The Control Structure of Team-Based Organizations: A Diagnostic Model for Empowerment

Abstract

This article describes a diagnostic model for empowerment in team- based organizations that portrays four dimensions of the organization’s control structure: the level of routine, the nature of expertise, the level of dependence and the line of command. The combined positions of the set of job regulation tasks distinguished for these dimensions express empowerment in terms of a functional balance and a balance of authority. The diagnostic model can be used to measure the control structure in practice and to provide input for a well-founded and managerial debate on empowerment and control. The model is illustrated with quantitative data from a pilot study of 16 semi-autonomous work teams within the manufacturing industry. Considerable differences in the local interpretation of the design of the control structure by team managers were observed.

In general, the empowerment of teams is rather limited. The impression given is that there is a temporary ‘double control structure’, meaning simultaneous bottom-up and top-down control of the teams.

Keywords

control structure empowerment industrial democracy self-managing work teams sociotechnical theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashby, W.R. (1958) An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall .

Barker, J.R. (1993) ‘Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams’ , Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 408-437 .

Beardwell, I . and L. Holden , eds (1997) Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Perspective. London: Pitman .

Berggren, C. (1993) Alternatives to Lean Production: Work Organization in the Swedish Auto Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press .

Berggren, C. (1994) ‘NUMMI vs. Uddevalla’ , Sloan Management Review Spring: 37-49 .

Delbridge, R. and H. Barton (2002) ‘Organizing for Continuous Improvement: Structures and Roles in Automotive Components’ , International Journal of Operations and Production Management 22(6): 680-692 .

De Sitter, L.U. , J.F. den Hertog and B. Dankbaar (1997) ‘From Complex Organizations with Simple Jobs to Simple Organizations with Complex Jobs’ , Human Relations 50(5): 497-534 .

Doorewaard, H. , G. van Hootegem and R. Huys (2002) ‘Team Responsibility Structure and Team Performance’ , Personnel Review 31(3): 356-370 .

Karasek, R.A. Jr (1979) ‘Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign’ , Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (June): 285-308 .

10.

Karlsson, C. and P. Ahlstrom (1996) ‘Assessing Changes towards Lean Production’ , International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(2): 24-41 .

11.

Lindberg, P. and A. Berger (1997) ‘Continuous Improvement: Design, Organization and Management’ , International Journal of Technology Management 14(1): 86-102 .

12.

Mintzberg, H. (1979) Structuring of Organizations. London: Prentice Hall .

13.

Mintzberg, H. (1983) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .

14.

Mohrman, S.A. , R.V. Tenkasi and A.M. Mohrman Jr (2000) ‘Learning and Knowledge Management in Team-Based New Product Development Organizations’, pp. 63-88 in M.M. Beyerlein , D.A. Johnson and S.T. Beyerlein (eds) Product Development Teams: Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 5. Stamford, CT: JAI Press .

15.

Molleman, E. (2000) ‘Modalities of Self-Managing Teams: The “Must”, “May”, “Can” and “Will” of Local Decision-Making’ , International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20(8): 889-910 .

16.

Molleman, E. , B. van Delft and J. Slomp (2001) ‘The Application of an Empowerment Model’ , Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 11(4): 339-354 .

17.

Noe, R.A. , J.R. Hollenbeck , B. Gerhart and P.M. Wright (2003) Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill .

18.

Procter, S . and F. Mueller , eds (2000) Teamworking. London: Macmillan .

19.

Rice, A.K. (1958) Productivity and Social Organization: The Ahmedabad Experiment. London: Tavistock .

20.

Rice, A.K. and E.L. Trist (1952) ‘Institutional and Sub-Institutional Determinants of Change in Labour Turnover (The Glacier Project VIII)’ , Human Relations 4: 347-371 .

21.

Schouteten, R.L.J. (2001) ‘Balances in Well-Being at Work: Measurements, Determinants and Improvements of the Quality of Working’, dissertation, University of Groningen.

22.

Suzaki, K. (1993) The New Shop Floor Management: Empowering People for Continuous Improvement. New York: The Free Press .

23.

Thompson, J.P. (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill .

24.

Thompson, P. and T. Wallace (1996) ‘Redesigning Production through Team- working: Case Studies from the Volvo Truck Corporation’ , International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(2): 103-118 .

25.

Van Eijnatten, F.M. and A.H. van de Zwaan (1998) ‘The Dutch IOR Approach to Organizational Design: An Alternative to Business Process Re-Engineering?’ , Human Relations 51(3): 289-318 .

26.

Van der Zwaan, A.H. (1999) Organizing Work Processes: Engineering Work and Managing Workers. Assen: Van Gorcum .

27.

Yeatts, D.E. and C. Hyten (1998) High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .