Master Thesis
New way of working
The impact of team diversity and the leadership style of the manager
on the success of self-managing teams
.
Executive Programme in Management Studies
Author: J. Huisjes – 10884114
1st supervisor: M. Stienstra 2nd supervisor:
Preface
This Master’s Thesis “The impact of team diversity and the leadership style of the manager on the success of self-managing teams” has been written to fulfil my Executive Programme in Management Studies, Business Administration, at the University of Amsterdam. The proposal for the investigation was concluded last summer, in June 2016. Subsequently, my research and writing period started in September 2016, finishing in January 2017.
My research question has been established in consultation with my manager at ING Bank, R. van Bruggen and my supervisor M. Stienstra of the University of Amsterdam. Furthermore I had great interest in the new phenomenon of self-managing teams and I considered it a challenge to do further research into this.
I would like to thank my supervisor M. Stienstra for his excellent supervision and support during this challenging process. I could not have done my research without the respondents of the ING. I want to thank all ten participated respondents. Finally, I want to thank my manager at ING, R. van Bruggen, for his support, motivation and confidence in me. He has given me the opportunity to conduct research within the challenging organization that is ING.
I hope you enjoy your reading.
Abstract
Jolein Huisjes, Business Administration, University of Amsterdam Abstract of Master’s Thesis, Submitted 6 January 2016
- The impact of team diversity and the leadership style of the manager on the success of self-managing teams -
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of team diversity and the leadership style of the manager on the success of self-managing teams. The findings will be an addition to the literature. Furthermore, the findings can function as practical advice for managers and / or organizations.
This study was conducted in Amsterdam in January 2017. Data for this study were obtained by secondary data, experiments and the help of 10 interviewees, including 8 team members of managing teams and 2 team managers. The degree of success of the 4 participating self-managing teams was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The connections between the two independent variables, team diversity and leadership style, and the dependent variable, success of self-managing teams, have been established with the use of triangulation between the results of the different research methods.
The investigation into the interaction of team diversity and the leadership style of the manager in explaining the success of self-managing teams resulted in the following conclusion. A successful self-managing team, which needs to be defined as a highly collectively responsible team, should consist of diversity within the team with respect to gender, age and education. In addition, a successful self-managing team should be coached by a manager who performs with a transformational leadership style.
PREFACE ... 2
ABSTRACT ... 3
INTRODUCTION ... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
SELF-MANAGING TEAMS ... 8
TEAM DIVERSITY ... 11
LEADERSHIP STYLE ... 12
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP ... 15
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 16 PRELIMINARY PROPOSITIONS ... 17 METHODOLOGY ... 19 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 19 DATA COLLECTION ... 19 MEASUREMENT ... 21
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ... 23
RESULTS ... 25
WITHIN CASE ANALYSIS ... 25
CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ... 37
Propositions ... 43 Model ... 43 DISCUSSION... 45 CONCLUSION ... 50 REFERENCES ... 51 APPENDIX ... 56
1.INTERVIEW PROTOCOL SELF-MANAGING TEAMS ... 56
2.CONTACT SUMMARY SHEET –SELF-MANAGING TEAMS ... 58
3.INTERVIEW PROTOCOL TEAM MANAGERS ... 60
4.CONTACT SUMMARY SHEET –TEAM MANAGERS ... 62
5.DATA:BIOGRAPHICAL HETEROGENEITY OF THE SELF-MANAGING TEAMS ... 64
Introduction
In the past decade the rise of global work, virtual work and telework resulted in self-managing teams, which replaced static jobs with dynamic roles, tasks, and projects that are constantly shifting and changing (Frese & Fay, 2001; Griffin et al., 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). As early as 1988 Goodman, Devadas, and Griffith Hughson, noticed the importance of self-managing teams for the success of companies in the coming turbulent years: “Self-managing teams will continue to be a major strategy in redesigning work in the future” (Goodman, Devadas, & Griffith Hughson, 1988). Cohen and Ledford (1994) define self-managing teams as teams that consist of interdependent individuals, able to self-regulate their productions and team behavior.
The rise of global work, which required flexibility and resulted in turbulent years for the economy, raised issues of awareness and advantages of self-managing teams. However, a number of conditions need to be fulfilled to build successful self-managing teams. Cohen and Ledford (1994), state there are limits to what extent a self-managing teamwork design can be generalized. The characteristics of the team determine whether a self-managing work design works or not. Sorensen & Yim (2009) agreed in their study that more research needs to be done on the impact of team diversity, homogeneous teams or heterogeneous teams, on team performance, as these differences may affect job satisfaction and job performance. Some research has been done to examine the impact of diversity within the team on how work is designed, enacted, and experienced. This research has led to the emergence in interest to study the impact of team diversity on the degree of success of self-managing teams.
The influence of team characteristics was not the only factor to come out of this interest to study the degree of success of self-managing teams. Some research has been done on leaders
of self-managing teams (Morgeson, 2004). Morgeson (2004) mentioned that leaders can intervene in teams in several different ways. Grant & Parker (2009), who researched redesigning work design theories, mentioned that more research is needed on the role of managers and teams by designing self-managing teams, including matching individual attribution to the work design. This led to attempts to investigate the impact of leadership on the degree of success of self-managing teams.
Studies on project and management teams already show that heterogeneity and transformational leadership style within a team lead to higher performance (Stewart, 2006). But does this also applies to the new phenomenon: self-managing teams? This research investigates the phenomenon of organizing self-managing teams, in which team diversity and leadership style is taken into account. Besides, this study adds value to the existing literature by examining the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship of team diversity and the success of self-managing teams. Altogether, these shortcomings to the current literature, which have not been applied to the new phenomenon of self-managing teams, resulted in the following research question:
“How do team diversity and the leadership style of the manager interact in explaining the
success of self-managing teams?”
Thesis overview
2. What is the relationship between a transformational leadership style of the manager and the success of self-managing teams?
3. What is the interaction between these two factors, homogeneity and transformational leadership style, and which effect does this have on the success of self-managing teams? This investigation is an explorative study, therefore the findings in answer to these sub-questions and ultimately the main research question, will be an addition to the literature. The findings can also function as practical advice for managers and / or organizations. For example, they may compose self-managing teams after considering the findings.
