Download Autonomy: together or alone?

Autonomy: together or alone?
Autonomously change the team activity pattern: towards higher team
performance
Master thesis Extended master Organization Studies
Suzanne Woutersen
January 2014
Supervisor 1: R. Pranger
Supervisor 2: M. Janowicz
Abstract
This study examined how autonomy at both individual and the team level directly affects team activity
patterns, and how it indirectly influences team performance. Team activity pattern was defined as the
allocation of time employees spend to the various activities a team performs during a week. The
research was conducted in six teams of a large healthcare organization which provides care to
mentally disabled. The effects of individual and team autonomy were studied simultaneously, this
approach has hardly been used before.
Using a combination of a quasi-experiment and a multiple case study, the effects of autonomy
increase were investigated. Interviews, time registrations and quantitative measures on clients’ wellbeing provided the data for this research. A total of 67 clients and 56 employees were part of the six
teams.
After increasing autonomy, results indicated more client oriented team activity patterns and a
significant higher level of team performance at the experimental group. The comparison between the
experimental group and the control group suggested less consistent results. The control group showed
lower levels of autonomy compared to the experimental group, however the team activity pattern was
more client oriented and the level of team performance was lower.
It was concluded that team activity pattern mediates the relationship between both levels of autonomy
and team performance. The relationship was not applicable when both individual- and team autonomy
were high. In addition, the research provided eight possible explanations for the relationship between
autonomy and team activity pattern. It also provided three potential explanations for the relationship
between team activity pattern and team performance.
Keywords: individual autonomy, team autonomy, team performance, team activity pattern, time
registration, clients’ well-being, long-term healthcare.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Motivation of the current research ................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Research structure ......................................................................................................................... 7
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Autonomy ..................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Team performance ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Mediating and moderating effects............................................................................................... 12
2.5 Team activity pattern .................................................................................................................. 13
2.6 Relations ..................................................................................................................................... 14
3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 15
3.1 Research design .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Research procedure ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Sample strategy ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Instruments to collect the data .................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 23
4. RESEARCH RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Description of studied teams ....................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Autonomy ................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Team performance ...................................................................................................................... 36
4.4 Team activity pattern .................................................................................................................. 40
4.5 Mechanisms between the variables ............................................................................................. 49
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 51
5.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 51
6. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 54
6.1 Theoretical implications .............................................................................................................. 54
6.1.1 Major findings of the study .................................................................................................. 54
6.1.2 Meaning and importance of the findings ............................................................................. 54
6.1.3 Relation to previously done research ................................................................................... 56
6.2 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 59
6.3 Future research ............................................................................................................................ 60
LITERATURE REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 62
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 65
3
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... 66
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX E ....................................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX F........................................................................................................................................ 73
APPENDIX G ....................................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX H ....................................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................................................ 81
4
1. INTRODUCTION
As a result of numerous prescribed rules and protocols, long term healthcare professionals working in
the Netherlands spend on average 40% of their workday on administrative tasks (In voor zorg, 2013).
These tasks result in a time consuming process, making healthcare professionals less available for
personal contact with the client (NPCF, 2012). One of the reasons for these time consuming tasks is
that the sector is funded for a large part with public money. Institutions providing these funds need to
be sure of qualitatively good care and thus demand accountability by care organizations. Taking into
account that multiple institutions demand for accountability, and that all institutions need different
information to be submitted, this adds greatly to the amount of administrative tasks.
The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) recognizes increasing frustration about obstructing
administrative tasks among long term healthcare professionals (In voor zorg, 2013). As a result, the
Secretary of VWS wants to make improvements in the regulatory burden by means of an experiment.
The goal of this experiment is to ensure that employees experience less administrative pressure. Care
organizations participating in the experiment are able to temporarily withdraw obstructing rules,
which is not possible outside the experiment because of laws and regulations.
