MGMT 90025

People & Change

Workshop Week 4

Common Organizational Changes:

Self-managed Work Teams

Technology (TAM)
Diffusion of Innovation
UN SDGs in People & Change
WEEK 4 WORKSHOP

• Case Study C – Parivar (Part 1)

Based on Week 3 Theoretical Concepts

• Teams Review and some additional concepts

• IT, Innovation, and Coordination Systems
 Team
Activity &
Debriefing

Case Study Analysis

Context
Key issues/problems
Evidence-based Recommendations
Questions/Answers
CASE STUDY C:
PARIVAR

IT Photo from The Hindu Times

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01209/TH15_IT_1209290f.jpg
 Case Questions: Parivar

• Q1: Please consider Rivera’s work and analyze

the turnover at Parivar in terms of “fit” with the
organizational culture.

• Q2: Now turn to Sathe’s work. Can you use one

of his frameworks to identify some ways to
intervene in the culture of the organization
that might help with retention?

(Different ideas welcome and you may say “no, this

won’t work.” However, for full marks, you need to
still complete a full analytic writeup to support your
conclusions)
WEEK 4 WORKSHOP –
KEY THEORETICAL CONCEPTS

• Self-managed Work Teams

• IT, Innovation, and Coordination Systems
 Overview – Key Concepts

• Teams
– Self-Managing Work Teams (SMWTs)
– Implications for Organizations, Team Design
and Management
– Diagnosing Appropriateness of Teams
• IT and Technology changes
– Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
– Extended TAM
• Adoption of innovations
Changes Involving Team-Based Work

TEAMS
 New Types of Teams

• Cross-functional Teams
• Virtual Teams
• Self-Managed Work Teams (SMT’s /
SMWT’s)
NEW TYPES OF TEAMS
 Cross Functional Teams
 Groups of varying levels of skill and experience, working toward a
common goal
 e.g. a group with members from finance, HR and IT, as you might
find for making suggestions for a payroll system upgrade.
 We see this with teams for strategic change and new product
development.
 Virtual Teams
 Geographically spread out, and work together mostly by phone
and email.
 For example, a sales team with each representative living in the
country served.
 Self-Managed Work Teams (SMT’s / SMWT’s)
 New Types of Teams

• Cross Functional Teams

• Virtual Teams
• Self-Managed Work Teams (SMT’s /
SMWT’s)
Give employees the autonomy and
control to make decisions on a wide
range of issues including:
– How work will be done
– Which team members will do what work
– Performance monitoring
 Challenges with transitioning to
SMWTs

• The introduction of teams has

implications for the whole organization
• Team performance depends on design
issues and internal functioning
• Team performance depends on
effective leadership
– Internal – ‘distributed leadership’ (Barry 1991)
– External – what role for managers?
 But… Teams might not always be
appropriate

Organisational
Level

Team Level

Individual Level

See also: Anderson (2012) on team-based interventions

 Diagnosing if teams are appropriate

• Organisational Level
1. Is the organization fully committed to aligning
all the organization's systems including
leader behaviors, rewards, and access to
information?
2. Does the organization have sufficient
resources to invest in training & development
for both managers and employees?
3. Does the organization have a plan to
manage the transition including timetables for
transfer of managerial responsibilities?
 Diagnosing if teams are appropriate

• Team Level
1. Are the teams designed to be long-term and
permanent?
2. Will the teams have access to the resources
they need for high performance?
3. Will teams carry out interdependent tasks?
4. Are tasks complex and non-routine in
nature?
5. Can systems be designed to facilitate a high
degree of intra-team coordination?
 Diagnosing if teams are appropriate

• Individual Level
1. Do employees have the necessary skills
and attributes to take on leadership
tasks?
2. If not, will training result in appropriate
ability levels?
3. Will employees be open to examining
their own behavior in the team context?
 Distributed Leadership

