EDLD 551
Human Relations for Leaders
January 2008 Pre-session: Tuesday, Jan. 15 6:00 – 9:00 pm, MRH 102
3 Units
Course Director: Terri Monroe, RSCJ, Ed.D. Leadership, MRH 273B 619-260-4291 Tmonroe@SanDiego.edu
Conference Weekend: Fri, Jan 18 9:00 am - 9:30 pm, IPJ Sat, Jan 19 9:00 am - 9:30 pm, IPJ Sun, Jan20 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, IPJ Debrief Session: Tuesday., January 22, 20078 6:00 – 9:00 pm, MRH 102
Course Description The purpose of this course is to generate an essential diagnostic and strategic understanding of human relations associated with the exercise of leadership and authority in groups, schools, and organizational settings. It is assumed that these dynamics and processes – many of which are elusive and operate beyond our direct awareness – must be taken into consideration if we really want to understand the deeper significance of our actions and expand our zone of discretion by changing ineffective patterns of behavior. The method is based on the premise that learning about human relations, leadership, authority, and organizational dynamics can best be accomplished by experiencing and reflecting on these realities in a direct, immediate and personal way. The course provides opportunities for participants: (1) to examine theories of leadership, authority and group dynamics in order to develop their own definitions and conceptual frameworks for diagnosing and intervening in educational and organizational systems; (2) to study and analyze the dynamic forces that influence the life of groups and organizations -including those which are intentional and conscious as well as those that are unintended and less conscious; and, (3) to identify and evaluate their own assumptions and behaviors related to the exercise of leadership and authority.
Course Design
A substantial portion of the class is organized as a sequence of group and inter-group interactions. As such, it provides a social “laboratory” for exploring the dynamics of power, leadership, authority, change and adaptive work. In the process, the group itself forms a “temporary institution” that reproduces many of the characteristic features of organizational life. Working within this temporary institution that serves as both a case study and a laboratory for learning about how institutions operate, participants are able to study and analyze significant phenomena that arise in groups and teams in ways that are 1
often not discussable in the other organizations to which they belong. Students are encouraged to examine and evaluate their own assumptions and behaviors related to the exercise of leadership and authority in order to help them function more effectively in their outside roles. The course also incorporates elements of more traditional pedagogical approaches including seminars/lectures, readings, case analyses and analytical papers. A core component of the course is an intensive 3-day Human Relations Conference based somewhat an experiential learning model sometimes referred to as a “Tavistock” or “Group Relations” Conference,” which originated over 40 years ago at the Tavistock Institute in London with the pioneering work of Wilfred Bion, A. Kenneth Rice, Eric Trist, Harold Bridger, and others. While it is convenient to refer to the learning model for this course as a “Tavistock” or “Group Relations” conference, it is also misleading since the tradition is a living one. The course borrows certain heuristic concepts developed by those working in the Tavistock tradition such as the integration of systems theory with certain psychoanalytic concepts, but the working hypotheses, theoretical underpinnings and design of this course differ substantially from more traditional versions.
