Introduction
Teamworking is a ‘double-edged sword’. On the one hand, teamworking has been recognised as a way of reducing work-related stress by enhancing employees’ job autonomy. Conversely, there is a risk that teamworking could increase employee stress levels by enhancing work pressure. This article starts with a definition and a typology of teamwork, followed by a discussion of the prevalence of teamwork in Europe. Next, an overview is given of how teamworking may affect workers’ health and well-being. Finally, findings of research on outcomes of work teams are also examined and discussed.
Work teams: definition and typology
Definition
The definition of work teams applied in a Eurofound study is adopted for the purposes of this article (pp. 2-3)[1]. This broad definition of work teams combines the concepts of teams[2] and group work[3]. Teams are defined as ‘groups of employees who have at least some collective tasks and where the team members are authorised to regulate mutually the execution of these collective tasks’. Group work is defined by a common task requiring interdependent work and successive or integrative action.
Key features of teamwork outlined by the above definition are:
- carrying out collective tasks (communality); and
- regulating task performance within the team (team autonomy).
These key features are important to understand, as they aid in a better understanding and appreciation of the different types of teams and, in turn, the design of work teams, such as: lean teams and self-managed teams[3]. Good team design is one of the main components necessary for cultivating and sustaining healthy working environments. The literature often depicts a contrast between lean teams versus self-managed teams. In general, lean teams are understood as a team design associated with more health risks compared to self-managed teams[2] [4] [5].
Typology of work teams
The design of teams is important in terms of its consequences for psychosocial risks and work stress[5] [6]. The literature[4] distinguishes several aspects that characterise teams:
- degree of team member autonomy and involvement in decision-making;
- scope of involvement in different activities (such as, recruiting and disciplining team members, or just carrying out production work);
- type of team leadership; and
- degree of standardisation of procedures within teams.
The main types of teams4 can be grouped into two broad categories:
- Tayloristic and neo-Tayloristic type: This type of teamworking is characterised by a low degree of autonomy, limited involvement and commitment, standardised tasks and high division of labour, and limited possibilities for learning. The literature[4] refers to these types of teams as traditional work groups (often referred to as Tayloristic teams) and/or lean production teams (also referred to as neo-Tayloristic teams or ‘low road teamworking’).
- Self-managing or autonomous type: This type of teamworking is characterised by a high degree of autonomy, high involvement and commitment, high task variety and a limited division of labour, and many possibilities for learning. The literature4 refers to such teams as flexible work teams and self-managed teams (also referred to as autonomous or sociotechnical teams, or ‘high road teamworking’). Research has identified autonomy as an important factor in successfully coping with possible psychosocial risks and work stress[1] [4] [5] [7].
Prevalence of different types of work teams
The European Company Survey 2019[8] provides figures on the prevalence of teamwork with a different level of autonomy in the European Union (EU). The survey distinguishes five situations:
- no teamwork
- each employee belongs to one team, management-led (Management-directed single teams)
- each employee belongs to one self-directed team (Self-directed single teams)
- each employee belongs to multiple management-led teams (Management-directed multiteams)
- each employee belongs to multiple self-directed teams (Self-directed single multiteams)
The European Company Survey 2019[8] show that around 30% of establishments in the EU do not use teamwork. Those that do use teamwork tend to have a management-led style (54%) and the proportion of enterprises with self-directed teams is 15%.
Autonomous teamwork (the combination of self-directed single teams and multiteams) is highest in enterprises in Sweden (32%) and Finland (28%) and lowest in Poland (7%) and Slovakia (8%)8.
As Figure 1 presents, the incidence of enterprises without teamwork is highest in transport (40%) and in small enterprises (34%). Autonomous teamwork is most common in other services (19%) and least common in industry, construction and transport (all 12%). It is slightly more common in small enterprises (15%) than in medium and large enterprises (both 13%).