Prisma, located in Waalwijk, is one of the organizations chosen by the Ministry of VWS to participate
in the experiment. It is a non-profit organization in Noord-Brabant which provides long term care to
clients with mental disabilities. At Prisma, the experiment is executed in three different teams
implying “a group of individuals who work interdependently to solve problems or carry out work”
(Kirkman & Rosen, 1999, p. 58). Each participating organization is able to decide on the specific
goals of their own project. For Prisma the purpose is to focus less on rules and administration and
more on team outcomes such as clients’ well-being. It is advantageous that the Ministry of VWS
supports the project because it ensures more actual freedom for employees.
Although employees obtain more freedom, it is still questioned whether they will actually change their
behavior and time distribution. It is expected from employees that they change the division of work
time in favor of the clients. Argarwal (1999) stated that rules are used as a way to direct, influence,
and shape peoples behaviors so that there is little variability in it. When rules are reduced or even
abolished, people may automatically change their behavior since rules are initiated to avoid variability
in behavior.
The obtained freedom of action in this research refers autonomy. It is defined as the amount of
freedom and discretion a team or an individual has in carrying out assigned tasks (Langfred, 2005).
Both individual autonomy and team autonomy could have an influence on the behavior of employees.
In summary, there are three teams of Prisma which obtain more autonomy by participating in the
experiment of the Ministry of VWS. The goal of the teams is to focus more on team outcomes such as
5
clients’ well-being and focus less on rules and administration. This research examines whether a
higher level of autonomy results in a team which changes their activity pattern in a more client
oriented one and consequently will increase team performance.
1.2 Motivation of the current research
The relationship between autonomy and team performance is examined by numerous researchers.
However, only modest and inconsistent results were reported (Cordery, Morrison, Wright, & Wall,
2010). Theories such as the Self-determination Theory (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013) and the Job
Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) state that high levels of autonomy result in more
intrinsic motivation and consequently in higher team performance. In contrast, Farh and Scott (1983)
found a negative relationship between autonomy and team performance when they empirically tested
the Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham. More recently, Langfred (2004) also found a
negative relationship between individual autonomy and team performance. He found that team
performance suffered from high levels of individual autonomy when the level of trust within the team
is also high. And Langfred (2000) argued that high levels of individual autonomy result in less
cohesive teams and consequently in lower levels of team performance.
The mixed and inconsistent results on the relationship between autonomy and team performance may
be explained by different environmental conditions. According to Cordery et al., (2010) the
relationship depends on several moderating and mediating variables. Several researchers already tried
to investigate the influence of these moderating and mediating variables. For example Langfred
(2005) who investigated the influence of task interdependency, Cordery at al. (2010) who examined
the effect of task uncertainty and Langfred (2000) who investigated the influence of group
cohesiveness. All found that the relationship between autonomy and team performance depends on the
level of the studied moderating and mediating variables. This research will contribute to the literature
by examining the mediating effect of team activity pattern. From the described practical situation, the
question emerged whether ‘team activity pattern’ is one of the environmental conditions on which the
relationship between autonomy and team performance depends.
Team activity pattern is about the division of time spent by the team on various tasks. While direct
time spent with clients may influence team performance and clients’ well-being, this relationship has
never been studied before.
According to Langfred (2005) it is needed to conduct further research on the effect of the
simultaneous use of individual and team autonomy. He states that still “little research has related
individual autonomy to performance in or of teams” (Langfred, 2005, p. 525). This study contributes
to the literature by providing empirical data on these relationships in an experimental setting. This
contribution is needed because the conducted research disclosed issues of causality since they all had a
6
cross-sectional nature (Langfred, 2005). This research will add to the current gap in the empirical
literature by using multiple observations over time in a field setting.
Especially for Prisma there is a great practical relevance of this study because it is helpful to
understand what the outcomes of the project are so they can decide whether to expand the experiment
to other teams or not. More in general, the outcomes of this research gives organizations which are
active in the long term healthcare insight in whether or not to increase employees individual and/or
team autonomy in order to increase team performance.
The following research question will be central in this research:
Do individual and team autonomy directly relate to team activity patterns and indirectly to team
performance, and if so, how mediate team activity patterns the relationship?