Course Structure The course components described below are designed to further the fundamental purpose of learning about the dynamics of authority and leadership by providing opportunities to examine the complexities of group and organizational life from a variety of perspectives. (1) Orientation Session USD students are required to attend a three-hour preliminary orientation that provides a review of the basic leadership theory upon which this course is based and introduces students to the experiential teaching methodology that will be used. The session will be held Tuesday, January 15, 2008, from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. in Mother Rosalie Hill Hall, Room 102. (2) Conference Opening. In the Conference opening the teaching staff and students meet together to begin working. The Course Director provides a basic theoretical framework and outlines the structure of the events. (3) Small Study Groups Each student is assigned to a Small Study Group consisting of six to twelve members. The task of each Small Study Group is to study the behavior and dynamics of the group as they actually unfold in the “here-and-now” with the assistance of a faculty consultant. This setting provides opportunities for participants to explore how they take up personal, as compared to formal and delegated, authority. (4) Large Study Group The Large Study Group is comprised of all the students and at least 3 designated faculty/staff members (including the Director). The task of the Large Study Group is to
2
study the groups’ behavior as it occurs. In contrast to the Small Study Group, the Large Study Group highlights dynamics that may occur in large assemblies such as staff meetings, town hall meetings or crowds and mobs, where face-to-face interactions are limited. (5) Institutional Event This event offers students and faculty the opportunity to participate in and examine the entire institution of the conference/course as it evolves and unfolds. Students/members form their own groups according to the particular issues they wish to explore further. The groups are free to interact with other groups and faculty members provide consultation upon request. The task of this event is to study the dynamics that develop between and among subgroups as they interact with one another and relate to management. (6) Seminars The seminars included within the design of the course provide input on particular substantive topics and issues such as school leadership, experiential teaching, complexity theory, management consulting, spirituality, addictive behavior, etc. The purpose is to help participants link themes from this conference to key aspects of their personal and/or professional lives. (7) Conference Discussion This event provides an opportunity for all students and faculty members to collaborate in reviewing and analyzing their experience of the course/conference, and perhaps to discover patterns of action or deeper levels of significance that may have implications for one’s behavior in other groups and organizations. (8) Application and Review Groups Each student is assigned to a group with the task of reviewing his or her experience in the course and its implications for his/her practice in other groups and organizations. The Review and Application groups focus on the review and integration of experiences and learning from the other events. The purpose is to help members understand the relationship between the roles they took up in the conference with the roles they hold in the outside world. Faculty consultants are assigned to each group to facilitate this process. (9) Debriefings A three-hour debriefing session is held during the week following the Conference portion of the course to provide additional theoretical input and to give participants opportunities to process their ongoing experiences or subsequent reflections and learning. The Debriefing will be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. in Mother Rosalie Hill Hall, Rm. 102.
3
Readings Required: Hayden, C. & Molenkamp, R. Tavistock primer II. In Cytrynbaum, S. and Noumair, D. (Eds.), Group relations reader 3. Jupiter, FL: The A.K. Rice Institute. Monroe, T. (2003). Key concepts that inform group relations work. San Diego, CA: The Leadership Institute. Simpson & French (2006). Negative capability and the capacity to think in the present moment: Some implications for Leadership Practice. Stapley, L. (2006). Individuals, Groups, and Organizations Beneath the Surface. London: Karnac Books.
Recommended: Gillette, J., & McCollom, M. (1990). Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Heifetz, R. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Berg, D. N. & Smith, K. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wilber, K. (2001). A Theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Boulder, CO: Shambhala.
Course Requirements/Activities Attendance Because the course is almost completely dependent on in-class experience, attendance is mandatory. The attendance policy is strict: students who are absent for any significant portion of the weekend Conference will be required to withdraw from the course or they will receive a failing grade.
Final Paper •
The final paper should be 10-12 pages (double spaced - 12 point font)
4
•
Paper must include the following:
(1) Your experience of the large group. Discuss one or more specific aspects of the experience that held significance for you. Discuss what you learned from participation in this event (2) Your experience of the small group. Who was your consultant? Describe an actual situation or event that enhanced your learning. You may want to include the role(s) you did or did not take up, and the significance of this for your own learning; or you might describe an exchange that transpired that was particularly memorable and or significant. (3) Your experience of the institutional event. What group(s) did you join and/or observe? What factors prompted you to “choose” that group? Describe any interactions with other groups or with the staff. What roles did you take up and what was the significance of those roles for your learning? Describe aspects of the event that were interesting, memorable or significant for your learning. (4) In what ways did you learn from the review and application group? Given the time that has passed since the weekend, in what ways has this experience influenced your work with groups in your life outside of the course? (5) What connections did you find between your experience(s) and the theme of the Conference (i.e. Evoking Collective Wisdom and Energy in Groups and Organizations: Awakening the Soul, Connecting with Spirit)? (6) What connections did you discover between the readings and the events or dynamics you experienced during the course? The answers to questions # 5 and #6 can be integrated into your answers to questions #1- 4 or included as a separate section. The paper, however, must provide evidence of your ability to link concepts from the readings with your actual experience. Cite specific sources (and properly reference quotations).