This thesis is structured as follows: Chapter One presents the literature review. The review consists of previous investigations relating to the research question. Chapter Two describes the methodology of the investigation; the way in which the data is collected and a clarification of how the data is analyzed. Chapter Three represents the results of the multiple case studies. Chapter Four consists of the discussion and Chapter Five provides the overall conclusions.
Literature review
Two independent variables, team diversity and leadership, influence the dependent result of this study: the degree of success of self-managing teams. The two independent variables are very broadly appointed and will be further defined below. In accordance with theoretical research, definitions are created, including the components of the terminologies of team diversity and leadership.
Self-managing teams
Self-managing teams consist of interdependent individuals, who are able to self-regulate their productions and team behavior. The intention of self-managing teams is to improve quality, productivity and working conditions. In general, self-management teams may or may not have direct supervision of a team manager (Cohen and Ledford, 1994).
Grant & Parker (2009) state that there are two reasons for developing self-managing teams. The first is the global shift from manufacturing economies to service and knowledge economies. The second reason is the rapid development in information, communication, technology and services. Both ask for a change in the traditional work design. Grant & Parker (2009) argue that the traditional job characteristics model (JCM), with its focus on five characteristics of work design: autonomy, feedback, task variety, significance and identity, has shortcomings and that this model does not apply to self-managing teams, which perform
(Moe, Dingsøyr, & Dybå, 2010). The degree of success of self-managing teams can be examined through the different stages of the development
process. This success can be measured by five maturity phases, where the first phase is the starting point of a newly established self-managing team and the fifth phases a completely successful and mature functioning team
(Vanaelst et. all, 2006). The degree of success is established by eight factors, see table 1. One of the findings of the research of Vanaelst et al (2006), is that
new members in a team are returning a team to the beginning phase of maturity again. This shows the vulnerability and rapidly changing level of this measurement tool.
Wageman (2001) states that the success of self-managing teams is dependent on the leader behavior of the formal manager. Three indicators measure the degree of success by this study: the degree in which team members take collective responsibility for the outcomes of their work; the degree in which the team monitors its own performance; the degree in which the team manages its own performance. The degree of the success of these factors depends on two aspects: the composition of the team and the quality of coaching. The managers’ design of the teams and the quality of the coaching both influence team self-management, the quality of member relationships, and member satisfaction. Wageman (2001) investigates, in a quantitative research project, that there are four conditions that foster self-managing team effectiveness: team cohesiveness, clear direction, team structure, and supportive organizational context. She discovered three results. The first is that well-designed teams
Eight factors which determine the degree of success
Customer-centered Continuous improvement
Flexibility in skills and capacity Visual management Fixed rhythm of week and month Method
Determine capacity Team spirit
Figure 1: Maturity phases
Noot. Adapted from “Lean maturity phases”, by leanmap, 2015, August.
exhibit more self-management and are more effective than teams whose designs are flawed. Another result is that teams, that receive coaching exhibit more self-management, higher quality interpersonal relationships, and higher member satisfaction, but not higher task performance than teams that receive no coaching at all. The last is that leaders’ design activities and hands-on coaching interact, affecting team self-management and effectiveness, with coaching having a greater positive impact for well-designed teams than for poorly designed teams. Wageman's conclusion (2001) is that design and coaching interact with each other. A well-designed team is helped more by effective coaching than a poorly designed team.
Table 2 shows an overview of some investigations carried out prior to the new way of working.
Reference Subject
Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2011). The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of agile methods. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 509-520.
Relationship between
organizational culture and self-managing teams
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375.
Reason for the emergence of self-managing teams
Team diversity
Knippenberg & Schippers (2007) define the definition of team diversity as follows: ‘the degree to which there are differences between group members’. This diversity may affect group processes and performance positively as well as negatively. Bowers et al (2000) researched the effect of biographical heterogeneity on the team performance. Biographical heterogeneity is defined as the numerous possible biographical differences in gender, age and educational background.
Drach-Zahavy and Somech's study (2001), explored the degree of innovation within a team: ‘the intentional introduction and application within a team, of ideas, processes, products or procedures new to the team, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the team, the organization, or wider society’ - West & Wallace, 1991, p. 303). As a new way of working, the self-managing concept has new processes, ideas and procedures for the team, the innovation level within the team needing to be high. One of the purposes of Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2001) was to investigate the influence of team heterogeneity, variables within the team, on innovation. They found that team heterogeneity is positively related to team interaction processes and that these processes are positively related to team innovation, where team innovation is necessary by implementing new work designs.
Drach-Zahavy and Somech's study (2001), further suggests four processes where heterogeneity can affect innovation in a positive way. The first is the exchange of information. Heterogeneity within the team can increase information exchange, because teammates have different roles, skills, expertise and knowledge. The second is learning. Heterogeneity leads to an increase in learning, in increased knowledge, but also in increased vocabularies, cognitive patterns and styles. The third process where heterogeneity affects
innovation is motivation. The study suggests that heterogeneity can be positively related to motivation, through the unique contribution of every team member. The last process is negotiationg. Heterogeneity might foster negotiation, because of the different roles of the team members, which lead to unique opinions attributed to negotiation.
Jackson (1996), described heterogeneity as the diversity of organizational roles within the team. More research on team innovation mentions the tension between the advantages of both heterogeneous and homogeneous team. Heterogeneous teams foster creativity and innovation, but homogeneous teams stimulate cohesiveness, commitment, and member satisfaction and, therefore the implementation of innovation (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992).
To determine the different roles within the teams, each individual could perform a short test. Keijser and van der Vat (2009) researched the management drives of individuals in a team. They created a test where the individual profile is illustrated by conduct colours. All profiles are merged into six colours where orange represents the incentive of performance and results, yellow analytics and understanding, purple safety and traditions, red power and speed, blue security and clarity, and green social connections. They mentioned that team individuals notice the advantages of working together with colleagues with the same colour profile, but a successful self-managing team always needs heterogeneity, different individual colour profiles, within the team.
leadership roles. The traditional participative role needs to be changed to a more observing leadership role, where self-observation, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement are the central elements. Wageman (2001) argues that the quality of the coaching influences the degree of success of self-managing teams. This finding shows, as does the study of Manz and Sims (1987), that the role of the team manager within self-managing teams requires modification.
