Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
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.
Benchmarking: An International Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jun 1, 2005
Keywords: Team working; Self managing teams; Management research
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.