This research question will be answered by means of a quasi-experiment combined with a multiple
case study. At six teams of Prisma interviews, time registrations and well-being questionnaires will be
conducted to examine the relationships between the variables as well as the mechanisms underlying
these relationships. A graphical representation of this research is displayed in figure 1.
Figure 1.1: Conceptual model of the research
1.3 Research structure
The next chapter will give an overview of the relevant literature on individual and team autonomy,
team performance and team activity pattern. With these theoretical principles in mind, a description of
the research methodology will be displayed in chapter three. Thereafter, chapter four gives an outline
of the results of the research. The differences between the experimental and control group will be
explained as well as the differences between the teams within the experimental group. In chapter five
the conclusions will be presented together with the answer on the research question. The research will
end with a discussion of the methods and results.
7
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this chapter the relevant literature on the research concepts is discussed, namely autonomy, team
performance and team activity pattern.
2.1 Autonomy
In recent years a growing body of theoretical and empirical research has focused on examining
autonomy (Verhoest, Peters, Bouckaert, & Verschuere, 2004), resulting in multiple different
definitions. Hackman and Oldham (1975, p. 162) defined autonomy as: “the degree to which the job
provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work
and determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out”. However, an employee who is
autonomous does not have to be independent in his proceedings, just as someone who is independent
in his work does not have to be autonomous. Performing work together or alone has nothing to do
with autonomy of an employee or team. Therefore, the used definition of autonomy did not included
interdependence. Breaugh (1985) also stated that autonomy and task interdependence need to be
treated as different concepts. Breaugh based this statement on the research of Turner and Lawrence
(1965) and Kiggundu (1983), and defined autonomy as: “the degree of control or discretion a worker
is able to exercise with respect to work methods, work scheduling, and work criteria” (Breaugh, 1985,
p. 556).
Where Breaugh defined autonomy in terms of three facets, Kim et al. (2009) emphasized the manner
in which an employee receives information in describing autonomy. They stated that autonomous
employees are able to decide on which of the received information is usable in order to perform their
tasks. Kim et al. (2009) also state that employees with a high level of autonomy act responsible with
regard to their work outcomes since “their personal initiative and judgment about how to carry out the
work can directly influence work outcomes” (p. 987). They focus on the initiatives and responsibility
of the autonomous employee itself, just like Wang, Mayfield, and Mayfield (2009). An employee who
is autonomous is able to receive the required information and converts this to the intended work
outcomes. The ability to decide on how to achieve certain work outcomes is also mentioned by Clark
(2001), he states that employees are autonomous in case they are able to decide on when, where, and
how the job is to be done (Wang et al. 2009).
Although many different definitions of autonomy were used in previous research, most of the
definitions refer to the ability of employees to decide on how, when and where to perform tasks. In
this research, the definition of autonomy is based on the commonly used definition of Hackman and
Oldham (1975), leaving out the part of task interdependence. Autonomy is referred to as: “the amount
of freedom and discretion a team or an individual has in carrying out assigned tasks” (Langfred,
2005).
8
According to Verhoest et al. (2004), many researchers studied autonomy and included some form of it
within their theory. For example the Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1976), in
which they conceptualize that autonomy motivates employees’ freedom and flexibility with the work
schedules and work processes. According to these authors, employees feel more appreciated and
responsible by being autonomous (Wang et al. 2009). In accordance with the Job Characteristics
Model, Deci and Ryan (1985) developed the Self-determination theory, which is a theory about
human motivation. The core of the Self-determination theory is about the interplay between external
forces and the intrinsic motivation of people in order to move themselves or others to act (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). According to Deci and Ryan (1985), high quality motivation and engagement for
activities is supported if people experience conditions of autonomy, competence and relatedness.
It is clear that autonomy is an interesting topic for a lot of researchers and is therefore a well-studied
subject. Numerous different autonomy measurements were developed in recent years (Breaugh, 1985).
