Communication in the transition to self-directed work teams.

Although adopting self-directed work teams (SDWTs) presents a challenge, this study shows that subordinates' perceptions of managers' influence strategies affect the success of change within organizations. Using data collected over 18 months, this study examined employees 'perceptions of managerial

communication used prior to and during the implementation of SDWTs at a manufacturing firm as well as the effect of team and organizational communication on team members' participation. First, the results indicated that managers who communicated persuasively using "soft" influence tactics in the team development process were perceived to be more effective. Second, team communication was found to have a significant positive effect on team members' participation. Thus, the findings provide strong support for use of soft influence tactics in managerial communications when implementing SDWTs.

Keywords: change communication; self-directed work teams; managerial communication; influence communication; team communication

********

Norton (1983) stated, "Communicator style, or the way one communicates, signals to help the receiver process, interpret, filter, or understand literal meaning" (p. 47) and posited that receivers perceive meaning through style. Style gives communication both form and function, with people gaining a sense of how literally or nonliterally a message should be taken (Norton, 1983). When individuals change expected communication behaviors, such as in this study with managers transitioning from hard to soft influence tactics, they are attempting to change what receivers perceive to be the style (form and function) of their communication messages. Communication also influences fundamental beliefs, values, and attitudes necessary for employees' empowerment and commitment to quality and service (Quirke, 1995). Both Schall (1983) and Quirke (1995) identified ways in which managers gained employees' understanding of changes that would occur. They proposed that managers need to increase their own credibility in subordinates' eyes and that the effectiveness of implemented change depends on successful communication through conversations in different workplace settings throughout the change.

The study described here was concerned with how workers perceived changes in the influence tactics of their former managers (now called team leaders) as an organization moved from a bureaucratic management system to a model of increased employee participation using self-directed work teams (SDWTs). As this manufacturing firm implemented change from bureaucratic to team-based management, the change process resulted in multiple forms of communication modification. To identify the effectiveness of altering communication style and form during organizational planned change, this research project focused on the initial 18-month period of an SDWT implementation.

The present study looked at the perceptions of individuals during the transition to see (a) if structural change precipitates a perceived

change in a manager's communication style (as measured by target perceptions), (b) if the new communication style is indeed perceived as effective in the work-team environment, and (c) if different forms of communication affect team members' willingness to participate in team activities. Current studies have not investigated the types of influence tactics in managerial communications in SDWT transitions. We believe that the type of influence tactics within the communication of managers plays an important role in SDWT implementation. By looking at one organization over an extended time period, it is possible to measure team members' perceptions throughout the process. Two models help explain how structural change combined with changes in influence strategy affects the perceived form and function of communication in this type of organization. The first model proposes the idea that during the transition to SDWTs, managers will take on new communication strategies that affect team members' perceptions of team leaders' effectiveness and team dynamics. In the second model, two forms of communication, team communication and organizational information, are examined for their effect on "team-member involvement," a measure of team members' active participation in team management activities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Much of management research over the past decade has focused on SDWTs, total quality management, quality circles, and other methods of executing day-to-day operations as companies make changes in expectation of improved effectiveness. Many authors found communication to be an important part of the change equation (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992; Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Jick, 1993, Kotter, 1990; Lewis & Seibold, 1998; Morgan, 1988). Studies have included communication factors as tools for the implementation of change strategies (Brimm & Murdock, 1998; Jick, 1993), the value of communication within top management teams (Smith et al., 1994), communication methods as ways of increasing employees' understanding and decreasing dissatisfaction (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979), communication techniques related to individual and work group productivity (Lamude & Scudder, 1993), rhetorical alternatives to communication (Shelby, 1988), and communication as a major factor in developing employees' sense of personal power through attitudinal and behavioral change (Beer et al., 1990). Our literature review discusses communication and organizational change, SDWTs and organization control change, shifts from hierarchical to team control, and the measurement of influence tactics and SDWT development as found in previous studies.

Communication and Organizational Change

Structuration theory involves the production, reproduction, and transformation of social institutions, which are enacted through individuals' use of social rules. These rules shape the actions taken by individuals in organizations (Giddens, 1984). Within companies, certain communication expectations result after employees routinely share information in predicted ways. Drawing on Giddens's (1984) notion of social rules, Orlikowski and Yates (1994) posited that an organizational repertoire of communication genres results through the development of certain rules that associate expected elements of form and substance with recurrent situations. These authors identified a communication genre within a company as a similar message response to an activity that occurs often. The environmental change from a bureaucratic organization with authoritarian managers to SDWTs with subordinates in the decision-making role alters how many common responses to operational actions are handled, causing a change in the communication style genre of a firm.

Because communication is central to organizations, genres of organizational communication can be expected to influence a wide range of organizational phenomena. Within the framework posited, genre rules would function both as instruments and as outcomes of organizational power and politics (Orlikowski and Yates, 1994). Putnam and Poole (1987) observed that institutional rules are important types of resources and that those who can shape or influence those rules possess a valuable form of power. Power may also be exercised through the manipulation or selective application of existing genre rules. Genres thus represent another vehicle for the potential implementation of power and influence in and across organizations, with consequences not only for the shaping of organizational communication but also for decision making, information processing, and strategic action. In structurational terms, genre are social institutions that are produced, reproduced, or modified when human agents draw on genre rules to engage in organizational activities. Thus, communication is an essential element in an organization's ability to change (Orlikowski & Yates, 1994).