What Why How

(Barry 1991)
 Distributed Leadership

• Some teams are self-managing, so

where is the leader?
• Comes from within via distributed
leadership
• Four types of leadership required
• Skills in all areas rarely found in one
member, so leadership is distributed

(Barry 1991)
 Distributed Leadership: 4 Types

Envisioning Organizing

Spanning Social
(Barry 1991)
DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP TYPES IN MORE DETAIL
 ‘Distributed Leadership’ (Barry 1991)

 Four types of leadership required

1. Envisioning - Creating a strong vision of the purpose of the team that can easily be
translated into a set of values.
2. Organizing - Providing structure through a focus on details, deadlines, and structures.
3. Spanning - Networking, gathering information, championing the team in the rest of the
organization, dealing with outsiders, preventing the team from becoming isolated, etc.;
importantly, the spanning leader my have to coordinate the team’s activities with the
rest of the organization.
4. Social - Negotiation, conflict resolution, “surfacing” problems, confronting anti-social
behavior.

 Skills in all areas rarely found in one member, so leadership is distributed

 We see this kind of thinking in a number of personality evaluations in teams, such
as the popular Belbin model.
Distributed Leadership In Practice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjbkHtGvpBY
Think
Ink
Pair
Share
Compare and contrast traditional and
team-based organisations plus
leadership behaviours
Real-world examples
 Teams Change Everything!

Traditional Org. Team-Based Org.

Org. Structure Individual hierarchy Team-based

hierarchy
Job Design Individual tasks Collective tasks
Management Direct/control Coach/facilitate
Leadership Top-down Shared within team
Information Flow Controlled/limited Open/shared
Rewards Individual Team-based
Decision-making Managers plan, Teams plan, control
control and improve and improve
 External Management Role?

“If these teams are meant to lead

themselves what am I meant to do now as
their manager?”
• From hard to soft influence tactics
• From controller to coach

(Douglas & Gardner, 2004)

 Traditional Manager vs. Self-Manager Leader
Behaviors

Traditional Leader Self-Management Leader

Behaviors Behaviors
•Emphasizes Goals •Encourages Self-
•Coordinates Groups Reinforcement
•Provides Information •Encourages Self-
•Proposes Solutions Observation/Evaluation
•Specifies Problems •Encourages Self-Expectation
•Exercises Influence •Encourages Self-Goal Setting
•Talks Frequently •Encourages Rehearsal
•Encourages Self-Criticism

(Manz & Sims, 1987)

 8 Characteristics of Successful Teams

1. A clear, elevating goal. The goal is understood and seen

as challenging to team members.
2. A results-driven structure. Team members must have
clear roles, effective communication processes, and an
ability to use available data to evaluate progress and take
corrective action when necessary. Members must
understand how their roles interrelate.
3. Competent members. The team must be comprised of
members with the right technical knowledge and
interpersonal skills to contribute to the team’s goal.
4. Unified commitment. Team members must be willing to
dedicate effort and energy to the team.
(Larson & LaFasto 1989)
 8 Characteristics of Successful Teams

5. A collaborative climate. The team must develop a

climate of trust in one another in order to
collaborate.
6. Standards of excellence. High-performing teams
have high standards for individual performance and
members feel pressure to achieve.
7. External support and recognition. Teams need
external rewards but also support in the form of
resources necessary for the team to accomplish its
work.
8. Principled leadership. Leaders provide the
necessary motivation and alignment to complete
the team’s work.