According to Breaugh, measuring autonomy is about the level of experienced autonomy and not about
the objective level of autonomy. For this reason, authors as Au and Cheung (2004) simply measured
autonomy by asking employees to what extend employees are free to decide on job issues. This
method seems to be not very reliable since it is expected that employees may give socially desirable
answers. Asking for examples and stories about employees’ experiences make it all more reliable.
Langfred (2005) expected the basic measurement not to be reliable as well, he used a questionnaire
with the well-validated nine-item scale of Breaugh (1985) in order to measure autonomy.
Next to the definitions and measurements of autonomy it is important to know why autonomy is
examined. Researchers who examined the effects of autonomy were for example Au and Cheung
(2004) and Wang et al. (2009). Au and Cheung (2004) examined the differences in autonomy between
various countries. From their research they concluded that high levels of autonomy indicated a high
level of worker participation facilitated by the environment. In addition, countries with a high level of
autonomy may exhibit high average levels of job satisfaction and quality of life. Au and Cheung
(2004) also described several effects at the individual level, for example that a low level of autonomy
resulted in low levels of job satisfaction, and to constant stress at work, consequently leading to
serious consequences for their work behavior and well-being. They even stated that low levels of
autonomy in the long term “can reduce the ability to solve new problems, take initiatives at work, and
retain new learning” (Au & Cheung, 2004, p. 1342). Wang et al. (2009) agree on the relationship
between low levels of autonomy and stress at work. In addition, they mentioned that low levels of
autonomy increased physical health symptoms, emotional distress, role stress, absenteeism, turnover
intentions and actual turnover. However, they also stated that autonomy was “positively linked with
self-efficacy, flexibility, organizational commitment, and feelings of ownership” (Wang, Mayfield, &
Mayfield, 2009, p. 2).
9
Previous literature about autonomy created various distinctions in autonomy. The commonly used
distinction between autonomy in work scheduling and in work procedures is made by various
researchers (Breaugh, 1985). In addition, Breaugh himself added one additional component to the
aforementioned components. He examined autonomy divided in work method autonomy, work
scheduling autonomy and work criteria autonomy. In which work method autonomy is defined as the
extent to which employees have a choice in deciding how to carry out their job. To work scheduling
autonomy is referred as the degree to which employees feel free to decide on their own scheduling and
thus also on the sequencing and timing of their activities. Lastly, work criteria autonomy is described
as the extent to which employees have the ability to alter or select the criteria used for evaluating their
performance. Because the distinction in work method autonomy, work scheduling autonomy and work
criteria autonomy is comprehensive and clearly defined, this research included the distinction as well.
When studying both individual and team autonomy four types related to autonomy emerge at each
team (Langfred, 2000). Each team can either score high or low on both team autonomy and individual
autonomy, resulting in four types (figure 2.1). According to Langfred (2000), type zero refers to the
traditional work group in which team members have no control or discretion over work processes.
Type one and two refer to a team in which either group autonomy or individual autonomy is scored
high and the other low. Type three is a group in which both individual and team autonomy are high,
which is not a very common type according to Langfred (2000).
Figure 2.1 – Four types of self-management work group designs (Langfred, 2000)
It is important to mention that individual autonomy and team autonomy both are different constructs,
and that every team can be described in both terms. In other words, “the aggregated level of individual
10
autonomy in a team is conceptually distinct and independent from team-level autonomy” (Langfred,
2005, p. 514). In the next two sections, relevant literature on both levels of autonomy is described.