SDWTs and Organizational Change

An SDWT is a group of employees, typically 5 to 15 members, responsible for performing and managing all or most aspects of a set of interdependent work tasks (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998). The management of SDWTs has become a critical issue because of the growing pressure for efficiency and effectiveness under increased competition. To meet the challenge, organizations have focused on removing hierarchical layers, increasing employees' involvement, and pushing the decision process to a lower layer (Daft & Lewin, 1993). Some researchers have predicted that 75% of the top 1,000 U.S. firms will soon use some type of SDWT (Lawler & Finegold, 2000).

The adoption of SDWTs alters the structure of relationships by redefining the traditional roles of both managers and employees. In the new environment, team leaders must direct their attention to providing information and removing barriers to innovation, while managers or supervisors in direct contact with SDWTs need to focus on becoming facilitators instead of decision makers and enabling team development behaviors (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998).

The impact of SDWTs on managers is noticeable early in the transition period. First, the structural effects begin almost immediately after the installation of an SDWT. Behavioral outcomes, which are associated with team development, evolve across the transition period, which may take 18 to 24 months (Joinson, 1999). The structural changes that are part of the transition occur without input from existing managers. That is, once teams are established, team members are given new responsibilities, and their former managers are either removed or reassigned as team coaches or facilitators. Thus, the new roles for team members and managers represent a new organizational structure.

Shifts From Hierarchical to Team Control

Communication factors that are often considered in research regarding SDWTs, total quality management, and quality circles include the following: the communication tools needed for the implementation of change strategies (Barker, 1999; Brimm & Murdock, 1998; Jick, 1993), the factors that add value within top management teams (Smith et al., 1994), the methods used to increase employees' understanding and decrease dissatisfaction (Barker, 1999; Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979), the techniques that relate increasing productivity of individuals and work groups (Lamude & Scudder, 1993), and the development of personal power through changing employees' attitudes and behaviors (Beer et al. 1990; Lewis & Seibold, 1998). Schall (1983) posited that without communication, there is not an organizational process because communication provides the necessary information for actions to occur. The shift in structural power inherent with the change from bureaucratic to SDWT management generates a need for managers to modify their behaviors and communication practices as change in organizational operations occur. Barker (1999) noted that "because concertive control represents a highly persuasive discourse of collective values, norms, and rules, it becomes a very powerful force within the organization" (pp. 39-40). That force results in part from controlling funds, supplies, and employees. Because SDWTs reduce the number of resources controlled by managers as control is given to the teams, many bureaucratic communication methods are removed from the managerial communication repertoire. This change results in more participative and fewer directive communication tactics being included in managers' behaviors, as the team leaders begin to provide direction and learn to work collaboratively with team members.

These complex interrelationships, as an organization changes from centralized management to SDWTs, are dynamic. In their development of a model identifying communication as a driving force of change, Ford and Ford (1995) noted, "Producing intentional change, then, is a matter of deliberately bringing into existence, through communication, a new reality or set of social structures" (p. 542) within an organization. By changing the hierarchical structure of a firm, team leaders have to perceive a difference in their roles, but team members have to perceive the change to be real through the communications of the team leaders. More specifically, communications must address team members in a manner that matches their new elevated status as decision makers. New social structures have to become a reality for everyone involved for SDWTs to be a Success.

The communication need requirements of team-based management differ dramatically from those of bureaucratic management because many bureaucratic strategies are removed from the communication repertoire. Lamude and Scudder (1993) found that managers were more likely to motivate subordinates when using more participative influence strategies, such as appeals. Also, SDWT members showed more task focus when fewer bureaucratic communication strategies were used (Yukl, Kim, & Falbe, 1996). These research efforts presented interesting and important analyses for the change process.

Influence Tactics and SDWT Development

Influence tactics are specific types of proactive influence behaviors used to exercise influence (Yukl, 2002). Two studies form the foundation for the study of influence tactics within organizations: one by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkerson (1980) that identified eight basic types of influence tactics (assertiveness, exchange, ingratiation, upward appeal, rationality, blocking, sanctions, and coalitions) and a more recent taxonomy of influence strategies developed by Yukl and Tracey (1992) that identified nine influence tactics (rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiation, exchange, personal appeals, coalition, legitimizing, and pressure). The comparison in Table 1 reveals more similarities than differences between the two taxonomies.

In our study, we used Yukl and Tracey's (1992) instrument because of its balance between soft and hard influence tactics (see Table 1). Influence tactics have been categorized according to their strength dimension from higher to lower order categories of influence. We focused on the use of three hard influence tactics (legitimizing, pressure, and coalition) and three soft influence tactics (inspirational appeals, consultation, and rational persuasion). Ingratiation, exchange, and personal appeals are flexible tactics, which are not easily classified and were deemed only moderately effective (Falbe & Yukl, 1992); for these reasons, they were not included in our study. The main difference between the hard or rational tactics and the soft tactics is that receivers feel that they have a choice of whether to comply with soft tactics but feel that they must comply with hard influence tactics (van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003).