Assessment Plan/Grading Criteria: Deep learning usually requires risk taking and, unfortunately, frequently involves making mistakes. Students are encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities offered during the class/conference to experiment with new behaviors, strategies and roles, and “mistakes” are to be expected. In order to facilitate this type of learning, an attempt has been made to minimize the consequences of “mistakes.” Therefore, students will NOT be graded on the basis of their behavior or effectiveness in the actual conference (apart from attendance), and the course is graded on a pass/fail basis. Confidentiality, of course,
5
cannot be guaranteed in a group this size, so students must assume final responsibility for their interventions and behavior. Grades for this course will be based on the student’s attendance record and final paper. Papers will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: (1) To what extent do you respond to the assigned items listed (1-6)? (2) Is the paper reflective insofar as it demonstrates any learning that occurred? (3) Does the paper address or identify any key aspects related to leadership and authority? (4) Is the paper clear and coherent? Does it adequately describe events and/or learning that are understandable to the reader? Are there smooth transitions between ideas? (5) Is the paper well written and free of grammatical errors? The paper is due at the latest by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, January 22, 2007. It should be emailed (or a hard copy delivered) to Kate Sheridan at KSheridan@SanDiego.edu. The message line should read: Final Paper EDLD 551.
6
Bibliography Alderfer, C. P. (1976). Boundary relations and organizational diagnosis. In H. Meltzer & F. Wickert (Eds.), Humanizing organizational behavior. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Alderfer, C. P. (1980). Consulting to underbounded systems. In C.P. Alderfer & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Advances in experiential social processes, Vol.2. New York,NY: John Wiley and Sons. Alderfer, C. P. (1990). Conditions for teaching experiential group dynamics. In J. Gilette & M. McCollom, (Eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665. Arendt, H. (1958). What was authority? C. J. Friedrich, (Ed.), Authority, Nomos, 1: 81112. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Astrachan, B. (1970). Towards a social system model of therapeutic groups. Social Psychiatry, 5, 110-119. Benne, K. D. (1970). Authority in education. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 385410. Bennis, W. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem with authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259-301. Berg, D. N. (1984). Authority and experiential methods. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review. 9, 36-41. Bergquist, W. (1993). The postmodern organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York, NY: Basic Books.
7
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books. Cartwright, D. (1965). Influence, leadership, control. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cartwright, D. & Czander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Curry, L., Wergin, J. & Associates (1993). Educating professionals: Responding to new expectations for competence and accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Czander, W. (1990). The psychodynamics of work and organizations: Theory and application. New York and London: Guilford. Devanna, M. & Tichy, N. (1990). Creating the competitive organization for the 21st century: The boundaryless corporation. Human Resource Management, 29, 455471. Dreaschlin, J. & Kobrinski, E. & Passen, A. (1994). The boundary path of exchange: A new metaphor for leadership. Leadership and organizational development Journal, 15(6), 16-23. Durkin, H. E. (1964). The group in depth. New York, NY: The International Universities Press. Freeman, J. (1973). The tyranny of structureless groups. In A. Koedt, E. Levine and A. Rapone (Eds.), New York,NY: Quadrangle. French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Freud, S. (1955). Totem and Taboo. London: Hogarth Press. Friedlander, F. & Brown, L. D. (1974). Organizational development. Annual Review of Psychology, 25, 313-41. Gibbard, G. S., Hartmann, J. J. & Mann, R. D. (Eds.). (1974). Analysis of groups: Contributions to theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gilman, G. (1962). An inquiry into the nature and use of authority. In M. Haire (Ed.), Organizational theory in industrial practice. 105-142. New York, NY: Wiley. Gilmore, T. (1982). Leadership and boundary management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18, 343-356.