Individual autonomy
Individual autonomy is about the amount of freedom and discretion an individual has in carrying out
assigned tasks (Langfred, 2005). According to Langfred (2005), little is known about the relationship
between individual autonomy and team performance. He described that some researchers linked
individual autonomy to individual performance, but that “little research related individual autonomy to
performance in or of teams” (p.525). The study of Langfred (2004) is closest to examining the
relationship between individual autonomy and team performance. He studied the effect of trust on
team performance, with the moderating effect of individual autonomy. He suggested that there is a
positive relationship between high trust and team performance, but only in case of low individual
autonomy. In other words, teams characterized by high trust and high levels of individual autonomy,
lose the ability to frequently monitor fellow team members. This relationship emerges because
autonomous employees work more independently which requires more communication and
monitoring between them. In case of high trust between employees, the monitoring between
employees expires because employees feel they do not need to monitor each other, resulting in lower
levels of performance. In summary, in teams where employees have high levels of individual
autonomy more communication and monitoring is required in order to have good team performance.
Team autonomy
Team autonomy is defined as the amount of freedom and discretion a team has in carrying out
assigned tasks (Langfred, 2005). Team autonomy is a job characteristic on team level and thus distinct
from concepts as self-managed-, self-organizing- and self-regulating teams (Piccolo & Colquitt,
2006). In recent years, the popularity of concepts such as self-managed teams, increased enormously.
However, this research includes team autonomy as a job characteristic of the team members, resulting
in ‘traditional’ teams with a higher level of team autonomy. One of the differences between these
teams and self-managed teams is the presence of a supervisor. Since in self-managed teams a
supervisor is absent, team members evaluate each other (Erez, Lepine, & Elms, 2002), which differs
from ‘traditional’ teams with a high degree of team autonomy.
The effect of team autonomy on team performance is researched a lot (Langfred, 2005). According to
van Mierlo et al. (2007), team autonomy promotes both organizational effectiveness and
psychological well-being. Leach et al. (2005) also found a positive effect of team autonomy, they state
that a high degree of team autonomy result in higher team performance through knowledge, skills and
ability of team members. In other words, a team which is autonomous, fosters their existing
knowledge better and also learns new skills faster, resulting in higher performance. Stewart (2006)
examined the relationship between team design and team performance, with team autonomy as one of
11
the independent variables. He states that teams with a high degree of autonomy are better able to adapt
to variation in work environments and demands and therefore have a higher performance.
2.3 Team performance
Team performance is a very popular research phenomenon for decades now. The question what makes
one team more successful than another remains a fascinating one. According to Guzzo and Dickson
(1996, p. 309), team performance is about three components, namely “the group-produced outcomes,
the consequences a group has for its members or the enhancement of a team’s capability to perform
effectively in the future”. In this research, the definition is narrowed to one of the three components.
In accordance with Cordery, et al. (2010), team performance refers to the group-produced outcomes.
Many variables seem to have influence on team performance, Stewart (2006), discusses a few of these
influencers in his review on team performance. He concludes that team performance is higher when
members have high cognitive ability, desirable personality traits, and relevant expertise. In addition,
team size is related to team performance, however, the optimal team size depends on the
responsibilities of the team. Next, task meaningfulness is positively related to team performance
according to Stewart (2006). A task is meaningful for a team in case team members have the feeling
their task is important and worthwhile. Also the intra team coordination is of importance for a good
performance, however, this relationship is stronger in creative and natural work environments. The
last predictor for a good team performance studied in Stewarts’ (2006) meta analysis is leadership. In
specific, transformational and empowering leadership styles are positively related to team
performance.
In summary, a lot of variables predict team performance, in which autonomy is one of them. However,
it is important to mention that the influence of these variables depends most of the time on the
individual employees, the tasks, and the team composition.
2.4 Mediating and moderating effects
As mentioned earlier, the relationship between autonomy and team performance leads to mixed and
inconsistent results (Cordery, et al., 2010). The functioning of various influencing factors depends
most of the time on several characteristics. It is assumed that several variables moderate or mediate
the relationship between autonomy and team performance. A few researchers already examined some
of these moderating and mediating variables, for example Langfred (2000), Langfred (2005), and
Cordery, et al. (2010). The variables examined in these studies were respectively group cohesiveness,
task interdependence and task uncertainty. In this research the mediating effect of ‘team activity
pattern’ is examined because the assumption is that autonomous healthcare employees, if they are
able, adapt their activity pattern to a more client oriented one which consequently results in higher
team performance.