Work by Yukl and his colleagues (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) indicates that a subordinate's response to a manager's influence attempt may vary between resistance and commitment. Developing an SDWT environment requires the use of influence tactics to encourage positive member behaviors, such as task commitment. Task commitment has been established as a critical factor in the success of an SDWT (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987) and as a deterrent to social loafing, which frequently occurs in work-team arrangements (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). In a study of the antecedents of influence outcomes, Yukl et al. (1996) reported that task commitment was more likely when agents used consultation, inspirational appeals, or a strong form of rational persuasion and refrained from using pressure. These findings were also supported by Tepper, Eisenback, Kirby, and Potter's study (1998), which suggested that a manager's use of rational and soft tactics communicates (a) respect for subordinates' ability to understand managerial objectives, (b) recognition of subordinates' technical task knowledge, and (c) a desire to strengthen relational ties. In contrast, a manager's use of hard influence tactics generates subordinates' conformity to managerial behavior (Kipnis, Schmidt, Price, & Stitt, 1981), arouses suspicions about the manager's concern for subordinates' interests (Tyler, 1994), and raises implicit questions regarding subordinates' competence and motivation (Tepper et al., 1998). Thus, the use of managerial influence tactics appears to develop both positive and negative outcomes, which can affect the transition to SDWTs.

Although specific research on the issue of influence tactics in the SDWT environment is sparse, there is a growing body of research concerning managerial behaviors affecting team development (see Barker, 1993; S.G. Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Edmondson, 1999; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Much of this literature has looked at the effects of using particular influence tactics (e.g., Brennan, Miller, & Seltzer, 1993; Howard, 1995) and the determinants affecting the choice of particular influence tactics (e.g., Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Blaauw, & Vermunt, 1999). The variety of processes (self-report, case studies, or experimentally controlled situations) in the literature is interesting, although they do not consistently report the same results.

HYPOTHESES

For former managers and organizations to successfully adopt SDWTs, the managers designated as team leaders should be perceived as using communication influence tactics that provide a clear sense of direction while the reformation occurs. In this new environment, communication influence tactics will be closely linked to managers' perceived ability to develop and facilitate team activities. In working with a newly developed SDWT, a manager's ability to influence must replace the former controlling function, which tends to include hard influence tactics; therefore, the choice of influence tactics is pivotal in this transition, leading to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: After SDWTs are established, team members will perceive effective team leaders as using a communication style with fewer hard influence tactics, while maintaining or increasing their use of soft influence tactics.

The managerial skills of interaction, allocating, monitoring, and organizing that are so crucial to new program implementation become operationalized through communicative activity (Pinto & Pinto, 1990). As indicated in Figure 1, in this new environment, communication style will be closely linked to leaders' perceived effectiveness and their ability to develop and facilitate team activities. This led to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: In the SDWT environment, perceptions of team leaders' effectiveness will have a positive relationship with their use of soft influence tactics and a negative relationship with their use of hard influence tactics.

Hypothesis 3: In the SDWT environment, perceptions of team dynamics will have a positive relationship with team leaders' use of soft influence tactics and a negative relationship with their use of hard influence tactics.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Planning the ways in which information is shared is important. The personnel who communicate change policies and actions are an integral part of the success of change. Providing a supportive communication climate in which supportive techniques are developed and nurtured prior to and during this new mode of operation is necessary if an organization is to remain effective (Robertson, 2003). Team communication, information shared by team members to conduct daily activities, is important to team development. A positive communication relationship characterized by trust, mutual respect, and openness between superiors and subordinates as well as among coworkers also should be present in a collaborative environment (Kets de Vries, 2005). Work teams are thought to support cooperation and help foster a climate characterized by fairness, openness, and trust as the teams place increased emphasis on coworker communication.

Organizational information, general information about business performance and organizational activities, is believed to contribute to SDWTs' success. Besser (1996) found that important indicators at Team Toyota included "policies that promoted feelings of equity among employees, open communications, strong human resources department; bureaucratic flexibility, job security, and individual importance" (p. 87). The Team Toyota analysis identified three components for open communication: (a) Information available to management is communicated to all employees, (b) communication freely moves upward in the organization, and (c) employees view the information they receive as honest and trustworthy. Also, a survey conducted by Allen and Brady (1997) indicated that the quality of information received from top management was perceived as a contributing factor to team-based activities. Together, these findings concerning SDWT interactions both within teams and with managers suggest that communication from top management contributes to successful team outcomes.

The basic argument for focusing on forms of communication is that both team communication and organizational information affect team cooperation and development. Therefore, as indicated in Figure 2, team communication as well as more information about an organization within the SDWT environment should affect team members in a positive manner. We expected that both organizational information and team communication would have positive effects on the willingness of team members to participate in team activities, leading to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: In the SDWT environment, perceptions of team communications will be positively related to team members' willingness to participate in team activities.

Hypothesis 5: In the SDWT environment, ratings of organizational information will be positively related to team members' willingness to participate in team activities.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

