Search results

The aim of this paper is to address teams as substitutes for leadership. The article makes use of juridical foundations as a normative basis for addressing substitutes for leadership. Together with the means of management and leadership, the juridical foundations constitute the background for defining sufficient and good supervisory work, which is used as an assistant instrument in addressing the research question: can teams act as substitutes for leadership?

In this article, substitutes for leadership theories are used to analyze the status of teams. The article includes a preliminary empirical study in a timber procurement organization and ideas for further investigations are provided.

Teams often do not act as internal supervisors or as sources of feedback and incentives, even though they are expected to do so. Some team members experience feelings of abandonment. Although planned as substitutes or supplements, teams can instead become neutralizers.

This paper contributes to recognizing the status of teams and to research questions concerned with explanations for the problems of teams.

Team concepts do not necessarily include both of the following important facts: implementing team work leads to shifts in traditional supervisory relations; and these shifts bring about a need to ensure that teams have the requisite skills. The lack of either of them may cause empowerment to get unspecified interpretations and breadth. This paper aims to stress the need of specified empowerment both as a part of skill structure and as a part of the concept of a suitable team.

In this paper two well‐known concepts of management and leadership – the idea of Katz and the division constructed by Kotter – are addressed as tools to open the backgrounds of teams. The paper constructs a background for empirical investigations.

It is useful to assure the skill structure especially during and after shifts within changes which happen in team organizations. The division into management and leadership tasks, combined with the idea of skills needed at several management levels: offers a fruitful background to address the need of different skills in teams. Also finds that it is argued how unspecified empowerment can establish an obstacle to the success with teams.

This paper contributes to developing tools for considering explanations for failures of teams.

This paper attempts to find out how the decade that team members enter the workforce as well as management or leadership emphasis influences different images of supervisors. Certain features of management discussion prevalent during the past decades are used as instruments in addressing the contributing research question: what is still expected from management and leadership?

In this paper the division constructed by Kotter – management and leadership are connected and the decade that team members enter the workforce – are addressed as tools to open the problems in teamwork. The paper includes a preliminary empirical study in a timber procurement organization and ideas for further investigations.

Team member who are not the same age have different images pf supervisors. Hence, they wait partly for different actions within team organization. Though HRM issues seem to be included in supervisors' duties in every decade, for example encouraging and career‐development matters do not appear until the 1980s. Furthermore, different kinds of computer‐aided control systems are not able to respond to quick changes and uncommon situations relating to everyday duties. The image of supervisors that workers take for granted must be taken into consideration during the changes and shifts between responsible actors.

This paper contributes to clear advice for age‐management and to research questions for considering explanations for problems of teams.