8
Gilmore, T. (1997). The social architecture of group interventions. In J. Neumann et al. (Eds.), Developing organizational consultancy. London and New York: Routledge. Gilmore, T. & Krantz, J. (1990). The splitting of leadership and management as a social defense. Human Relations 43(2), 183-204. Gould, L. (1993). Contemporary perspectives on personal and organizational authority. In L. Hirschhorn & C. Barnett (Eds.), The psychodynamics of organizations. Philadelphia: Temple University. Gustafson, J. & Cooper, L. (Eds.). (1985). Collaboration in small groups: Theory and technique for the study of small group process. In A. D. Colman & M. H. Geller (Eds.), Group relations reader 2. Washington, DC: A. K. Rice Institute. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch, (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Halley, A. (1997). Applications of boundary theory to the concepts of service integration in the human services. Administration in Social Work, 21(3/4), 145-168. Halton, W. (1994). Some unconscious aspects of organizational life: Contributions from psychoanalysis. In A. Obholzer & V. G. Roberts (Eds.), The unconscious at work: Individual and organizational stress in the human services. London and New York: Routledge. Handy, C. (1996). The new language of organizing and its implications for leaders. In Hesselbein, Goldsmith & Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Harris, R. B. (Ed.) (1976). Authority: A philosophical analysis. AL: University of Alabama. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University. Heifetz, R. A. & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75, 124-134. Heifetz, R. A. & Laurie, D. L. (1998). Mobilizing adaptive work. In Conger, Spreitzer & Lawler (Eds.), The leader’s change handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9
Hirschhorn, L. (1985). The psychodynamics of taking the role. In A. D. Coleman & M. H. Geller (Eds.) Group relations reader 2, 335-352. Hirschhorn, L. (1987). Organizing feelings toward authority: A case study in reflection in action. in D. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational pratice. New York, NY: Teachers College. Hirschhorn, L. (1990). Leaders and followers in a postindustrial age. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 529-542. Hirschhorn, L. (1991). Managing in the new team environment: Skills, tools, and methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority: Leading and following in the post-modern organization. Cambridge, MA & London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hirschhorn, L. (1993). Professionals, authority and group life: A case study of a law firm. In L. Hirschhorn & C. Barnett (Eds.), The psychodynamics of organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. Hirschhorn, L. & Barnett, C. (Eds.). (1993). The psychodynamics of organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Hirschhorn, L. & Gilmore, T. (1992). The new boundaries of the boundaryless company. Harvard Business Review ,70, 104-115. Hollander, E. P. & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387-397. Hurn, C. (1985). Changes in authority relationships in schools: 1960-1980. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 5, 31-57. Jacobs, T. (1970). Leadership and exchange in formal organizations. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Jaques, E. (1951). The changing culture of a factory. London: Tavistock Publications. Jaques, E. (1978). A general theory of bureaucracy. London: Heinmann. Kahn, W. A. (1990). An exercise of authority. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review. 14(2), 28-42. Kahn, W. A. & Kram, K. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences. Academy of Management Review. 19, 17-50.
10
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1971). Open systems. In J. G. Maurer, (Ed.), Readings in organizational theory: Open systems approaches. New York: Random House. Katzenbach, J. R. (1999). Making teams work at the top. In F. Hesselbein & P. Cohen (Eds.), Leader to leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge & London: Harvard University. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge & London: Harvard University. Kernberg, O. (1998). Ideology, conflict and leadership in groups and organizations. New Haven and London: Yale University. Kirkman, B. I. & Benson, R. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 42(1), 58-74. Kittrie, N. (1995). The war against authority: from the crisis of legitimacy to a new social contract. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University. Klein, E. B. (1990). Teaching group dynamics as a visitor: Boundary management from the outside in. In J. Gilette & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Klein, E. B., Gablenick, F., & Herr, P. (1998). The psychodynamics of leadership. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press. Lawrence, G. (1979). Exploring individual and organizational boundaries. Chichester: Wiley. Lawrence, G. & Miller, E. (1982). Psychic and political constraints on the growth of industrial democracies. In M. Pines & L. Rafaelsen (Eds.), The individual and the group: Boundaries and interrelations. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lawrence, G. (1988). Unconscious social pressures on leaders. In Klein, et al., (Eds.), The psychodynamics of leadership. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press. Leach, M. (1990). The process of authorization for consultants-in-training: A view from the threshold. In J. Gillette & M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11