Whereas Wageman (2001) specified the importance of a coaching leadership style, Morgeson (2004) researched leadership of self-managing teams in general. He indicated that the characteristics of transformational leadership, supportive coaching were positively related to team perceptions of leader effectiveness. On the other hand, more active and closely monitoring leader activities, transactional leadership, were negatively related to team satisfaction. For a better understanding of these two leadership styles, Avolio (1999) and Bass (1998) tested the difference and the effect on performance between transformational and transactional leadership. First, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership:
Transformational leadership. Bass (1985) labeled this kind of leadership as adaptive, flexible. These leaders work more effectively in rapidly changing environments. They clarify the challenges, both of the team and the leader, and respond to them. The team has a greater feeling of involvement, cohesiveness, commitment, potency, and performance. Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea (1993), argue that when a team is designed to facilitate highly interdependent work among group members and the team manager provides encouragement for the team to work together, the collective confidence is higher.
Transactional leadership: Bass (1985) suggests that transactional leadership results in the team's agreement with the leader's opinion, accepting praise, rewards, and resources. This
style of leadership implies close monitoring for deviance, mistakes, and errors and then taking corrective action as quickly as possible when they occur.
A leadership style in-between the two extremes, transactional and transformational, and a more passive form of transactional leadership, where the leader waits for problems to arise before taking action, or takes no action at all, is called Laissez-faire (Bass, 1985). Such passive leaders avoid specifying agreements, clarifying expectations or providing goals and standards to be achieved by the team.
Analyzing the effect of leadership style on performance, Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) and Patterson, Fuller, Kester, and Stringer (1995) confirmed the positive relationship between transformational leadership and performance. Stewart (2006) argues that increased autonomy and intra-team coordination results in higher performance. Transformational and empowering leadership improves team performance. Sosik & Godshalk (2000) researched the links between leadership styles (laissez-faire, transactional, transformational), perception of received potential for career development, and job-related stress. The result is that transformational leadership is more positively related to career development than transactional behavior. Laissez-faire behavior is negative related to career development. Transformational behavior and the perception of career development opportunities were negatively related to job-related stress. So to stimulate career development and to lower job-related stress a manager needs to use a transformational behavior leadership style.
Characteristics of transformational and transactional leadership
The literature review table below has been created with the characteristics of a transformational or transactional leadership style in mind.
Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership
Leaders’ opinion (Bass, 1985)
Inspire team members (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)
Enhance commitment (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)
Involvement (Bass, 1985)
Direct action by mistakes (Bass, 1985) Providing constructive feedback (Bass, 1985) Praise, rewards, and resources (Bass, 1985) Stimulate creative thinking (Bass, 1985) Close monitoring (Bass, 1985) Adaptive (Bass, 1985)
Control (Bass, 1991) Flexible (Bass, 1985)
Rules and standards (Bass, 1991) Cohesiveness (Bass, 1985) Table 3: Characteristics of transformational and transactional leadership
Conceptual model
After reviewing the literature, the following conceptual model has been established. In this model, the connections between the degree of transformational leadership, team homogeneity and the degree of success of a self-managing team, are displayed. The model illustrates that team homogeneity has a negative effect on the success of a self-managing team, which automatically leads to a positive effect of team heterogeneity on a self-managing team. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on the success of a self-managing team, which leads to a negative effect of transactional leadership on a self-managing team. The degree of transformational leadership is the moderating factor in the relationship between team homogeneity and the success of self-managing teams.
Figure 2: Conceptual model
Preliminary propositions
The following preliminary propositions are the result of the literature and conceptual model represented in figure 1. According to Wageman (2001) the success of a self-managing team depends on the design of a team. This resulted in the first preliminary proposition;
Preliminary proposition 1: The higher the homogeneity of the team, the lower the degree of success of self-managing teams.
According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership has a positive effect on the success of self-managing teams. It is a more flexible leadership style with which adaptability to fast changing environments and opportunities is possible. In addition, the team members have a bigger involvement with and a higher independence from each other. This flexibility, involvement and independence are factors of self-managing teams according to Wageman (2001). Therefore the second preliminary proposition is:
Preliminary proposition 2: Transformational leadership is positively related to the degree of success of self-managing teams.
Provisional proposition based on the interaction effect between the two independent variables, according to the matrix:
Transactional leadership style Transformational leadership style
Team Homogeneity - / - - / +
Team Heterogeneity + / - + / +
The last provisional proposition will investigate if transformational leadership has such a big impact on the success of self-managing teams, that this factor is able to negate the negative effect of homogeneity in teams and still make the self-managing teams successful;
Preliminary proposition 3: The degree of transformational leadership moderates the relationship between the degree of team homogeneity and the success of self-managing teams to such an extent that, if the degree of transformational leadership is high, the relationship between team homogeneity and the success of self-managing teams is less negative than if the degree of transformational leadership is low.
Methodology
Research design
The design of this research, to investigate the impact of team homogeneity and transformational leadership on the success of self-managing teams, will be based on a qualitative study. Where quantitative methods test a pre-set hypothesis, qualitative methods explore more of the complex human issues, which will be applied to investigate this study (Marshall, 1996). The dependent outcome result, the degree of success of self-managing teams, is influenced by the level of two factors: team homogeneity and transformational leadership. As the combination of these two factors is a relatively new subject to the existing theory, this research will be explorative. Besides the currently investigated characteristics of the two factors, it might be possible that more factors will be explored, which may influence the success of self-managing teams. To increase the validity, the outcomes of the literature review will be assessed as a deductive investigation against the use of a multiple case study. According to Eisenhardt (2007), involving one or more cases added to theoretical studies constructs empirical evidence. The multiple case study of this research will be applied to ING. Recently, owning to reorganization, six self-managing teams have been set up within the Client Services NL department of ING. The six teams have different ways of functioning and also have different outcome results, making them an interesting setting for the multiple case study.
Data collection
Interviews
During the multiple case study the impact of the variable team homogeneity on the success of a self-managing team will be measured by semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured
interviews will be held with two members of four self-managing teams to avoid the possibility of receiving individual opinions instead of a team opinion. These interviews will be face-to-face. According to Opdenakker (2006), face-to-face interviews are preferable when standardization of interviews is important and when social cues of the interviewee might be important information sources for the researcher.