12
2.5 Team activity pattern
In sociology research conducted on the activities performed by human beings is often referred to the
construct ‘time budget’ (Klepeis, et al., 2001). Time budget refers to “a summary of the amount of
time an individual spends in each of many activities over some period” (Klepeis, et al., 2001, p. 232).
Michelson (1973) states, in the paper of Klepeis, et al. (2001), about time budgets: “a time budget is a
record, presented orally or on paper, of what a person has done during the course of a 24-hour day or
multiples thereof. The record is taken down with precision and detail, identifying what people have
done with explicit reference to exact amounts of time” (Klepeis, et al., 2001, p. 232). This research
examines the mediating effect of time budgets on team level. Since the time budget studied in this
research is not about individuals but about a team, it is referred to as ‘team activity pattern’. Team
activity pattern is described as the allocation of time to the various activities a team performs during a
week, adapted from Klepeis, et al. (2001).
Changes in team activity pattern could result from changes in the amount of time spend on activities
or through changes in the type of activities performed. Within the healthcare sector, these tasks consist
of activities with the client, activities on behalf of the client and activities on behalf of the
organization.
Nandhakumar (2002) studied time management in an information systems development project. He
provided a few perspectives on time. For example the perspective of social geographers, who have
developed a time geography approach in order to analyze human action across time and space
(Nandhakumar, 2002). The approach supplies three constraints which may stop people from
performing certain activities. These three constraints are the capability constrain, the coupling
constrain and the authority constrain. In which the capability constrain refers to: “limits set by the
physical constitution of individuals , such as the indivisibility of the body, which means that people
cannot be in two places at once” (Nandhakumar, 2002, p. 252). The coupling constrain is defined as:
“limits set by the ability of people, and resources, to come together in particular places to interact with
one another” (Nandhakumar, 2002, p. 252). Lastly, the authority constrain is about: “limits set by
social power relationships , such as the permission to perform certain activities” (Nandhakumar, 2002,
p. 252). These constrains may explain, for a small part, why employees behave like they do.
Nandhakumar (2002) concludes in his study a few things which could also be applicable on healthcare
teams such as the teams included in this research. For example that team members performed multiple
different and interwoven activities which resulted in a highly complex time budget. Besides, the
allocation of the available time consist of activities on routine basis, interruptions, personal preference
and improvisation (Nandhakumar, 2002). His last relevant conclusion was that team members often
had to solve problems ad hoc which requires creativity and made it difficult to plan in advance.
13
2.6 Relations
Although individual autonomy, team autonomy, team performance and team activity pattern all were
examined before to a greater or lesser extent, the combination of these variables result in a unique
research problem. The few studies which examined a relationship that is similar are discussed in this
section shortly, in the last chapter an extensive description is provided. Important to note is that more
autonomy will not result automatically in higher team performance, since mediating and moderating
variables have a major effect on this relationship.
The study of Langfred (2000) was one of the first studies which examined both individual- and team
autonomy at the same time. He examined how group cohesiveness mediates the relationship between
autonomy and team effectiveness. The conclusion of Langfred (2000) is that individual autonomy is
negatively related to group cohesiveness and team autonomy is positively related to group
cohesiveness. The relation between autonomy and team effectiveness is partially mediated by group
cohesiveness.
In a later study, Langfred (2005) described the moderating effect of task interdependence on the
relationship between both levels of autonomy and team performance. He concluded that teams
characterized by high task interdependence have higher team performance if the degree of team
autonomy was high and the degree of individual autonomy was low. On the contrary, teams
characterized by low tasks interdependence have higher team performance if the level of team
autonomy is low and the degree of individual autonomy is high. According to Langfred (2005), this
relationship emerged because highly interdependent tasks require more coordination and interaction
between employees which is provided in autonomous teams.
The last relating study is the one of Cordery, et. al (2010), who examined the moderating effect of task
uncertainty on the relationship between team autonomy and team performance. The main result of this
study was that “increased team autonomy generated proportionately greater improvements in this key
aspect of performance for work teams scoring higher on the measure of task uncertainty” (2010, p.