THE SITUATION

Our case study looked at how changes in influence tactics were perceived during the 18 months of the implementation phase of changing from a bureaucratic to an SDWT environment at a manufacturing firm. The study focused on five SDWTs in three areas: three plant maintenance teams, one customer service team, and one production team, the first teams established at this facility. The maintenance teams consisted of 24 male mechanics (8 per team) working in various areas throughout the plant operation. The maintenance teams represented about one third of the maintenance staff. Prior to the implementation process, each group had a foreman and an assistant foreman; the mechanics reported directly to the assistant foremen. After the teams were established, the foremen became team leaders, and the assistant foremen were reassigned to other work areas. The maintenance team leaders were now responsible for their former jobs as foreman, such as ordering parts, scheduling periodic maintenance, interacting with engineering and production management, and overseeing the teams. The maintenance SDWTs were responsible for planning daily work assignments, overseeing worksite safety and quality issues, and planning overtime. The SDWT development activities marked a huge evolutionary step in union management relations. Before, the foremen had their assistants to closely monitor and report on mechanics' daily activities, but now the maintenance teams became responsible for their own actions. The customer service team consisted of 15 front-office personnel (mostly women) responsible for customer contact in the order-processing department. Prior to team implementation, they reported directly to the assistant customer service manager. The customer service manager became the team leader, and the assistant was moved into a newly created staff position. The dynamics in the customer service area required that area personnel interact to solve problems, coordinate work schedules, and provide absentee coverage. The team leader was needed only for issues the team could not resolve, thus limiting his level of interaction with team members. Prior to SDWT development, order processors worked independently, allowing for an easy transition, because few coordination issues were needed.

Finally, the production team worked in the custom products area, a department of 21 hourly employees producing custom design products. This area had an area manager, one foreman, and two assistant foremen before the implementation of the SDWT. After implementation, the area manager became the team leader, and the foreman and assistants were reassigned to other areas. This area represented the greatest challenge because it created the largest SDWT, and the department required a high level of coordination because of the demanding production schedule. Custom products were made to order, which meant that once an order was placed, a customer was waiting.

The organizational goal was to reduce the layers of management and make the team members directly responsible for area activities, such as planning area work flow, planning overtime and vacation schedules, and resolving work quality issues. The organization believed that it was necessary to establish new reporting relationships to aid the work-team development process and to become more efficient.

METHOD

The implementation of the research project required the approval of top management and entailed both survey and interview strategies.

Participants

The manufacturing organization, a multilevel structure with multiple departments adopting SDWTs, was in the very early stages of SDWT implementation. The research site was a large (more than 800 employees), unionized plant operated by a major aluminum products manufacturer located in the southern United States. This company is the largest and most desirable employer in a small town (fewer than 20,000 residents), with limited turnover. The work environment was a highly stratified system with highly centralized communication and decision processes prior to the team implementation. The five SDWTs involved participants (survey respondents and interviewees) who averaged 40.5 years of age, 15.6 years of company tenure, and 8.6 years of tenure in their current positions; 80 were men and 31 were women. A majority of the women were members of the customer service team, while the maintenance teams were composed entirely of men.

Context

Each of the five SDWTs participated in every data collection over the 18-month period. Data collection occurred at the 6-, 12-, and 18-month intervals. Individual team members provided information on the communication styles and influence tactics used by their team leaders (former managers). Questionnaires were distributed during site visits and completed at the convenience of the participants to be mailed back to the researchers later (a management suggestion). A total of 180 surveys were distributed, with 111 usable surveys returned across the three time periods resulting in 37, 41, and 33 employee surveys from Periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and providing an overall response rate of 61.7%. The company's requirement that we not identify specific individual team members with each data collection did not impair the study's value. The respondents' confidentiality was considered primary, and they were assured that their answers were completely anonymous in the study's analysis to promote more candid and open responses in the data collection.

Structured interviews were conducted during site visits. Each interviewee was asked the same questions, with answers recorded to permit analysis. Subjects were interviewed on the basis of availability, with a goal of interviewing as many participants as possible during an agreed-on time period. A total of 100 structured interviews were conducted over the 18-month period using this process. Because the interviews were structured and included questions asking individuals to rate their response to specific issues on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, the results can be considered quantitative data rather than qualitative for analysis. Combining survey and interview data provided a more complete view of the implementation process.

Measures

Types of persuasive communication strategies were determined using the 1991 target version of the Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) developed by Yukl, Wall, and Lepsinger (1990). The target version was designed to collect data from the target of an influence attempt, allowing an individual to report the influence tactics used. The IBQ scales consist of three to six items that measure each focal tactic. Yukl, Lepsinger, and Lucia (1993) provided a psychometric analysis of the IBQ. They reported estimates of content validity (.90), internal reliability (.76), and retest reliability (.74). The IBQ includes the following influence behavior variables: inspirational appeals, consultation, rational persuasion, ingratiation, exchange, personal appeals, coalition, legitimatization, and pressure. In our study, we focused on the use of three hard (coalition, legitimatization, and pressure), and three soft (inspirational appeals, consultation, and rational persuasion) influence tactics. Respondents were asked to indicate the names of their team leaders and answer questions in the following format: "This person ... appeals to your friendship when asking you to do something."

A measure of team leaders' effectiveness was adopted to provide an indication of managers' success or failure in working with teams during the transition to SDWTs. The four-item scale was taken from the short form of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1995) and asked respondents to assess team leaders' effectiveness. This scale had a reported [alpha] coefficient of .83. A sample item is, "How effective is your team leader in meeting the job related needs of the team members?"

The level of work-team dynamics is considered a measure of work-team development (Dyer, 1987), and a manager's choice of communication style will contribute to the development of an SDWT (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). A 10-item questionnaire was used to measure the development of work-team dynamics in the final period of study. A sample item is, "I am encouraged for new ideas and risk taking." The [alpha] coefficient for the team dynamics scale was .75.