Experiment
The extent to which the team managers apply transformational leadership will be measured by an experiment. Here a distinction will be made between formal and informal leadership. Within the case study two team managers are recognized as formal leaders of the six self-managing teams. The informal leadership, as naturally emerging among team members as an element of the team heterogeneity, will be investigated through semi-structured interviews with two members of each team, resulting in ten semi-structured interviews.
Overview of respondents per case study
Case study 1: CST2 • 1 team manager for case 1 & 2
• 2 team members CST2
Case study 2: CST3 • 1 team manager for case 1 & 2
• 2 team members CST3
Case study 3: CST4 • 1 team manager for case 3 & 4
• 2 team members CST4
Case study 4: CST5 • 1 team manager for case 3 & 4
• 2 team members CST5
Table 4.1: Overview of respondents per case study
Secondary data
factors: customer-centeredness, flexibility in skills and capacity, fixed rhythm of week and month, determine capacity, continuous improvement, visual management, method and team spirit. Each team (August, 2016) decided on the phase recently.
Another area of the multiple case study where secondary data is used is to determine the level of homogeneity within the teams. Existing data about the age, gender and education of the team members will be used to calculate the homogeneity percentage per team. On the basis of these results the interview questions are applicable to each specific team situation.
Measurement
In what way the different components of the multiple case study, team homogeneity and leadership style are measured, is illustrated in the next two paragraphs.
Degree of team homogeneity
The eight semi-structured interviews with the four self-managing teams (two members of each team) will ascertain the impact of the level of homogeneity within the team on the success of the team. Success is defined as the collective responsibility of the team (Wageman, 2001). Jackson (1996) described heterogeneity as the diversity of organizational roles within the team. Therefore, one of the questions is designed to reveal the team profile according to the management drives test of Keijser and van der Vat (2009) and the impact of this profile on the collective responsibility. All teams did this test in August 2016. For this study the data of this test will be used to investigate the level of homogeneity of roles within the team. Due to language limitations, all the interview questions will be asked and answered in Dutch, but translated in English for the analysis.
Besides the behavior differences, according to the organizational roles (Keijser and van der Vat, 2009), this study also investigate the factual homogeneity. Therefore the other questions will investigate the relationship between the characteristics of diversity within the team, gender, age and education, and the degree of success (collective responsibility) of the self-managing team. These questions vary per team, depending on the outcome of the secondary data about level of homogeneity. Also dependent on the result of the secondary data, the team will be questioned on the effect of the moderator between the leadership style and the homogeneity of the team on the collective responsibility (degree of success) of the team.
The last question is to verify the leadership style of the team manager. The interviewees will be asked to describe the style of the manager, coaching or directing, and the influence of this style on the degree of collective responsibility of the team. For the complete interview protocol, see appendix 1.
Degree of transformational leadership
The two experiments with the team managers explore the impact of transformational leadership on the success of the self-managing teams. The questions that the interviewees receive will investigate what kind of leadership, transactional of transformational, they apply and to what extent. The leadership style is determined on a scale between the continuum transactional and transformational. To examine the style of both of the managers, they need to participate in an experiment. During this experiment the two leaders are given three mock
about the leadership style of their manager. The outcomes of the leadership-style-related question to the team members need to confirm the results of the situations the managers had to illustrate.
The first situation will test the following characteristics of transactional and transformational leadership: Transactional leadership: leader's opinion. Transformational leadership: enhance commitment, inspire team members, involvement.
The second situation will test the following characteristics of transactional and transformational leadership: Transactional leadership: praise, rewards and resources, direct action in case of mistakes. Transformational leadership: provide feedback, stimulate creative thinking.
The third situation will test the following characteristics of transactional and transformational leadership: Transactional leadership: apply close monitoring, keep control, use rules and standards. Transformational leadership: be adaptive, be flexible, use commitment.
For an overview of the situations, see appendix 3.
Methodology per (in)dependent variable
Collective responsibility (success) • Secondary data
• Semi-structured interviews
Degree of homogeneity • Secondary data
Impact of degree of homogeneity on collective responsibility • Semi-structured interviews Degree of transactional or transformational leadership style • Experiment
• Semi-structured interviews Impact of degree of leadership style on collective responsibility • Experiment
• Semi-structured interviews
Table 4.2: Methodology per (in)dependent variable
Reliability and validity
To ensure the quality of this investigation, reliability will be improved by applying triangulation: the combination of two or more data sources (Thurmond, 2001). Thus, the homogeneity is measured by secondary data but also by the interviews. These results are connected to each other in order to achieve an end result. In addition, the leadership style of
the manager is tested during the experiment, but the interviewees also give their opinion. The semi-structured interviews and the experiments will be coded and analysed by the qualitative text analysis software, QDA Miner 5. Transcripts of the interviews and experiments are available on request. The outcomes of the semi-structured interviews and the experiments will be compared to the existing internal data of ING on the success of the self-managing teams, creating a high reliability. The existing data is based on the maturity phases (Vanaelst et. al, 2006). Every team has already determined their maturity phase, which is functioning as the level of success of the team. Another factor, which will increase the reliability of this investigation is a test by the team members on the leadership style the managers describe. For example, if one team manager explains that he or she applies a transformational leadership style, the eight interviews with the team members need to confirm this with examples.
The generalizability of the investigation will be improved by characteristics of the multiple case study. Generalizability is necessary for the capability to generalize the study (Lee and Baskerville, 2003). Therefore the semi-structured interviews with the team members will be performed at different days and times during the week, in order to receive the best possible outcomes compared to the actual daily performance, excluding day and time specific events that are influencing the interviewees' mood. By increasing the generalizability in this matter, the outcomes will also be applicable to other companies.
Results
The semi-structured interviews and the experiments are coded and analysed by the qualitative text analysis software, QDA Miner 5. Transcripts are available on request. First, the within case analysis per participating team is described. Thereafter, a cross-case analysis represents an overall view of the results.