McCollom, M. (1990). Group formation: Boundaries, leadership and culture. In J. Gilette and M. McCollom, (Eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McCollom, M. (1992). The group dynamics instructor as boundary manager. Journal of Management Education, 16, 190-203. Meissner, W. (1971). The assault on authority: Dialogue or dilemma? Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Menzies, I. (1960/ 1975). A case-study in the functioning of social systems as a defense against anxiety. Human Relations, 13, 95-121. Reprinted in A.D. Colman & W.H. Bexton (Eds.), Group relations reader 1. Washington, D.C.: A. K. Rice Institute (1975). 281-313. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper. Miller, E. (1976). Role perspectives and the understanding of organizational behavior. In E. Miller (Ed.), Task and organization. Chichester: Wiley. Miller, E. (1993). From dependency to autonomy: Studies in organization and change. London: Free Association Books. Miller, E. & Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of organization: The control of task and sentient boundaries. London: Tavistock. Monroe, T. (1992a). Cooperation between clergy and laity: Ambivalent texts, collaborative context. Monroe, T. (1992b). Reclaiming competence. Review for Religious. 27, 432-451. Monroe, T. (1997a). The practice of leadership and authority: Contemporary rhetoric and reality. Proceedings of the Canon Law Society of America, 54. Reprinted in Priesthood: Challenges of pastoral leadership, Chicago: National Federation of Priests’ Councils. Monroe, T. (1997b). The practice of authority. Leading Ideas: The Newsletter of Trustee Leadership Development, 1(2), 3-5. Monroe, T. (1999). Authority: The shifting context for ministry in the Roman Catholic church. Qualifying paper, Harvard University, Graduate School of Education. Monroe, T. (2004). Boundaries and Authority. In J. McGregor Burns, G.R. Goethals, & G.J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 112-117.
12
Neumann, J. E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-Shepherd, A. (1997). Developing organizational consultancy. London and New York,NY: Routledge. Nolan, J. & Huber, T. (1989). Nurturing the reflective practitioner through instructional supervision: A review of the literature. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4, 126-145. Obholzer, A. & Roberts, A. (1994). The unconscious at work. New York, NY: Routledge. Peterson, M. R. (1992). At personal risk: Boundary violations in professional-client relationships. New York and London: W. W. Norton. Piaget, J. (1976). The child and reality. New York, NY: Penguin. Rice, A. K. (1958). Productivity and social organization: The Ahmedabad experiment. London: Tavistock. New York and London: Garland. Rice, A. K. (1963). The enterprise and its environment. London: Tavistock. Rice, A. K. (1965). Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock. Roberts, V. Z. (1994). The organization of work: Contributions from open systems theory. In A. Obholzer & V. Z. Roberts (Eds.), The unconscious at work: Individual and organizational stress in the human services. London and New York: Routledge. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic. Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schweiger, D. M. & Leana, C. R. (1986). Participation in decision making. In E. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from the laboratory to field settings: Findings from research in industrial organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Shapiro, E. & Carr W. (1991) Lost in familiar places. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Sims, H. P. & Manz, C. C. (1981). Social learning theory: the role of modeling in the exercise of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3(4), 55-63.
13
Singer, D, et al. (1979). Boundary management in psychological work with groups. In W. G. Lawrence (Ed.), Exploring Individual and organizational boundaries. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, K. K. & Berg, D. N. (1987) Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Swidler, A. (1979). Organizations without authority: Dilemmas of social control in free schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Thomas, D. A. (1990). Application work in group dynamics instruction. In J. Gillette & M. McCollum (Eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political and cultural dynamics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Trist, E. L. & Murray, H. (Eds.). (1990). The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology, Vol 1, The socio-psychological perspective. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania/Free Association Books. Turquet, P. (1974). Leadership: the individual and the group in A. D. Colman and M. H. Geller (Eds.), 1985, Group relations reader 2, Washington, D. C.: A. K. Rice Institute. Vroom, V. & Jago, A. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Walton, R. & Hackman, J. (1986). Groups under contrasting management strategies. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing Effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Yan, A. & Louis, M. R. (1999). The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 52(1), 25-47.
14