Collective and individual improvement activities: the role of reward systems

Mechanisms for increasing participation of employees in problem‐solving activities such as continuous improvement (CI) programmes often include the use of problem‐solving teams. Teams can support problem solving by emphasizing accountability for the production process within the work unit, thereby increasing the sense of responsibility for (local) problems. However, it is unclear how effort within these organisational forms should be rewarded. This article describes the use of problem‐solving teams within a UK automotive component company, and examines the implications for human resource policy, in particular for the reward and recognition systems. The article outlines the outcomes that ensued when two reward systems existed, one for team‐based activities and another for individual suggestions. The contradictions of the two systems are considered in the context of the organisation’s historical individualistic approach to reward systems.

[1]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Resource Sharing Among Sbus: Strategic Antecedents and Administrative Implications , 1986 .

[2]  K. Legge.  Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities , 1995 .

[3]  Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld,et al.  Japanese Team-Based Work Systems in North America: Explaining the Diversity , 1994 .

[4]  Parbudyal Singh,et al.  Organisational rewards for a changing workplace: an examination of theory and practice , 1998 .

[5]  Jan Kees Looise,et al.  Continuous improvement and the mini‐company concept , 1999 .

[6]  James Lowe,et al.  MANUFACTURING REFORM AND THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR -- THE CASE OF THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. , 1993 .

[7]  John Storey.  Developments in the Management of Human Resources , 1988 .

[8]  Japanization on the shopfloor , 1998 .

[9]  Anders Berger,et al.  Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs , 1997 .

[10]  Daniel T. Jones,et al.  The machine that changed the world : based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million dollar 5-year study on the future of the automobile , 1990 .

[11]  Jay R. Schuster,et al.  BEST PRACTICES FOR SMALL-TEAM PAY , 1997 .

[12]  John Bessant,et al.  Rediscovering continuous improvement , 1994 .

[13]  S. Snell,et al.  Strategic Compensation for Integrated Manufacturing: The Moderating Effects of Jobs and Organizational Inertia , 1994 .

[14]  Robert L. Heneman,et al.  Balancing Group and Individual Rewards , 1995 .

[15]  Susan Albers Mohrman,et al.  Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies , 1992 .

[16]  Barry Wilkinson,et al.  The Japanization of British Industry: New Developments in the 1990s , 1993 .

[17]  Edilberto F. Montemayor.  Congruence Between Pay Policy and Competitive Strategy in High-Performing Firms , 1996 .

[18]  Paul Lillrank,et al.  Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese Industry , 1989 .

[19]  Elizabeth C. Ravlin,et al.  The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating Work Groups , 1987 .

[20]  H Isakari,et al.  JUST IN TIME MANUFACTURING , 1988 .

[21]  J. Bessant,et al.  High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement , 1997 .

[22]  John Paul Macduffie.  Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry , 1995 .

[23]  Dean Tjosvold,et al.  The Dynamics of Interdependence in Organizations , 1986 .

[24]  Greenfields and “wildebeests”: management strategies and labour turnover in Japanese firms in Telford , 1998 .

[25]  Paul Thompson,et al.  Redesigning production through teamworking: Case studies from the Volvo Truck Corporation , 1996 .

[26]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  A Predictive Model of Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness , 1996 .

[27]  Satoshi Kamata,et al.  Japan in the Passing Lane , 1983 .

[28]  Anders Berger,et al.  Continuous improvement: design, organisation and management , 1997 .

[29]  John Bessant,et al.  Developing strategic continuous improvement capability , 1999 .

[30]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[31]  Dexter Dunphy,et al.  Teams: Panaceas or Prescriptions for Improved Performance? , 1996 .

[32]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[33]  R. Wageman.  Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[34]  Frank Mueller,et al.  TEAMS BETWEEN HIERARCHY AND COMMITMENT: CHANGE STRATEGIES AND THE ‘INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT’* , 1994 .