Within case analysis
Case 1: CST2
Collective responsibility
Secondary data of the degree of success of this self-managing team shows that the team has a maturity phase of 2.1 out of 5. During the interviews, the respondents confirmed this level of collective responsibility.
The team indicates that the level of collective responsibility can be characterized with a 6.5. ‘Unfortunately, we just had to start with the new way of working without being able to think about the way we want to organize our work’, according to the respondent. The team members work individually rather than jointly for the following reasons: individual responsibility, a lack of time and ad hoc situations ensuring that there is not enough focus on joint operating. ‘If I didn’t handle this case, why should they address feedback to me?’, said one respondent. Despite the team stating that they have not yet achieved the desired result, they are working on it. ‘The more agreements we make, the more people are motivated and not afraid to ask for help, therefore we have evaluation time three times a day’. During the morning meeting, the team proposes a daily target: ‘We believe that it is important to know what we need to work on during the day’. The target is a management tool with which they can motivate each other and hold each other accountable: ‘However, it is everyone's own responsibility to ask for help. We should feel it is acceptable to ask questions.’
Team diversity
Secondary data of this team indicate that the team has an average homogeneity level of 63%. There are some extremes within this percentage. There is in fact a certain degree of heterogeneity within the categories gender and education; however the component age scores a high degree of homogeneity. In terms of age, almost every team member belongs in the same category.
During the interviews the respondents revealed that the team is positive about the homogeneity in age. The team believes that the effect of their age homogeneity on the success of the team is very positive. ‘In terms of cooperation and coordination, I am glad that we are in the same age group’, according to the respondent. By contrast, they also could see quite a few benefits of diversity in age. ‘Because we are all quite young, we sometimes miss someone with experience who can say that we need to take a step back and slow down. However, big age differences may also lead to disagreements, because you think differently about things’. The interviewees also agreed in a positive way with the factual degree of heterogeneity on gender. Both respondents of this team indicate that a proportionate heterogeneous male-female ratio is essential in the team. ‘I think, men and women have a synergy to reach a higher level’, according to the respondent. ‘The collective responsibility will be higher by having a balance in the strengths of men and women. Both parties are working on increasing the responsibility in their own way, therefore this leads to the fact that nothing will be forgotten’.
established by actual facts. You receive a basic level through your education, so it has some influence, but personal characteristics have a bigger impact’, according to the respondent. ‘Education is the beginning of what can affect the performance, but I would not completely ascribe performance to education’.
Finally, both respondents are unanimous that heterogeneity in the color test, individual characteristics, is necessary. ‘If we were all the same, our team would become a factory and we lose the dynamics within the team. The differences in our team ensure dynamics’.
Diversity What leads to success according to the team Homogeneity Heterogeneity
Gender II
Age II
Education II
Characteristics II
Table 5.1: CST2 – What leads to success according to the team
Leadership style
According to the experiment, done with the team managers, the manager of CST2 and CST3 performs with a transformational leadership style. The interviews revealed that respondents confirm this. In conclusion, the team is very positive about their manager. Almost only positive aspects were discussed during the interview. In summary, according to the team, the manager uses a transformational leadership style. According to the nature of the manager she is more directing, so transactional. But she does not show this directing style to her teams: ‘Directing is part of her character, but we do not consider this as something negative. She does not show this directing style to us’. The key words of the interviewees match with the characteristics of transformational leadership. These are: advisory: ‘Instead of directly interfering with business, she gives advice to go in the right direction’, stimulating: ‘she stimulates us to think about ways to improve and develop’, responsibility to the team: ‘she gives us the responsibility. We need to have the courage to take the decisions’, Bottom-up:
‘she does totally not work top-down, we really like the bottom-up approach’, visibility: ‘Despite the fact that she is extremely busy, she is clearly visible on the floor and is always available for help’.
Moderator
According to the team, the transformational manager has a bigger impact on the success of the team, than the team itself: ‘She is ultimately responsible. If we had a directing manager, the collective responsibility would strongly decrease. A coaching manager is essential’.
Figure 4.1: CST2 – Leadership style of the manager according to the team
Case 2: CST3
Collective responsibility
Secondary data of the degree of success shows that this team has a maturity phase of 3.0 out of 5. This is the highest score of all the teams. During the interviews, the respondents confirmed this level of collective responsibility.
‘There is a division in our team. Some team members feel very responsible and some not at all’, states one respondent. There is a division between younger and older people within the team. ‘The responsible people are the young and ambitious people in the team and the less responsible people are the older ones’. ‘Older people think it is difficult. They think it's a difficult situation and are mainly in our team, because they cannot find another job. The young, ambitious people make progress and want to have a good result’. In addition, in busy
their days off and we take on work from each other for example, during illness or absence’. The team sets a daily target and has a strong drive to reach this target; ‘We have a good collective responsibility and serve our customers as a team’. Some of the team members would even stay longer to obtain the goals.
Team diversity
Secondary data of this team indicates that the team has the lowest average homogeneity level of all the teams with 52%. Existing data shows that the team has a high level of heterogeneity in education and age, but a high level of homogeneity in gender.
During the interviews, respondents indicate that there is no difference whether the team members are male or female: ‘There is not much difference in the responsibility of men and women in our team’. As a result, the team could be entirely homogeneous, but also heterogeneous. This has no effect. Nevertheless respondents indicate that it would be good to have co-operation between men and women. However, they are not able to substantiate that statement: ‘I think it is good that you have a mix, but if you ask me why, I do not know, it is just a feeling’.
About the component age, the interviews show that the two respondents disagree. Respondent 1 believes that the team's heterogeneity has a negative effect on the success of the team. Respondent 2, however, believes that team heterogeneity is necessary for success. Respondent 1 believes that a successful team must consist of young people. The older people only have negative characteristics. Respondent 2 states that young people can learn from the experience of the older people and the older people can learn from the attitude of the young.
Both interviewees agree that their heterogeneity in education has a negative impact on the success of the team: ‘People with a low level of education can not easily cope with changes, therefore it is difficult to work with them’. ‘It is not a good thing for our team that we have
differences in higher and lower educated people’. They indicate that 100% homogeneity at education level would be ideal, provided that the homogeneity consists of 100% highly educated employees.
