press. Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E., Jr (1994) The Effectiveness of Self-managing Teams: A Quasi Experiment, Human Relations, 47(1): 13 42. Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B. (1996) Teams: Panaceas or Prescriptions for Improved Performance, Human Relations, 49(5): 677 99. Eijnatten, F.M. van (1993) The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place. Assen: Van Gorcum. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980) Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kuipers and de Witte: Teamwork: a case study

201

Hut, J.A. (1996) Teamontwikkeling; Ontwerp van een Meetinstrument voor Philips Lighting, Masters thesis, University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization. Hut, J.A. and Molleman, E. (1998) Empowerment and Team Development, Team Performance Management, 4(2): 5366. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1987) The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The Discipline of Teams, Harvard Business Review, March April: 111 20. Kuipers, B.S. (2000) Driving Teams to Better Performance: Team Development at Volvo Trucks Umea, Masters thesis, University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization. Leede, J. de (1997) Innoveren van Onderop: Over de Bijdrage van Taakgroepen aan Product En Procesvernieuwing, PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede. McGrath, J.E. (1964) Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Suzaki, K. (1993) The New Shop Floor Management: Empowering People for Continuous Improvement. New York: The Free Press. Thompson, P. and Wallace, T. (1996) Redesigning Production through Teamworking: Case Studies from the Volvo Truck Corporation, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16(2): 103 18. Vink, M.J., Brinkman, J.V.D., Siero, J.H., Boonstra, J.J. and Maas, E.P. (1996) Teamgericht Werken: Effecten op Werkbeleving, Arbeidsklimaat, Kwaliteit van de Arbeid en Productiviteit, Gedrag en Organisatie, 9(6): 352 67. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Rawson Associates. Yeatts, D.E. and Hyten, C. (1998) High Performing Self-manager Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory of Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zwaan, A.H. van der (1999) Organising Work Processes: Engineering Work and Managing Workers. Assen: Van Gorcum.