(Larson & LaFasto 1989)

IT & TECHNOLOGY
CHANGES
 Team
Activity &
Debriefing

Required Reading
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Apply it to any organisation/team you
know – a real-world example
IT OVERVIEW
 Implementation Challenges
 Original Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

 Subsequent Extension OF TAM

IT Issues

Source: http://www.jacobsen.no/anders/blog/archives/images/project.html
 IT Changes

• Covers a wide range of phenomena, which vary

in scale and scope, e.g.. new PCs vs. an ERP
system
• Often fails or delivers sub-optimal results
– The adoption of new technology often fails to deliver
the promised productivity gains
– It is estimated that 20% of an organization's
expenditure on IT is used on products and services
that fail to achieve their intended purpose (Feld &
Stoddard, 2004).
 IT Changes and Problems

• Problems may be technical, e.g. the

technology does not have the required
capacity
• Problems may be with the implementation
of the technology
• A common cause of failure is the human
factor – are staff willing to accept the new
technology and use it effectively?
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Perceived
Usefulness
of IT

Intention to
Usage
Use

Perceived Ease of
Use of IT

(Davis, 1989)
 State of the Art Technology: 1989

File:Windowschicago347.png

File:Se30.jpg

File:Windows 95 Desktop screenshot.png

Source Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_95_
Desktop_screenshot.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windowschicago347.png

Source Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Se30.jpg
A real-world example of TAM
• https://www.enablersofchange.com.au/what-is-
the-technology-acceptance-model/
 Theoretical Foundations of TAM

• Expectancy Theory (Vroom, DeSanctis)

• Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura)

• Cost-Benefit Paradigm

(Davis, 1989)
Extensions of the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM)

Communication
Perceived
Usefulness
of IT

Intention
Shared Beliefs Usage
to Use

Perceived
Ease of
Use of IT
Training

(Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004)

 Summary: IT Change

• Commonly fails or results in sub-optimal

outcomes
• Acceptance is shaped by a range of
factors
• Don’t forget the importance of managerial
responses
ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS
Or, do I make a plan or not?
 New ways to think about IT adoption

• Traditional IT theories
– Assume people don’t want to do it
– Assume resistance to change

• Innovation Theories
– Focus on who adopts innovations?
• Social movement theories
– People influence one another
– (We’ll do more with this in future weeks)
The Myths of Innovation (Berkun)

(Berkun, 2007: 123)

 The Myths of Innovation

“People Love New Ideas”

(Berkun 2007)
The Spread of Innovations

(Rogers 1962/2003)
 Video - The Spread of Innovations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNoNYLBabA
TYPES OF ADOPTERS
Adopter category Definition

The first people to adopt an innovation. They are willing to take risks, have higher social class, greater financial
liquidity, are very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators.
Innovators
Risk tolerance has them adopting technologies which may ultimately fail. Financial resources help absorb
these failures (Rogers 1962/2003, p. 282)

This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest
degree of opinion leadership compared to other adopter categories. Tend to have a higher social status, more
Early Adopters financial liquidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters. More discrete in
adoption choices than innovators. Realize judicious choice of adoption will help them maintain central
communication position (Rogers 1962/2003, p. 283).

Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is
significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority tend to be slower in the adoption
Early Majority
process, have above average social status, contact with early adopters, and seldom hold positions of opinion
leadership in a system (Rogers 1962/2003, p. 283)

Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals
approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the
Late Majority
innovation. Late Majority are typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very
little financial liquidity, in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership.

Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation. Unlike some of the previous categories,
individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have an aversion to
Laggards
change-agents. Laggards typically tend to be focused on "traditions", likely to have lowest social status, lowest
financial liquidity, be oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends.

https://crm.org/articles/diffusion-of-innovations (Rogers 2003)

 Innovation Adoption

• Diffusion = how innovations spread

Diffusion Is the Process by Which (1) an Innovation (2) Is
Communicated Through Certain Channels (3) Over Time
(4) Among the Members of a Social System

• Adoption = whether people use them

• Once you hit a critical mass, the
innovation can be self-sustaining
 Team
Activity

Required Reading
How might this
apply to change?
 Thought Experiment

Put on your change management hats…

• Q: How do you get people to use

quite complicated IT systems?

• Did someone say, to force people to

use the technology? (See real-world
example)
 A real-world example

Technology Issues Ex.: ReadingsOnline

Features: updated to library/journal links, copyright clearance, etc.