The structured interviews consisted of questions designed to gather information on SDWT development. The level of team-member involvement is an important measure of work-team development reflecting the willingness and opportunity for team members' participation. During Periods 2 and 3, after the teams were in operation, team members were asked questions relating to team-member involvement, measuring the levels of team members' participation in improving area performance and decision making, each of which contributes to developing team processes. Two items taken from the structural interviews were used to form a measure of team-member involvement. The two items were, "How often do team members make suggestions for improving area performance?" and "As a team member how often do you participate in decision making for your area's activities?" The [alpha] reliability for this measure was .81.

RESULTS

Discussion of the data analysis provides information regarding communication during the structural change and offers perceptions of team communication and of communication style using influence tactics in the change process.

Communication Structural Change

We conducted correlational analyses using team members' raw IBQ scores. Table 2 provides the means, standard deviations, coefficient [alpha] values, and Pearson's correlation coefficients for the use of influence tactics. Changes in communication style took place during the implementation of SDWTs over the 18-month time period, with the survey data indicating changes in communication persuasive tactics. Table 2 indicates the general pattern for the use of influence tactics by the team managers. Soft influence tactics were used more than hard influence tactics across the period of study. All scale reliabilities were above the accepted standard of .70 (Gay & Diehl, 1992), and the significant correlations found between hard and soft influence tactics resembled those reported in other studies (e.g., Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Farmer et al., 1997).

The reported managerial use of hard and soft influence tactics for each time period is summarized in Table 3, which identifies these communications as reported by the SDWT members. Table 3 also provides the change in influence tactic use between Periods 1 and 3. These data indicate that all managers were perceived to have reduced their use of hard influence tactics in their communications with participants, although only the managers of Teams 1 and 5 were perceived to have increased their use of soft influence tactics during the implementation process.

We explored the effect of structural change (time), different team leaders (teams), and the level of consensus among team members on the use of influence tactics within groups. Univariate analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of time and teams on the use of hard and soft influence tactics. Also, we computed the interclass correlations to analyze both the intragroup agreement within groups and the intragroup agreement within groups across the three periods of observation. The results of the analysis of variance revealed a significant univariate main effect for the team and time variables for the use of hard influence tactics, indicating that team leaders were perceived to use hard influence tactics differently and that their use varied significantly over the implementation process. More specifically, the Bonferroni post hoc means test indicated that team leaders were perceived to have significantly reduced (D = -.33, p < .05) their use of hard influence tactics between the first and third time periods, providing partial support for Hypothesis 1. The interclass correlation for hard influence tactics within teams over time was .27, was significant (p < .05), and indicated a moderate level of agreement among team members on the reduction in the team leaders' perceived use of hard influence tactics (Kashy & Kenny, 1999).

Data analyses for the use of soft influence tactics confirmed only a univariate main effect for the team variable, indicating that managers were perceived to use soft influence tactics differently, but they did not vary significantly over the implementation process. The interclass correlation for soft influence tactics within teams was .19 and was significant (p < .05), but the measure within teams across time, .03, was not significant. A summary of these results is presented in Table 4.

Effectiveness of Communication

As a proxy to the success or failure of managers' use of new communication tactics, two effectiveness measures were taken during Period 3. Team leaders' effectiveness was designed to measure the perceived level of effectiveness for managers involved in the transition to SDWTs. Work-team dynamics measured items that contributed to work-team development toward productivity and was also based on team members' perceptions.

Multiple regression was used to determine the effect of hard and soft influence tactics on team members' perceptions of leaders' effectiveness and team dynamics. In separate regression equations measures, leaders' effectiveness and team dynamics served as dependent variables, while hard and soft influence tactics were the independent variables. The regression equation for leader effectiveness proved to be significant, F(2, 29) = 4.37, p < .05, [R.sup.2] = .23, indicating that the regression equation accounted for 23% of the variation in scores of leaders' effectiveness. The regression results presented in Table 5 indicate that soft influence tactics had a significant positive effect on ratings of leaders' effectiveness.

The equation for team dynamics also proved to be significant, F(2, 29) = 8.82, p < .01, [R.sup.2] = .38, accounting for 38% of the variation in scores on team dynamics, and provided similar results to the regression on leaders' effectiveness. The regression results indicated that soft influence tactics had a significant positive relationship with team dynamics, and these results are presented in Table 6. The findings demonstrated that the use of soft influence tactics was an important element for team dynamics and leaders' effectiveness.

Overall, across the interview time span, team members expressed their surprise and delight at the new approach taken by management. Given the long history of strained union-management relations, team members and team leaders alike entered the process as skeptics. But as the process evolved, the naysayers soon disappeared. As one team leader mentioned, "I did not realize that by simply asking, the employees would willingly take on responsibilities, such as scheduling overtime, that the foremen dreaded" (interview response). Also, many team members commented how they enjoyed the new management style, saying that they felt they were being addressed in a manner that valued their work. As a whole, individuals perceived that their positions became more important to the organization with the SDWT implementation.

Forms of Communication

The issues of team communication and organizational information flow were examined for their effect on team members' involvement. The regression equation presented in Table 7 for the effect of the two forms of communication on team-member involvement was significant, F(2, 97) = 11.50, p < .01, [R.sup.2] =. 19. The [R.sup.2] value indicates that the equation accounted for 19% of the variation in the scores of team involvement, a large effect size according to J. Cohen (1992). A closer look at the regression results revealed that team communication had a significant positive effect on scores of team members' involvement.

The findings demonstrate the importance of team communication. Specifically, we note that team communication was a significant predictor of team members' involvement, whereas organizational information was not significant.