Other aspects that could affect the success of the team, according to the interviewees are lifestyle and experience. Homogeneity in lifestyle will lead to success for this team. At this moment, however, they are experiencing heterogeneity. ‘It is the overall lifestyle of people; whether their career is about to end or whether they are just starting out. You have a completely different purpose. Different purposes could cause friction’. Homogeneity in the level of experience is also positive for a successful result: ‘I believe that experience is very important. We as a team started with a very experienced team, which was positive compared to the other teams'.
Finally, both respondents of this team are also unanimous that heterogeneity in the color test is necessary. ‘I think the more differences you have, the better. With the differences we create a balanced team’. ‘If we were all the same, we would miss aspects which reduces the scope. You will miss a lot opportunities as a team’.
Diversity What leads to success according to the team Homogeneity Heterogeneity Gender II Age I I Education II Other II
Lifestyle and experiences
Characteristics II
positively. Characteristics identified by the respondents are of a transformational nature. The interviewees clarify that the manager has confidence in the team and therefore she spends more time with the other teams. However, they do believe that they can always continue to develop with the help of the manager. Aspects mentioned are: trust: ‘she has a lot of confidence in what we do and in the results that we get’, freedom: ‘We were allowed to select a new colleague and go through the application process with all that entails’, facilitator: ‘Recently we had an endless discussion with the team. Our manager took over the role as facilitator to help us out’.
Moderator
The situation in the team, heterogeneity, indicates that the team's diversity has a more important role. This is evident from the following situation they sketch: coaching from the manager makes no sense for the older members of the team. The younger members stimulate the older ones. They solve problems within the team without help from their manager.
Figure 4.2: CST3 – Leadership style of the manager according to the team
Case 3: CST 5
Collective responsibility
Secondary data of the degree of success shows that this team has a maturity phase of 1.6 out of 5. This is the lowest score of all the teams. During the interviews, the respondents confirmed this level of collective responsibility.
There is a distinction between the team members who feel responsible and who do not: ‘The reason for this is the generation gap. Young people in our team are less responsible’. ‘Younger people are much more easy-going in life. They have less responsibility, but that also means they sometimes feel less responsibility for the team or the customer. The older
generation has a better understanding of what the consequences are’. The team indicates that the level of collective responsibility can be characterized with a 6: ‘Even if there is real urgency, there are not many people who stay longer at work’. In addition, the team argues that it is too busy to work on collective responsibility. ‘The fact that our portfolio is very large and diverse also ensures that we do not reach a higher collective responsibility’. The grade is a 6, because the distribution is more towards the positive: ‘More people are responsible than not responsible’.
Team diversity
Secondary data of this team indicates that the team has the highest average homogeneity level of all the teams with 71%. Existing data shows that the team has a high level of homogeneity in education and age, and an above average level of homogeneity in gender.
According to both respondents, the success of the team is not gender dependent. Gender has no influence. However, they indicate that they would prefer to work in a team that has a mix of both sexes: ‘I think a mix is very important. That feels familiar and good, and is in line with society’.
The interviews indicate that the respondents are not positive about the fact that they have a high degree of homogeneity in age. Both respondents believe that age heterogeneity is essential in the team. The combination of the characteristics of older people and those of younger people leads to success. ‘I believe that the younger people are picking up changes faster than someone who is older; however the older people do have more knowledge and
that we are all responsible, because of the education and intelligence level of the team members. We all have the same level of knowledge. And the higher you are, or at least higher than Higher Professional Education the greater the responsibility’.
Lastly, the interviewees indicate that heterogeneity of personal characteristics of team members is essential. ‘It is good to have a mix within the team. Everyone has his or her own strengths. For example, you need someone with analytic skills, but you also need someone who takes care of the fun within the team to keep the spirits up’.
Diversity What leads to success according to the team Homogeneity Heterogeneity
Gender II
Age II
Education II
Characteristics II
Table 5.3: CST5 – What leads to success according to the team
Leadership style
According to the experiment done with the team manager, the manager of CST5 and CST6 performs with a leadership style combining transactional and transformational leadership style characteristics with a slight bias towards to transactional leadership. The interviews revealed that respondents confirm this.
The results of the interviews are mixed. One respondent indicates that the manager is fully transactional and the other person indicates that he is in-between transactional and transformational. The first interviewee is negative about the leadership style of the manager. This person declares that he is not stimulating: ‘My manager does not stimulate us, because he is too busy’, no adaptability: ‘My manager tries to control everyone in the same way rather than using empathy’, unconcerned: ‘No sense of commitment by my manager, and he doesn't bring the team up to a higher level’. The second person is mixed positive. Key words in this interview are: team responsibility: ‘We need to resolve issues within our team by ourselves.
We need to think about the approach’, and need more guidance: ‘I think, the younger the team, the more directing it needs’.
Moderator
The interviewees are unanimous that the level of diversity in the team has a bigger impact on the success of the team than the leadership style of the manager: ‘We can also operate well without our manager. His leadership style has no bigger impact on the level of responsibility than the diversity of the team’.
Figure 4.3: CST5 – Leadership style of the manager according to the team
Case 4: CST 6
Collective responsibility
Secondary data of the degree of success shows that this team has a maturity phase of 2.6 out of 5. During the interviews, the respondents confirmed this level of collective responsibility. The collective responsibility is present, but not optimal: ‘This is because of the individual responsibility of the people themselves’. ‘When there is a problem, it is always the same people who take responsibility for it. Other team members, who do not take responsibility, do have perhaps less of a feeling of commitment’. The team works with the concept of sub-teams: ‘With the sub-teams, collective responsibility within a sub-team is high, but the collective responsibility of the entire team is low’. The team does not feel responsibility in case a daily target is not reached: ‘For example, if we have not achieved the target by the end
possible to provide feedback and to be honest. Nevertheless, we could still improve on this’, according to the respondent.
Team diversity
Secondary data of this team indicates that the team has an average homogeneity level of 63%. There are some extremes within this percentage. There is, in fact, a certain degree of heterogeneity within the categories gender and age, however, the component education scores a high degree of homogeneity. In terms of education, almost every team member belongs in the same category. The respondents are positive about this last fact.