Figure 1: Forms of teamwork in the EU, by sector and establishment size (% of establishments - European Company Survey 2019)
Source[8]
The results indicate that at the European level, teamwork with moderate to low levels of autonomy is most typical. Teamwork defined by high levels of autonomy is less prevalent although, it is more commonly observed in the Nordic countries. This type of self-directed teams seems to be less common with only 15% of European workplaces where employees work in teams with a significant degree of autonomy.
Research on work teams and teamworking
Studies that systematically link types of teamwork to psychosocial risks and stress are sparse and not always of recent date. Firstly, three earlier published (review) studies that concentrate on the teamwork types of lean and self-managed teams (but not on tayloristic and flexible teams) and their associations with health risks and autonomy will be discussed. This is followed by studies that look at the relation between teamwork and psychological variables as outcomes.
Workteam research and type of teams
A literature review carried out by Parker and Williams[2] focused on team-based working and its relationship to employee well-being. Two types of teams (i.e., self-managed teams and lean production teams) were studied. Revised studies demonstrated that self-managed teamworking is beneficial to employee well-being and can be beneficial for performance. The benefits of self-managed work teams include decreased absenteeism; decreased turnover; and reduced accident rates and in terms of performance, improvements in problem-management actions and strategies, increased product quality, and increased levels of innovation. Studies that have investigated lean production teams tend to find contradictory evidence. Two studies on lean production found very different effects of “just-in-time" production (a key element of lean production) on employee well-being. Whilst the introduction of “just-in-time" production decreased job satisfaction in one study[9], it was found to increase job satisfaction in another study[10]. Another study[6] found that there were little overall differences in work-related stress for those in lean production teams, compared to those in traditional methods of working. There is little support for positive effects of lean production teams. Conversely, there is evidence that lean production has negative effects on employees' mental and physical health[2].
The inconsistency in findings on lean production parallels the debate within the literature, where some researchers have highlighted the potential negative effects of lean production teams on employees; whilst others argued that by rotating jobs and sharing responsibilities, multi-skilled workers have enriched jobs. A case-study, carried out in the Flemish metalworking sector, observed the relationship between team design and quality of working life[4]. This study, conducted amongst blue-collar metalworkers, showed that working in a team (there were Tayloristic and lean teams with low levels of autonomy present) had only a limited impact on workers’ stress levels. But assembly-line work remained the determining negative factor, whether it is team-based or not. Therefore, according to this study, assembly-line tasks, being tied to a specific work pace and location, strongly determined stress levels among workers.
Based on the European Company Survey 2019[8] Eurofound distinguishes three types of organisations based on the degree of work autonomy and job complexity. These types are:
- high complexity and autonomy
- selective complexity and autonomy
- command and control
Organisations of the first type (high complexity and autonomy) are less common, accounting for 6% of companies in the EU. Managers in these establishments tend to create the conditions for workers to work autonomous, most workers can organise their work schedule independently they also need to find solutions to unfamiliar problems as part of their tasks[8].
The second type (selective complexity and autonomy) is the most common, accounting for 57% of organisations. In the majority of these companies, managers also create the conditions for employees to work independently, but only a selection of employees actually have a high degree of autonomy or carry out tasks that require problem solving. The third type (command and control) accounts for 37% of establishments. These establishments of this type have the lowest incidence of autonomous work and problem-solving[8].
As table 1 shows there is less teamwork in organisations of the Command and control type compared to the types of organisations with higher levels of autonomy. Self-directed multiteams are most common in ‘high complexity and autonomy’ organisations.