…seems like a good idea, right?
 The Issues?

Readings Expire
No
“Renew All”

Have to Redo Dates Each Time!

Doesn’t Work
(for me)
with Chrome
 Technology Shift from Pit Trading to
Online

• Floored: Into the Pit – Chicago Mercantile

Exchange
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--H8SY334Zw

Discussion Questions
• Is everyone interested in the change?
– Who is/isn’t and why?
• What are the potential
advantages/disadvantages of the change?
 Technology Shift from Pit Trading to
Online

• Shifting technology at the Chicago Mercantile

Exchange
• Provides example of what happens when
there is a technology shift in an industry and
how people react.
 Lecture 4 Key Takeaways

• IT
– Often fails
– TAM model and expanded TAM as “classics”

• Teams
– Can deliver performance gains.
– The introduction of teams has significant
implications for organizations
• Innovation Approaches to Change
– Innovation adoption and social movements as new
frameworks → make people want to adopt the
change
QUESTIONS?
 Preparation for Next Week

• Please remember to download & read:

• Reading – Week 5 on ReadingsOnline

• Case Study
 Cited Literature

• The full citations for most of the sources can be found in the bibliographies of the required
readings.

Additional Citations on IT and Coordination

• Amoako-Gyampah, Kwasi, and A. F. Salam. 2004. "An extension of the technology

acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment." Information & Management
41:731-745.

• Ghitulescu, Brenda E. 2013. "Making Change Happen: The Impact of Work Context on
Adaptive and Proactive Behaviors." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 49:206-245.

• Harley, Bill, Christopher Wright, Richard Hall, and Kristine Dery. 2006. "Management
Reactions to Technological Change." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42:58-75.
(Online on LMS)

• Rogers, Everett M. [1962] 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th Ed.). New York, NY: Free
Press.
 Cited Literature

• The full citations for most of the sources can be found in the bibliographies of the required
readings.

Additional Citations: Teams

• Anderson, Donald L. 2012. Organization Development: The Process of Leading

Organizational Change (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

• Barry, David. 1991. "Managing the Bossless Team: Lessons in Distributed Leadership."
Organizational Dynamics 20:31-47.

• Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. 1993. The wisdom of teams : creating the high-
performance organization / Jon R. Katzenbach, Douglas K. Smith. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
– Library Copy: MBS 658.3128 KATZ; Updated version: Collins Business Essentials,
2006.
– Article Version: Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. 2005 [1993]. "The
Discipline of Teams." Harvard Business Review 83(7/8):162-71.

• Jehn, Karen A. Northcraft Gregory B. Neale Margaret A. 1999. "Why Differences Make a
Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups."
Administrative Science Quarterly 44:741-763.
 Cited Literature

• Larson, Carl, and Frank Lafasto. 1989. Teamwork: What Must Go Right, What Can Go
Wrong. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

• Manz, Charles C., and Henry P. Sims Jr. 1987. "Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The
External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams." Administrative Science Quarterly
32:106-129.
 Cited Literature
• The full citations for most of the sources can be found in the
bibliographies of the required readings.
Additional Citations: Culture
• Anderson, Donald L. 2012. Organization Development: The Process of
Leading Organizational Change (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
• Manz, Charles C., and Henry P. Sims Jr. 1987. "Leading Workers to
Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work
Teams." Administrative Science Quarterly 32:106-129.
• Niederle, Muriel, Carmit Segal, and Lise Vesterlund. 2009. "How Costly
is Diversity? Affirmative Action in Light of Gender Differences in
Competitiveness ". Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh (Working paper).
(This was the paper on affirmative action quotas and self selection. I
posted it on the LMS.)
• Sathe, Vijay. 1983. "Implications of Corporate Culture: A Manager's
Guide to Action." Organizational Dynamics 12(2):4-23.
© Copyright The University of Melbourne 2011