‘For our team, it is very positive that we have almost only highly educated people', according to the respondent. ‘Everyone has equal value to the team. If the differences in education are large, then friction would be possible. For example, someone might think that he or she is better than another team member’. The homogeneity of this team on education level has a positive effect on the collective responsibility of the team. ‘Especially at higher levels you learn to take responsibility’.
The team is also satisfied with the level of heterogeneity in gender. According to this team, both men and women are needed in a team. Both sexes have advantages and disadvantages, which can lead to synergy and to reaching a higher level. ‘Men can speed up a meeting and make it more concrete than women. Women, however, do not leave out any details’. ‘Men and women really complement each other’. As in the gender component, the team indicates that they are positive about the heterogeneity in age. A combination between old and young in the team is needed to get the most out of the team: ‘I think it's good to have a balance between young and old’. However, the team wants to have a majority of young people. And the respondents also indicate the disadvantages of a combination of ages: ‘A mix can also lead to friction. For example, in the field of development: young people are more flexible than older
ones’. ‘However, it is more important that we complement each other then that there is friction’.
This team also mentioned that homogeneity of experience is positive for successful results, but this needs to be in combination with the heterogeneity in age. ‘Always combine new personnel with old personnel, so that you can maintain continuous improvement’.
Finally, the opinion of the last team is also that heterogeneity within the team on personal characteristics leads to success of the team. ‘If all employees were too similar, they would get in conflict with each other’. ‘When we are all aware of the differences in personality, we can give each other feedback more easily’.
Diversity What leads to success according to the team Homogeneity Heterogeneity Gender II Age II Education II Other II Experiences Characteristics II
Table 5.4: CST6 – What leads to success according to the team
Leadership style
Like in case 1, the manager of CST5 and CST6 has a leadership style that combines transactional and transformational leadership style characteristics with a slight bias towards transactional leadership. The interviews revealed that respondents confirm this, except that they indicate a slight preference for transformational leadership.
is needed, he intervenes’, control: ‘Recently, he made the decision to take one team member out of our team. We did not agree to this action’, observing: ‘He informs and advises after observation and, if necessary, he proposes deadlines and monitors them’.
Moderator
The two respondents disagree. One says that the diversity of the team plays a more important role for joint responsibility than the leadership style of the manager. The other states that if the manager did not exist, the success rate would be much lower.
Figure 4.4: CST6 – Leadership style of the manager according to the team
Cross-case analysis
The degree of success of the self-managing teams
Existing data is used to determine the degree of success, collective responsibility, of each team. Appendix 6 shows the eight components per team, which established the maturity phase of each team. Figure 5.1 shows a summary of the degree of success
of each team. The score is measured on a scale of 1 to 5. The graph shows that the average is 2.3. Team CST 3 and CST6 score above the average and team CST2 and CST5 score below the average. As defined in the case analyses, there are no exceptions, all four teams confirmed the factual degree of success of the team during the interviews.
Transactional Transformational
Figure 5.1: degree of success of the self-managing teams
Table 6.1: level of homogeneity of the teams
Noot. Adapted from “ING CSNL”, by Hopmans, M., 2016, August.
Level of homogeneity of the teams
Appendix 5 details the level of homogeneity of each team. According to age, educational background, and the sexes of all team members, homogeneity is calculated. Figure 5.2 illustrates the percentages of homogeneity on these three aspects per team. For an overall view of the levels of homogeneity of all the
teams, table 6.1 demonstrates the total percentages of the level of homogeneity of each team. This table also clarifies if the homogeneity on gender consists of mostly men or mostly women.
Gender Gender Hom Education Hom Age Hom Total CST 2 0,454545455 54% 53% 81% 63% CST 3 0,714285714 71% 43% 43% 52% CST 5 0,375 62% 75% 75% 71% CST 6 0,333333333 67% 78% 44% 63% 0=female 1=male
However, figure 5.2 and table 6.1 are factual representations. The interviews revealed that the teams have their own opinion of what level of diversity leads to success. Table 6.2 shows
Figure 5.2: level of homogeneity of the teams
Diversity What leads to success according to the team Homogeneity Heterogeneity CST2: Gender II CST2: Age II CST2: Education II CST2: Characteristics II CST3: Gender II CST3: Age I I CST3: Education II CST3: Other II
Lifestyle and experience
CST3: Characteristics II CST5: Gender II CST5: Age II CST5: Education II CST5: Characteristics II CST6: Gender II CST6: Age II CST6: Education II CST6: Other II Experience CST6: Characteristics II Total 15 = 42% 21 = 58%
Table 6.2: What leads to success according to the teams
Results arising form this table are:
• Features of the degree of diversity vary, depending on whether it is better to be homogeneous or heterogeneous in order to achieve success, according to the teams.
• Homogeneity: the teams are unanimous that education and experience need to be homogeneous, provided that the educational level is homogeneous and high and the experience is homogeneous and high.
• Heterogeneity: the teams are unanimous that gender and personal characteristics need to be heterogeneous.
Leadership style
During the interviews, respondents were asked to describe the leadership style of their manager. CST2 and CST3 are unanimous that their manager applies a transformational leadership style. Figure 6.1 shows their unanimity.
Figure 6.1: Manager 1 - CST2 and CST3, according to the teams
The teams of manager 2 agree that their manager applies aspects of both transactional leadership and transformational leadership. However, they differ in gradation. One team believes that the manager tends more towards the transactional leadership style and the other team states that the manager tends more towards the transformational leadership style. The difference between the two teams is small.
Figure 6.2: Manager 2 – CST5 and CST6, according to the teams
The experiments that have been conducted with the managers confirm the findings of the teams. 83% of all the quotes about the experiment with team manager 1 are characteristics of transformational leadership and 17% are features of transactional leadership.
Transactional Transformational
Transactional Transformational
Transactional Transformational
As a result of grouping all the quotes, table 7.1 shows the key features of the leadership style of the manager, supported by a few quotes.
Characteristic Quote Leadership style
Collective goal ‘I need a common goal to get everybody involved’
Transformational Testing ‘I first start testing if my findings, related to
resistance, really exist’
Transformational Willingness ‘It is all about willingness; if we are going to
work on it, how do we do it and does everyone want to work on it’
Transformational
Self-organizing ‘Then I'll see if the team can organize it by themselves and if they propose a clear purpose’
Transformational
Facilitating ‘I take a facilitating role’ Transformational
Appreciating ‘I treat them with appreciation; you are a very good team!’