Table 1: Teamwork and autonomy (% of establishments - European Company Survey 2019)
| High complexity and autonomy | Selective complexity and autonomy | Command and control | EU average |
no teamwork
| 23 | 24 | 42 | 31 |
| Management-directed single teams | 22 | 38 | 35 | 36 |
| Self-directed single teams | 14 | 13 | 4 | 10 |
| Management-directed multiteams | 20 | 19 | 18 | 19 |
| Self-directed single multiteams | 21 | 6 | 1 | 5 |
Source[8]
Research on psychological variables and work teams
Studies on work teams can be distinguished between those looking at: inputs (i.e,, organisational, team, individual characteristics); processes which describe team members’ interactions directed toward task accomplishment (i.e, how inputs are transformed in outcomes by the ‘mediating’ effect of actions and behaviours); and outcomes (i.e., results and by-products of team activity that are valued by one or more constituencies)[7]. Most outcome studies concentrate on performance related variables, including team performance, team effectiveness, speed of task accomplishment, healthy competition in groups (to motivate individuals and help the team excel), developing relationships (bonding, avoidance of conflicts), team satisfaction, and team members sharing qualities[7] [11] [12]. However, relatively few studies have investigated work team outcomes such as psychosocial risks and work stress work stress.
In a review of 55 scientific articles published in the period 2000-2005, Rasmussen and Jeppesen[4] found an almost consistent pattern of positive associations between psychological variables (such as, job satisfaction, team cohesion, team commitment and team potency) and teamwork. Westgaard and Winkel[13] performed a meta-review of 144 studies to identify occupational musculoskeletal and mental health effects of production system rationalisation, as well as organisational-level measures that may improve health outcomes (further referred to as “modifiers"). Rationalisation refers to an organisational strategy to make a company more competitive. These strategies are related to the design of organisations and jobs, but not always explicitly to the design of teams. Although some rationalisation strategies implicitly favour the idea of ‘teams with more autonomy’ compared to other strategies. Rationalisations, in general, showed a dominant negative effect on health and risk factors, such as: musculoskeletal symptoms, psychosocial risks, stress, job demands and job satisfaction. The rationalisation strategy High Performance Work System (HPWS) was, however, associated with the highest fraction of positive outcomes for health and risk factors compared to other types of rationalisations (especially, on downsizing and restructuring). HPWS consists of a bundle of organisational and human resource practices. HPWS resembles work with autonomy and challenging tasks, whilst other rationalisation strategies, such as lean practices and parallel instead of serial production (neo-Tayloristic and Tayloristic work), do not. Westgaard and Winkel[13] concluded that production system rationalisation represents a pervasive work life intervention without a primary occupational health focus. It has considerable and mostly negative influences on worker health, but this can be reduced by paying attention to and inclusion of high levels of ‘modifiers’, such as group autonomy (team autonomy).
These studies show that jobs with control and autonomy seem to be associated with less health risks. In relation to the previous sections it seems appropriate to assume that self-managed work teams, by definition, feature the highest autonomy compared to Tayloristic, lean and flexible work teams; and, therefore, team members are confronted with relatively lower levels of psychosocial risks and work stress. These findings from the literature are also reflected in the results of the European Company Survey 2019[8], which show that there is a clear link between the degree of complexity and autonomy of the work organisation and the performance and well-being of the establishment. High complexity and autonomy type organisations score best in terms of both well-being and organisational performance. Those belonging to the command and control type score the lowest on both indicators.
Concluding remarks
From the overall picture from the scientific literature on how teamworking may affect worker’s health and other work outcomes, it can be concluded that healthy teamworking likely depends on the organisation of work processes in organisations, which influences the presence of psychosocial risks and work stress. It can be concluded that workteams may buffer psychosocial risks and decrease work stress, but only when employees have control and autonomy to regulate the workload and how the work is done. This seems to be associated more with self-managed teams compared to tayloristic, lean and flexible teams. ‘Organisational choices’ about the design of work teams, such as common tasks and level of autonomy of teams, may significantly affect psychosocial risks and work stress for team members. Still, more rigorous research is needed to build up a stronger evidence-base for this postulation. The connection between psychological outcomes and type of work team is perhaps not one-way and straightforward. It may be assumed to be influenced by such intervening factors as organisational context, labour market, line of business and management philosophies.