DISCUSSION

Our main goal in this study was to identify the changes in communication style and the links of communication styles to the willingness of team members to participate in team decision-making activities. Our findings indicate that moving from hierarchal to team-based management apparently stimulated team leaders to use a communication style that was more conducive to success of the new structure, on the basis of team members' perceptions. Within the teams, the two forms of communication predicted the level of team members' participation.

The relationship between structural change and communication style received empirical support. The manufacturing firm managers became team leaders, and the way information was communicated to employees was perceived to change as the decision making changed. As the firm moved from an autocratic management style to SDWTs, the team leaders reduced their use of hard communication influence tactics, as reported by most team members. Softer communication influence styles became the appropriate vehicle for implementing day-to-day activities in the team environment.

The interclass correlations provided further insight into the use of influence tactics over the implementation process. Within teams, we found significant agreement among team members on the team leaders' use of soft influence tactics but limited agreement on the use of hard influence tactics. This finding may indicate that soft influence tactics became the communication norm, whereas the use of hard influence tactics was more individually based. Not all team leaders were perceived as reducing their use of hard influence equally. In interviews, respondents tended to prefer to discuss those soft influence communication behaviors. These communication methods seemed less obvious in the previous authoritarian style of management and therefore may have been more "interesting" to them. There was limited agreement between teams on team leaders' use of soft influence tactics, which may be attributed to the absence of a general trend in the team leaders' use of soft influence tactics. However, the data did reveal significant interclass correlation for the use of hard influence over time, confirming that the reduction in the use of hard influence tactics coincided with the structural change.

By using Yukl and Tracey's (1992) instrument, the concept of influence tactics during communication in SDWT implementation was introduced for the first time. However, it proved to be an effective measure for detecting the gradual reduction in the use of hard influence tactics across the 18-month transition to SDWTs. Prior research in SDWTs tended to be based on points in time, whereas this study followed the change process over an 18-month period to determine behavioral and communication changes over an extended time. These findings confirmed Joinson's (1999) postulation that the transition to fully functional teams tends to occur over an 18- to 24-month period. The decline in the power-based communication use of influence tactics corroborated her statement that workplace changes would occur within this specific time frame.

The results of this study supported the concept that communication style affects perceptions of leaders' effectiveness and team dynamics, finding partial support for two hypotheses. Specifically, we found that soft communication influence tactics had a strong positive effect on both leaders' effectiveness and team dynamics, whereas the effect of hard influence tactics proved to be nonsignificant. The findings on the use of hard communication influence tactics were interesting in that the regression weights were negative. We strongly believe that the reduced participation by some team members in the second and third time periods limited the effect of hard communication tactics.

The use of soft influence tactics proved to be a positive influence in the implementation of SDWTs through their effect on perceptions of leaders' effectiveness and team dynamics. Research by Yukl and Tracey (1992) and Yukl et al. (1996), and more recently by Tepper et al. (1998), has pointed to the importance of soft influence tactics for task commitment and relationship development in traditional settings. This outcome strengthens the argument that managerial behaviors are vital to SDWT development. In this case, because team leaders used soft tactics more often in the SDWT work environment than they had previously in the more autocratic setting, they appeared more effective, and their actions also were perceived as contributing to team development.

Two hypotheses that the two forms of communication would predict team members' involvement received partial support; only team communication was significant in predicting team members' involvement. This outcome may serve to highlight the relative importance of team communication over organizational information for generating participation and for day-to-day workplace processes. Organizational information may create good feelings about an organization as a whole, but work-related communication is more likely to stimulate the willingness to participate in team decision making.

The current study also found the connection between communication form and team development to be strong. The analyses, based on structured interviews, supported the role of communication in team development. As team members' ratings on the communication scale increased positively, participation in team decision making, an essential part of team development, also increased. The results in this study are supported by previous research; however, the aspect of longitudinal sampling provides added corroboration to the value of communication to SDWT development.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation to the study was the use of a single manufacturing firm in a small southern town (with a population of about 20,000). Although the study covered only one firm, the study, as Watson (2001) stated, does generalize concerning process and supports theories that have been promulgated by others. Our study provides information for managers who are going through changes to SWDT organizations to consider. Although organizations may vary, process patterns are similar throughout modern manufacturing environments.

Employees at this plant were anticipating some type of change because of increased interest by outsiders. In actuality, the research was more of an observational study than an experimental study with a true manipulation. Employees within the company interacted socially more than those in a large metropolitan industrial setting simply because of the small-town atmosphere. These employee relationships may have had an impact on willingness to share thoughts with outsiders. Also, the survey itself was quite lengthy (100 items). Because the survey required considerable time to complete, employees were encouraged to take the survey home and to complete it at their leisure. This extended time frame provided respondents the ability to ask others their opinions regarding answers and could have also biased the results.

The length of the study was a positive factor. Business considers a year and a half to be a long time because measures within organizations tend to take place on a quarterly basis. Observations in an organization over an 18-month period present a challenge for any researcher because businesspeople expect outcomes to be available in a shorter time frame. Without frequent site visits, it is difficult to maintain interest both from management and from participants. Scheduling numerous meetings with SDWT members over the extended time frame was difficult; however, gaining information across the implementation process was critical to the success of the study. The extended time added to the value of the information derived because assessing perceptions over the 18-month period provided data superior to that collected only after implementation of the SDWTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication style changes, notably the use of influence tactics, changed the perceptions held about management. The communication of work-based information within the team environment proved to be a deciding factor in generating members' involvement in team activities. The findings from this project indicate that manufacturing organizations may need to spend more time and effort improving team communication behaviors. Human resource managers can provide training to help personnel recognize the importance of their communication behaviors in terms of the needs of an organization. The implication that communication closely linked to the job contributes more to employees' participation than general company information not directly related to the job is also important. Teams need training to identify communication tactics and develop skills that aid in task coordination and completion. When management decides to implement team decision making, training to formulate the new management communication style should precede the actual change, to prepare managers and supervisors for the use of "softer" influence methods.