Transformational
Enthusiasm ‘I will get them excited first’ Transformational
Coaching ‘If I see something and the team does not agree, then we do have a legitimate discussion with each other’
Transformational
Stimulating ‘I encourage people to come up with great new ideas’
Transformational Interested ‘What do you need from me so that you can
organize it’
Transformational Challenging ‘I will challenge them to see if it is possible and
is this the most successful idea or can we make it even bigger?’
Transformational
Flexible ‘Then you have to be flexible. I think you must be able to adapt’
Transformational Establishing
frameworks
‘I would just set a framework with the team; this is the KPI and we just need to achieve this’
Transactional Table 7.1: Key features of the leadership style of manager 1
43% of all the quotes from the experiment with team manager 2 are characteristics of transformational leadership and 57% are features of transactional leadership.
Figure 6.4: leadership style of manager 2, according to the experiment
As a result of grouping all the quotes, table 7.2 shows the key features of the leadership style of the manager, supported by a few quotes.
Characteristic Quote Leadership style
Structured Approach ‘I make a plan of approach and a really good action list’
Transactional Collective goal ‘What is important for them is that they all still
want to continue together’
Transformational Theory-based ‘I think I will first take a deep dive into the
theory to see what is good design’
Transactional Directing ‘Then I am the one who takes a step back and
make the decision’
Transactional Positive thinking ‘It is important to finish with a fun part where
we do something together’
Transformational Commitment ‘I will ask for commitment from the team if they
want to perform well’
Transformational Facilitator ‘My role is to facilitate and to announce it, but
the team has to work out the idea by themselves’
Transformational Involvement ‘I will ask for input of the team; can we stop or
might we reduce some work’
Transformational
Monitoring ‘I will monitor it tightly’ Transactional
Consequences ‘And if something is not completed, which is not announced ahead of time, I'm not kind, and I take the consequences’
Transactional
Results ‘I appeal to people who are not achieving
results’
Transactional Table 7.2: Key features of the leadership style of manager 2
Propositions
The results of the within and cross-case analysis have led to new insights. As a result, the preliminary propositions have been revised and the following propositions have been established. Proposition 1 and 2 are divisions to the first preliminary proposition: The higher the homogeneity of the team, the lower the degree of success of self-managing teams, since it is proved from the results that features of the degree of diversity vary, depending on whether it is better to be homogeneous or heterogeneous in order to achieve success, according to the teams.
Proposition 1: The higher the homogeneity of education, lifestyle and experience within the team, the higher the degree of success of self-managing teams. Provided that the educational level is homogeneous and high and the experience is homogeneous and high.
Proposition 2: The higher the homogeneity of gender and personal characteristics within the team, the lower the degree of success of self-managing teams.
The third proposition is a copy of the second preliminary proposition, since the results show that this preliminary proposition is confirmed.
Proposition 3: Transformational leadership is positively related to the degree of success of self-managing teams.
Model
After reviewing the results and propositions, the following model has been established. In this model, the connections between the degree of transformational leadership, team homogeneity and the degree of success of a self-managing team, are displayed. The model illustrates that homogeneity of education, lifestyle and experience within the team has a positive effect on
the success of a self-managing team. However, homogeneity of gender and personal characteristics within the team has a negative effect on a self-managing team. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on the success of a self-managing team, which leads to a negative effect of transactional leadership on a self-managing team.
Degree of success of Self-Managing Team Degree of Transformational Leadership Team homogeneity: • Education • Lifestyle • Experience Team homogeneity: • Gender • Personal characteristics
+
+
_
Figure 7: ModelDiscussion
The investigation of the interaction of team homogeneity and transformational leadership in explaining the success of self-managing teams, leads to an interesting difference between factual results originating from the secondary data and results arising from the interviews with the team members.
According to Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2001), who did research into the influence of team heterogeneity on the team performance, team heterogeneity is needed for a higher performance of the team. Keijser and van der Vat (2009) even argued that heterogeneity in personal characteristics within a self-managing team is a requirement for success. During the multiple case study the next preliminary proposition has been investigated: ‘The higher the homogeneity of the team, the lower the degree of success of self-managing teams’. This proposition has been confirmed, according to the investigation to the secondary data. This data showed that CST3 has the highest degree of success and this team is the most heterogeneous of all the teams. Besides, CST5 scored the lowest degree of success and is the most homogeneous team out of all the participating teams. So, according to the secondary data, we could state that the higher the homogeneity of the team, the lower the degree of success of self-managing teams.
However, the team members do not agree with this conclusion. The interviewees have rejected the first proposition. According to the team members, the positivity or negativity of homogeneity on the success of the teams, varies by each characteristic of diversity. In addition, they appointed two new important aspects beyond the scope of diversity: lifestyle and experience. Reijonen & Komppula (2007) already did research on the impact of lifestyle on organizational success. Besides, Kim & Minder (2009) investigated the influence of a
certain degree of experience on the performance of an organization. The teams are unanimous that education and experience are aspects that need to be homogeneous. On the other hand, gender and characteristics need to be heterogeneous, according to the teams. By the results of the interviews, the following two propositions emerged: The higher the homogeneity of education, lifestyle and experience within the team, the higher the degree of success of self-managing teams. Provided that the educational level is homogeneous and high and the experience is homogeneous and high. And: The higher the homogeneity of gender and personal characteristics within the team, the lower the degree of success of self-managing teams.
According to the literature, transformational leadership has a positive effect on the success of self-managing teams Bass (1985). Wageman (2001) argues that flexibility, involvement and independence, factors of transformational leadership, are main characteristics of self-managing teams. The experiment and the semi-structured interviews investigated the following preliminary proposition: ‘Transformational leadership is positively related to the degree of success of self-managing teams’. This proposition has been confirmed by the case study. Manager 1 has an average success of 2.55 within the teams, where this manager performs a strongly transformational leadership style. In addition, the team members are very positive about the behaviour of their manager. Manager 2 has an average success of 2.1 within the teams, where this manager performs leadership style with both characteristics of transactional and transformational leadership. The team members of this manager are not
