Sociotechnical Phase Models

STS, like the LP approach, does not include specific theories on group behavior or group process (cf. Kuipers, De Witte, & Van der Zwaan 2004). STS is rather to be considered as a design theory, except perhaps for some sociotechnical alternatives like the Democratic Dialogue (Van Eijnatten 1993; Toulmin & Gustavsen 1996). Criticism on the lack of attention for processes in STS comes for instance from Labor Process Theories (Huijgen & Pot 1995). Nevertheless, there are phase models that apply the sociotechnical principles. As an introduction to these phase models I will briefly discuss these principles as identified by Morgan (1993). He calls them “the principles of self-organization and the holographic organization”.

At first Morgan (1993) defines the principle of redundancy of functions, by saying that any system requires some extra space to move. By providing a system with more capacities to act than strictly required for pre-determined actions, it gains in possibilities for self-organization. In a practical sense this means that extra functions are added to a system, like a team; and its members are becoming multi- functional and as a result can replace each other when necessary. The holographic

picture of redundant functions in this case means that any team member reflects the capabilities of the team as a whole.

The second principle of self-organization is that of requisite variety, meaning that any system should be as diverse as the environment in which it acts. This principle is also known as Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (1958). A control system requires all possible capabilities to act, in order to cope with all possible changes in the environment and survive. The capabilities of a system in a simple and predictable environment, therefore, can be much simpler and less varied than the capabilities of a system in a complex and turbulent environment, where constant new actions are required. The principle of requisite variety also suggests that the redundancy of functions should be positioned there where the action takes place. Minimum critical specification (Morgan 1993), meaning that not everything should be defined into detail, is the third principle. Following this principle creates a large internal flexibility in a system, since many different forms of organizing are possible if only the absolutely necessary aspects of a job are defined. The idea is completely opposite to a bureaucratic design, which tries to control by detailed defined action, thereby removing the opportunities to act flexibly on undefined variances, and, as a result, reducing the possibilities for self-organization.

Morgan (1993) warns how the principle of minimum critical specification can potentially create chaos by its extended possibilities for flexibility and therefore the principle of learning to learn is indispensable. Learning, both single-loop and double-loop, “allow a system to guide itself with reference to a set of coherent values and norms, while questioning whether these norms provide an appropriate basis for guiding behavior” (Morgan 1993). These coherent values and norms are required for giving guidance to the system’s members in situations where little structure is present.

Based on these sociotechnical principles Van Amelsvoort and Scholtes (1994) developed a phase model for work teams (see Figure 3), which is also inspired by Katzenbach and Smith (1993) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977). In every phase, aspects of the sociotechnical concept are involved (Hut & Molleman 1998; Kuipers & De Witte 2005a; Van Amelsvoort & Benders 1996; Van Amelsvoort & Van Amelsvoort 2000):

1 Job enlargement implies the broadening of the types of tasks performed. It increases the job content by focusing on the redundancy of functions and multi-functionality. All members of the team must be able to perform the primary tasks of the team, also identified as ‘technical proficiency’.

2 Job enrichment implies empowering team members by adding more decision- making authority to their tasks, and thereby increasing the team’s

responsibility. The principal characteristic of this phase is “minimal critical specification”. Managers, from production as well as from supporting

departments, delegate some of their responsibilities to the team such as quality and planning activities.

3 Cooperation is described as the ‘self-reliance of the team’. In other words, the teams become ‘socially mature’. The team has to work as a team, and this involves teambuilding, working on communication, and joint decision-making. The team grows in autonomy independent of its supervisor.

4 Continuous improvement. The principles of this phase are ‘double-loop learning’, the capacity to solve most non-routine problems. Put differently, it concerns improving one’s own initiative, and ‘management of team

boundaries’. This latter aspect is based on Katz & Kahn (1978) and has to do with the development of a ‘performance focus’, building relationships with other teams, customers and suppliers.

Figure 3 Sociotechnical phase model (source: Van Amelsvoort & Benders,

1996)

Empirical support for the model by Van Amelsvoort & Benders (1996) is very scarce. The authors mention to have investigated 267 teams by a “quick-scan”, but the items of this scan and the methods of measurement remain unclear. However, they report that 26% of the teams were just established (1996), 63% were in phase two, 8 % entered phase three and none of them reached the fourth phase.

Hut and Molleman (1998) further developed the previous model by integrating it with the theories of Wellins, Byham, & Wilson (1991) and Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993). Their article presents the outcomes of a small survey measuring these four successive phases. Though the sample was rather small (four teams only), the results are nevertheless interesting. They show that the measured teams cannot be positioned in one single phase at a time. Instead, teams develop in all

Bundling of individuals Group Team Open team Productivity and QWL Time Focus Multi-skilling Team meetings Feedback performance Managerial tasks Analysis of performance Team-building Productivity appraisal Individual appraisal Goal-setting External relations Appraisal of team-leader and support staff

four phases at the same time. Nevertheless, for three of the sampled four teams the first phase had been developed the most, followed by the second, the third and finally the fourth phase; this overlapping pattern of the phases suggests that teams move from “simple to complex” tasks (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 An alternative sociotechnical phase model by Hut & Molleman

(1998)