Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Management fads: the case of the self‐managed team

Management fads: the case of the self‐managed team Purpose – To critically analyze why the implementation of self‐managed teams often leads to disappointment. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used is qualitative. It is based on the theory of microstoria (Boje) and entails in‐depth interviews and dialogue to collect data. Findings – The introduction of the new concept (self‐managed teams) did not start an intensive management discourse. Management largely discussed the concept and decided to implement it, without consulting the employees who had to work with the concept. This led to misunderstandings and resistance to the concept of self‐managing. Research limitations/implications – The research was conducted in only two organisations. Practical implications – The primary reason why the concept was poorly implemented was that management did not understand the process of shared meaning. Creating a proper “dialogue” is important for implementing new management concepts. Originality/value – This paper offers a social constructionist point of view to critically evaluate new management concepts such that they do not become fads. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Benchmarking: An International Journal Emerald Publishing

Management fads: the case of the self‐managed team

Marja Flory
Benchmarking: An International Journal , Volume 12 (3): 8 – Jun 1, 2005
Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/management-fads-the-case-of-the-self-managed-team-lu0OF5dfJC
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1463-5771
DOI
10.1108/14635770510600384
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – To critically analyze why the implementation of self‐managed teams often leads to disappointment. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used is qualitative. It is based on the theory of microstoria (Boje) and entails in‐depth interviews and dialogue to collect data. Findings – The introduction of the new concept (self‐managed teams) did not start an intensive management discourse. Management largely discussed the concept and decided to implement it, without consulting the employees who had to work with the concept. This led to misunderstandings and resistance to the concept of self‐managing. Research limitations/implications – The research was conducted in only two organisations. Practical implications – The primary reason why the concept was poorly implemented was that management did not understand the process of shared meaning. Creating a proper “dialogue” is important for implementing new management concepts. Originality/value – This paper offers a social constructionist point of view to critically evaluate new management concepts such that they do not become fads.

Journal

Benchmarking: An International Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jun 1, 2005

Keywords: Team working; Self managing teams; Management research

References

  • Management fashion
    Abrahamson, E.
  • What's in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions
    Benders, J.; van Veen, K.
  • In search of a social learning theory
    Bente, E.
  • Narrative Methods for Organizational & Communication Research
    Boje, D.M.
  • Management fads and buzzwords
    Collins, D.
  • Beyond the Hype; Rediscovering the Essence of Management
    Eccles, R.; Nohria, N.; Berkeley, J.D.
  • Rhetoric and myth in management fashion
    Kieser, A.
  • Forms of Production; Organization and Recursivity
    Ortmann, G.
  • The role of evaluative enquiry in creating learning
    Preskill, H.; Torres, R.
  • The Fifth Discipline
    Senge, P.
  • What can an apple learn from an orange? Or what do companies use benchmarking for?
    Walgenbach, P.; Hegele, C.