Target-based teamworking: Groups, work and interdependence in the UK civil service

Human Relations

Volumn 57, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 1547-1572

  Procter, Stephen ^a   Currie, Graeme ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Case study; Interdependence; Public sector; Targets; Teamworking

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244296821     PISSN: 00187267     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018726704049989     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Appelbaum, E. & Batt, R. The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1994.
2. Batt, R. Strategic segmentation in front-line services: Matching customers, employees and human resource systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2000, 11, 540-61.
3. Benders, J., Huijgen, F. & Pekruhl, U. Measuring group work: Findings and lessons from a European survey. New Technology, Work and Employment, 2001, 16, 204-17.
4. Benders, J. & Van Hootegem, G. Teams and their context: Moving the team discussion beyond existing dichotomies. Journal of Management Studies, 1999, 36, 609-28.
5. Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. Strategy and human resource management. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
6. Buchanan, D. Principles and practice in work design. In K. Sisson (Ed.), Personnel management: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice in Britain, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994, pp. 85-116.
7. Buchanan, D. An eager and enduring embrace: The ongoing rediscovery of teamworking as a management idea. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan, 2000, pp. 25-42.
8. Cohen, S. & Ledford, G. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 1994, 47, 13-43.
9. Cully, M., Woodland, S., O'Reilly, A. & Dix, G. Britain at work. London: Routledge, 1999.
10. Currie, G. & Procter, S. The interaction of human resource management policies and practices with the implementation of teamworking: Evidence from the UK public sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2003, 14, 581-99.
11. Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. & Oliver, N. Worker autonomy in lean teams: Evidence from the world automotive components industry. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds) Teamworking. London: Macmillan, 2000, pp. 125-42.
12. Dunphy, D. & Bryant, B. Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance? Human Relations, 1996, 49, 677-99.
13. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey, 1993.
14. Kiggundu, M. Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management Review, 1981, 6, 499-508.
15. Kiggundu, M. Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1983, 31, 145-72.
16. Koch, C. & Buhl, H. ERP-supported teamworking in Danish manufacturing? New Technology, Work and Employment, 2001, 16, 164-77.
17. Liden, R., Wayne, S. & Bradway, L. Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between group control and performance. Human Relations, 1997, 50, 169-81.
18. Manz, C. Self-leading work teams: Moving beyond self-management myths. Human Relations, 1992, 45, 1119-40.
19. Marchington, M. Teamworking and employee involvement: Terminology, evaluation and context. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan, 2000, pp. 60-80.
20. Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A. Direct participation. In S. Bach & K. Sisson (Eds), Personnel management: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000, pp. 340-64.
21. Mueller, F. Teams between hierarchy and commitment: Change strategies and the 'internal environment'. Journal of Management Studies, 1994, 31, 383-404.
22. Mueller, F., Procter, S. & Buchanan, D. Teamworking in its context(s): Antecedents, nature and dimensions. Human Relations, 2000, 53, 1387-424.
23. Parker, S., Wall, T. & Cordery, J. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2001, 74, 413-40.
24. Procter, S., Hassard, J. & Rowlinson, M. Introducing cellular manufacturing: Operations, human resources and high-trust dynamics. Human Resource Management Journal, 1995, 5, 46-64.
25. Procter, S. & Mueller, F. Teamworking: Strategy, structure, systems and culture. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds), Teamworking. London: Macmillan, 2000, pp. 3-24.
26. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. & Van Dyne, L. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78, 61-72.
27. Shea, G. & Guzzo, R. Groups as human resources. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987a, pp. 323-56.
28. Shea, G. & Guzzo, R. Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 1987b, Spring, 25-31.
29. Sinclair, A. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 1992, 13, 611-26.
30. Sprigg, C., Jackson, P. & Parker, S. Production teamworking: The importance of interdependence and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction. Human Relations, 2000, 53, 1519-43.
31. Thompson, J. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
32. Thompson, P. & Wallace, T. Redesigning production through teamworking: Case studies from the Volvo Truck Corporation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1996, 16, 103-18.
33. Wageman, R. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40, 145-80.
34. Whitfield, K. & Poole, M. Organizing employment for high performance: Theories, evidence and policy. Organization Studies, 1997, 18, 745-64.
35. Wilkinson, A. Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 1998, 27, 40-56.
36. Womack, J., Jones, D. & Roos, D. The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates, 1990.