Empirical efforts to replicate and broaden the testing of communication issues as management moves to SDWTs are essential to draw more definitive conclusions. Future studies should expand on the interviews and include questionnaires on communication tasks along with the interviews to gather more definitive information between time periods. Also, it is important to identify if and when communication channels change. We need to identify communication stages in the change process. Watson (2001) noted,

   It is through speaking to each other that all of us make sense of
   the worlds we move in, whether we are trying to make sense of things
   as managers, as researchers, or as part of our ordinary daily lives.
   (p. 8)

As research into change communication continues, researchers need to remember these words and work to "make sense" of all aspects in SDWT implementation.

REFERENCES

Allen, M., & Brady, R. M. (1997). Total quality management, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and intraorganizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 316-341.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437.

Barker, J. R. (1999). The discipline of teamwork: Participation and concertive control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (5x-short-form). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the essence: The art of creating and leading fundamental change in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68, 158-166.

Besser, T. L. (1996). Team Toyota: Transplanting the Toyota culture in the Camry plant in Kentucky. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Brass, D. J., & Burhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441-470.

Brennan, J. G., Miller, L. E., & Seltzer, J. (1993). Influence tactics and effectiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 747-748.

Brimm, H., & Murdock, A. (1998). Delivering the message in challenging times: The relative effectiveness of different forms of communicating change to a dispersed and part-time workforce. Total Quality Management, 9, 167-181.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the "new" organizational forms? Organizational Science, 4, i-vi.

Dyer, W. G. (1987). Team building: Issues and alternatives (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. A. (1992). Consequences for managers using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638-652.

Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 12-42.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.

Gay, L. R., & Diehl, P. L. (1992). Research methods for business and management. New York: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Howard, D. J. (1995). "Chaining" the use of influence strategies for producing compliance behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 169-185.

Jick, T. (1993). Implementing change. In T. Jick (Ed.), Managing change (pp. 192-201). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Joinson, C. (1999). Teams at work. HR Magazine, 44, 30-36.

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451-477). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2005). Leadership group coaching in action: The Zen of creating high performance teams. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 61-76.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., Price, K., & Stitt, C. (1981). Why do I like thee: Is it your performance or my orders? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 324-328.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkerson, I. (1980). Intra organizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 440-452.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.

Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106-114.

Lamude, K. G., & Scudder, J. (1993). Compliance-gaining techniques of Type A managers. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 63-79.

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.

Lawler, E. E., & Finegold, D. (2000). Individualizing the organization: Past, present, and future. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 1-15. Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 21, pp. 93-151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. (1988). Riding the waves of change: Developing managerial competencies for a turbulent world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.

Pearce, J. A., & Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40, 751-782.

Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 7, 200-212.

Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549-599). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Quirke, B. (1995). Communicating change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Robertson, E. (2003). Using leadership to improve the communication climate. Strategic Communication Management, 7, 24-27.

Schall, M. S. (1983). A communication-rules approach to organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 557-581.

Shelby, A. N. (1988). A macro theory of management communication. Journal of Business Communication, 25, 13-27.

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O'Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412-438.

Tepper, B. J., Eisenback, R. J., Kirby, S. L., & Potter, P. W. (1998). Test of a justice-based model of subordinates' resistance to downward influence attempts. Group and Organization Management, 23, 144-160.

Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.

van Knippenberg, B., & Steensma, H. (2003). Future interaction expectation and the use of soft and hard influence tactics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1), 55-67.

van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Blaauw, E., & Vermunt, R. (1999). Relational considerations in the use of influence tactics. Journal of Applied and Social Psychology, 29, 806-819.

Watson, T. J. (2001). In search of management: Culture, chaos, and control in managerial work. London: Thomson Learning.

Yeatts, D. E., & Hyten, C. (1998). High-performing self-managed work teams: A comparison of theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309-317.

Yukl, G. A., Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, T. (1993). Preliminary report on the development and validation of the influence behavior questionnaire. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), The impact of leadership (pp. 417-427). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Yukl, G. A., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequence of influence tactics used with subordinates, peer, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.

Yukl, G. A., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the management practice survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223-237). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Ceasar Douglas

Florida State University

Jeanette S. Martin

Roberta H. Krapels

University of Mississippi

Ceasar Douglas (PhD, University of Mississippi, 1997) is an associate professor of management at Florida State University. Jeanette S. Martin (EdD, Memphis State University, 1991) is an associate professor of business communication in management at the University of Mississippi. Roberta H. Krapels (EdD, Memphis State University, 1993) is an associate professor of business communication in management at the University of Mississippi. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ceasar Douglas, Florida State University, College of Business, Tallahassee, FL 32306; e-mail: cdouglas@cob.fsu.edu.

