Transformation through teamwork: the path to the new organization?

Drew, Stephen; Coulson‐Thomas, Colin

doi:10.1108/00251749610106927

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rewards associated with pleasant cooperative interaction or successes enhance mutual attraction and lead to more favorable and inclusive categorization of the workgroup memberships (Gaertner et al, 1993;Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996). These rewards range from very simple things like barbecues, field trips or official recognition of achievement in project newsletters and electronic mail, to the sharing of bonuses for achieving or exceeding performance targets.…”

Section: Team Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selecting members with the necessary technical or functional expertise is important not least because competence strongly predicts task performance (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994) and trust (Das and Teng, 1998), both key outcomes as depicted in Figure 1. Training, expert facilitation and coaching help this process by encouraging honest and frank communication and problem solving in workgroups (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993;Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996). The champions' meetings serve to perpetuate this commitment-building or re-alignment process throughout the life of the project.…”

Section: Workhops and Champions' Meetingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Active training, expert facilitation and coaching facilitate this commitment-building process (Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996). Top management support must be both articulated and enacted.…”

Section: The Team Approach In Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The benefits of teamwork include, among others, breaking down barriers to effective communication and establishing cross-functional cooperation (Pinto and Pinto, 1990;Albanese, 1994;Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996), which leads to trust and commitment (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) and, high performance and innovation (Lampman and Dimeo, 1989;Pinto and Pinto, 1990;Todryk, 1990;Katzenbach and Smith, 1993;Albanese, 1994;Fleming and Koppelman, 1996).…”

Section: The Industry Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Anvuur

Kumaraswamy

2007

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This item was submitted to Loughborough's Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions.For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing 1Aaron M. Anvuur and Mohan M. Kumaraswamy, M.ASCE Partnering as a concept has matured in its application and many empirical studies provide evidence of its impact on project performance beyond the rather prescriptive and anecdotal claims of earlier cookbooks on the subject. What has remained elusive, however, is a guiding theory on partnering. Drawing on the literature, partnering is explained within the framework of intergroup contact theory and teamwork in organizations. More specifically, partnering has the potential to create the essential conditions for optimal intergroup contact and hence, to reduce bias and increase cooperation among construction project workgroups and, consequently, IntroductionOver the last decade, partnering has gained considerable popularity. However, several issues raise serious difficulties with the uptake of, understanding of, approach to, and implementation of, partnering within and across different national and organizational settings (Loraine, 1994;Green, 1999;Uher, 1999;Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a;Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b;Li et al., 2000;Fisher and Green, 2001;Bresnen and Marshall, 2002;Naoum, 2003). In time, research has shed light on some of the contentious issues surrounding the concept of partnering. A number of empirical studies (e.g., Weston and Gibson, 1993;Larson, 1995;Gransberg et al., 1999) and a plethora of anecdotal evidence support the espoused benefits of partnering. Research highlights the usefulness and benefits of extending the practice of partnering down the entire supply and value chain to include subcontractors (e.g., Mathews et al., 1996;Love, 1997;Kale and Arditi, 2001;Miller et al., 2002;Sze et al., 2003). Partnering forms of contract (e.g., PPC 2000) attempt to prescribe and govern the behavior and relationships of contracting parties. While the legal status of such express good faith clauses has been questioned and their full practical import is yet unknown (see Cornes, 1996;Cox and Thompson, 1996), these attempts demonstrate a bold commitment to overcome the legal obstacles to the wider adoption of partnering. Some research has considered the potential impact of different cultural and national contexts on partnering performance (e.g., Kwan and Ofori, 2001;Liu and Fellows, 2001;Koraltan and Dikbas, 2002). With 'success stories' of partnering emerging from diverse cultural settings (e.g., Bennett and Baird, 2001;Bayliss et al., 2004;Chan, Chan, Fan et al., 2004), the general view is that partnering is by no means exclusive to any country, continent or culture. 3However, partnering still lacks conceptual-definitional specificity. Partnering is variously defined by its outcomes or the processes involved in its implementation...

show abstract

Section: Team Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Workhops and Champions' Meetingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Active training, expert facilitation and coaching facilitate this commitment-building process (Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996). Top management support must be both articulated and enacted.…”

Section: The Team Approach In Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Industry Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Anvuur

Kumaraswamy

2007

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is also linked with creating effective teams -people working with people. Effective teams are paramount in successful organisational change [5]. When talking 'effective teams' , there is a strong connection between culture, leadership styles and individual worker behaviours.…”

Section: Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Change - Learnings from an Occupational Therapist

Fair

2017

J Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Change seems inevitable in our current world of work. Whether it is workforce restructuring, new products and services, changes to ICT, a change in leadership, new customers and staff, varied supply chains, a change in equipment used, new locations where work is performed -the change is endless. As an Occupational Therapist I have seen the impact on workers and the organisation when change is managed poorly. It can lead to an absence from work, psychological and physical injury or illness, poor workplace dynamics, reduced workplace productivity, an increase in worker and customer complaints, and the lodgement of workers' compensation claims. The following is a summary of what I see as the key features of successfully managing a change initiative. When change isn't managed well, unfortunately the impact on workers and the organisation can be significant. ConsultationConsultation needs to be engaging of the relevant stakeholders. Delivering one way communication to people is not consultation. We know that by engaging people, seeking their input, clarifying issues, and problem solving together, is the best way to gain commitment and buy-in [1]. We must consider both internal and external stakeholders in this consultation, and ensure that those persons affected by the change, are engaged in the consultation phase [1]. This doesn't mean every worker must be individually consulted, however there needs to be authentic and inclusive consultation processes across the range of stakeholders. PreventionQuality and relevant risk assessments must be completed prior to the change initiative occurring. This includes looking at strategic risk, business risk, and the project risk. Within these risks will be consideration of the workplace health and safety risks. At a basic level, we need to ensure we analyse the risks, update the risk register, mitigate any identified risks, monitor risks, and ensure we communicate widely to all relevant parties [2].Organisations are founded on a basis of social psychology, and a failure to recognise this is likely to result in failed attempts at implementing successful change initiatives [3]. We need to consider people, and plan for strategies over time. Simply trying to institute change on to people will result in failure. To prevent this occurring, establishing a healthy organisation puts us in good stead to then work with our workforce when implementing change initiatives. Furthermore, having healthy workers means they are better prepared to deal with the stressors associated with change [4]. This is also linked with creating effective teams -people working with people. Effective teams are paramount in successful organisational change [5]. When talking 'effective teams' , there is a strong connection between culture, leadership styles and individual worker behaviours. Ultimately, there is a social-psychology basis to preventing change initiatives from failing.

show abstract

Team Building, Company Leadership and Strategic Alliances

Mazzarol

Reboud

2019

Springer Texts in Business and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformation through teamwork: the path to the new organization?

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Managing Change - Learnings from an Occupational Therapist

Team Building, Company Leadership and Strategic Alliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About