Institutionalized Involvement: Teams and Stress in 1990s U.S. Steel

Abstract

Is employee involvement universally either good or bad, a “best practice” or an exploitative tool—or do its effects depend on context? To shed light on this issue, I ask the following question: Do organizational–cultural factors determine whether employees are stressed by membership in teams? By constructing mixed‐effects models from a large mid‐1990s survey of U.S. steel employees, I find that team membership is linked to increased stress only when implemented in cultural contexts of conflict and distrust. I conclude that the unintended consequences of institutionalized formal practices depend on organizationally specific cultural conditions.

The Role of Digital Communities in Organizing Gig Workers

“…First, similar to previous research examining workers' views on unions, cross-sectional designs raise questions of causality (Aleks 2019; Panagiotopoulos 2012; Park, McHough, and Bodah 2006) because they cannot rule out unobserved endogeneity and measurement error (Haber 2016;Osterman and Weaver 2016). First, similar to previous research examining workers' views on unions, cross-sectional designs raise questions of causality (Aleks 2019; Panagiotopoulos 2012; Park, McHough, and Bodah 2006) because they cannot rule out unobserved endogeneity and measurement error (Haber 2016;Osterman and Weaver 2016).…”

Exploring possible trade‐offs between organisational performance and employee well‐being: The role of teamwork practices

“…The present study contributes to the much debated question of whether the set of HRM activities aimed at improving organisational performance is perhaps the same that promotes employee well-being (Guest, 2017;Haber, 2016;Van De Voorde et al, 2012). Indeed, employers are faced with the dilemma of investing in performanceenhancing activities, while giving less priority to practices that improve well-being (Guest, 2017).…”

“…The notion of conflicting outcomes has been applied to team working, specifically in the context of management‐by‐stress theory (Babson, ; Haber, ; Parker & Slaughter, ; Robertson et al, ). The premise of this theory is that work teams are designed to maximise employees' productivity, often through setting high‐performance targets, increased job demands, and long working hours (Conti, Angelis, Cooper, Faragher, & Gill, ; Haber, ). Management‐by‐stress theory derives from the “Japanese Production Management” system, rooted in the “lean production” philosophy (Parker & Slaughter, , ).…”

“…Another important aspect of management‐by‐stress theory is that any experience of stressful work among individuals may in turn undermine their psychological health and well‐being (Haber, ; Parker & Slaughter, ). As explained by Robertson et al (), work teams have the capacity to learn collectively and coordinate each other's work, but high performance expectations may put their well‐being at considerable risks (e.g., increased job‐related anxiety).…”

“…Although existing research has documented the performance effects of teamwork practices, it is taken for granted that work teams often experience stressful patterns of work (Cruz & Pil, 2011;Haber, 2016;Kalleberg, Nesheim, & Olsen, 2009). Some studies indicate that the presumed benefits of teamwork practices are actually attained at the expense of high job demands and stress among employees (Barker, 1993;Godard, 2001;Parker & Slaughter, 1995;Robertson, Rinehart, & Huxley, 1992).…”