Table 1. A Comparison of Influence Tactics Identified
by Yukl and Tracey (1992) and by Klpnis, Schmidt,
and Wilkerson (1980)

Classification   Yukl and         Kipnis
(by Yukl &       Tracey           et al.
Tracey,          (1992)           (1980)
1992)

Hard             Pressure         Assertiveness

Soft             Ingratiation     Ingratiation

Soft             Rational         Rationality
                 persuasion       Sanctions

Hard/            Exchange         Exchange
soft

Hard             Legitimizing     Upward
                                  appeal

Hard             Coalition        Coalition
                                  Blocking

Soft             Inspirational
                 appeals

Soft             Consultation

Soft             Personal
                 appeals

Classification
(by Yukl &
Tracey,          Description
1992)

Hard             Direct, forceful approach that includes being
                   demanding, ordering, and setting deadlines

Soft             Impression management, flattery, the creation
                   of goodwill, acting humble, and making
                   others feel important

Soft             Facts and data to support the development of
                   a logical argument, including writing
                   detailed plans and explaining the reasons
                   for requests

                 Organizationally derived rewards
                   and punishments

Hard/            Negotiation through the exchange
soft               of benefits or favors

Hard             Gaining the support of higher levels in
                   the organization to back up requests

Hard             Mobilization of other people in the organization
                 Attempting to stop the target person from
                   carrying out some action by various
                   kinds of tactics, such as threatening to
                   stop working with the target person

Soft             Requests or proposals that arouse enthusiasm
                   by appealing to the target person's
                   values, ideas, and aspirations, thus
                   increasing confidence

Soft             An effort to involve the target person in
                   the planning of specific details and action
                   steps of a policy, strategy, or decision

Soft             Using the target person's personal relationship
                   as the basis for agreement

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations,
and Reliabilities for Managerial Influence
Tactics (N = 111)

Influence Tactic             M     SD       1

1. Hard tactics            2.15    .58    .78
2. Legitimizing            2.48    .86    .79
3. Pressure                2.06    .76    .69
4. Coalition               1.89    .71    .75
5. Soft tactics            2.85    .75    .42
6. Rational persuasion     2.64    .79    .51
7. Consultation            2.83    .99    .31
8. Inspirational appeals   2.93    .96    .31

Influence Tactic              2      3      4

1. Hard tactics
2. Legitimizing             .72
3. Pressure                 .50    .70
4. Coalition                .66    .46    .71
5. Soft tactics             .51    .23    .35
6. Rational persuasion      .63    .37    .48
7. Consultation             .44    .27    .23
8. Inspirational appeals    .49    .11    .33

Influence Tactic              5      6      7

1. Hard tactics
2. Legitimizing
3. Pressure
4. Coalition
5. Soft tactics             .86
6. Rational persuasion      .82    .73
7. Consultation             .84    .70    .80
8. Inspirational appeals    .82    .70    .64

Note: Numbers in italics are coefficient a values.

Table 3. Target Reported Use of Hard
and Soft Influence Tactics

                            Time 1        Time 2

Team        Influence
             Tactic      M      SD       M        SD

1             Hard      2.23   0.55     2.03     0.66
              Soft      3.01   0.42     3.03     0.69
2             Hard      2.14   0.44     1.98     0.41
              Soft      2.78   0.69     2.32     0.71
3             Hard      2.39   0.93     2.24     0.64
              Soft      3.11   0.77     3.28     0.80
4             Hard      2.16   0.82     2.14     0.67
              Soft      2.93   0.99     2.39     0.73
5             Hard      2.77   0.39     2.26     0.35
              Soft      3.19   0.46     2.84     0.88
All teams     Hard      2.33   0.67     2.14     0.69
              Soft      2.99   0.67     2.76     0.82

                            Time 3    Change,
                                        Time
Team        Influence                  1 to
             Tactic      M      SD     Time 3

1             Hard      1.90   0.43       -0.3
              Soft      3.21   0.58        0.2
2             Hard      2.01   0.38       -0.1
              Soft      2.38   0.48       -0.4
3             Hard      1.80   0.16       -0.6
              Soft      2.86   0.67       -0.3
4             Hard      1.70   0.43       -0.5
              Soft      1.91   0.54       -1.0
5             Hard      2.60   0.35       -0.2
              Soft      3.64   0.80        0.5
All teams     Hard      1.99   0.56       -0.3
              Soft      2.80   0.79       -0.2

Table 4. Results of Univariate Analyses of
Variance and Interclass Correlations (N = 111)

Variable            F      Interclass
                           Correlation

Time
  Hard tactics   3.14 *       .27 *
  Soft tactics    1.18         .03
Team
  Hard tactics    2.84         .08
  Soft tactics   6.10 **      .19 *

* p < .05.** p <.01.

Table 5. Regression Equation for
Leader Effectiveness

Variable         B        t          F      [R.sub.2]

Hard tactics   -0.35    -1.19
Soft tactics    0.61     2.96 *
Constant        2.11     3.31     4.37 *       .23

* p <.05.

Table 6. Regression Equation for Team Dynamics

Variable         B        t          F        [R.sub.2]

Hard tactics   -0.10     1.13
Soft tactics    0.45    -3.74 **
Constant        2.18     6.32      8.82 **       .38

** p <.01.

Table 7. Regression Equation for
Team Members' Involvement

Variable                    B      t         F         [R.sub.2]

Organization information    0.23   0.96
Team communication          0.73   3.67 **
Constant                    3.83   0.00      11.5 **   0.19

** p < .01.