253). In other words, in case teams face tasks with a lot of uncertainty, team autonomy ensured a
greater improvement in team performance.
14
3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The methodology chapter presents all applied methods of this research in detail. First, an explanation
of the quasi-experiment is given, then the research procedures define the goal and the intervention.
Third, the applied sample strategy is described. Section four defines the instruments used to collect the
data. Finally, the method of data analysis is presented.
3.1 Research design
The applied design of this research is a combination of a quasi-experiment and a multiple case study
which provides the ability to compare various teams, and to examine the effect of the intervention on
these teams. First, this section presents a description of both designs, then the motivation for the
choice of method is explained.
The quasi-experimental design is a close approximation of a true experiment except for the fact that a
quasi-experiment does not randomly assign subjects to the groups (Creswell, 2003). In an experiment,
the subjects of the research are randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. Next, only
the experimental group is administered to a treatment. Then, both groups are evaluated on the
variables. Changes in the dependent variable are assumed to be the result of the independent variable
(Joyner, Rouse, & Glatthorn, 2012).
A case study design focuses on understanding the dynamics of single settings (Yin, 2003). A multiple
case study design provides information about complex phenomena within their contexts (Baxter &
Jack, 2008). It is very useful in situations in which the boundaries between phenomena and context are
not clearly evident (Joyner, Rouse, & Glatthorn, 2012).
Two advantages of a quasi-experiment resulted in choosing this design. When measuring all variables
at two moments in time, the impact of the independent variables can be assessed. The use of a control
group ensures that changes are likely to be the result of the assigned intervention. Unfortunately it was
impossible to randomly assign the subjects to the groups which made it impossible to conduct a true
experiment. But, according to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007), a quasi-experiment is the most
suitable alternative when random assignment of the cases is not possible.
The advantage of the multiple case study design is that it allows the researcher to study a phenomenon
within its context (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Because team activity pattern is never studied before as
mediator between autonomy and team performance, it is important to study it in its context. In
addition, it is relevant to understand the context of the various cases in order to examine the
mechanisms of interest (Yin, 2003).
Finally, it is important to mention that it was impossible to use only a quantitative design because a
part of this research is looking for mechanisms between variables. By using a combination between a
15
quasi-experiment and a multiple case study, both quantitative and qualitative measurements were
used.
3.2 Research procedure
The problem central to this research is twofold: firstly, if team activity pattern mediates the
relationship between autonomy and team performance, and secondly, which mechanisms induce this
relationship. The first part of this research problem is exploratory since it examined whether team
activity pattern is a mediator between autonomy and team performance. The second part of the
research problem is explanatory, because it tried to explain the mechanisms between the variables.
The two groups which were composed at the service of the quasi-experimental design, consisted both
of three teams of a large healthcare organization in Holland which provides care to mentally disabled
people. Data on the variables was collected from each of the teams twice, and thus the research had a
pre-test post-test design. The pre-test data gathering had been collected in the period July-August
2012, this period is referred to as time 0. The post-test data gathering is referred to with time 1, this
data was collected in the period July-August 2013. Data gathered on team activity pattern and team
performance had a quantitative character and was verified using interviews. Data collected on
autonomy was purely qualitative, so only interviews were used to measure this variable. In figure 3.1 a
graphical representation of the research is presented.
Figure 3.1: graphical representation of the research design
The pretest in time 0 consisted at the experimental group of a measurement on both team activity
pattern and team performance. At the control group, a recollection proxy pretest was performed on
these variables, implying that employees were asked in a later period about their scores on these
variables in July 2012 (Rosch & Coers, 2013). In other words, the scores on team activity pattern and
team performance were retrospectively gathered from the control group. According to CarpenterAeby, Aeby and Mozingo (2011), this method is an accepted method to evaluate a program that has
already been started. They argue that the method is supported by a positive substantive significance in
16
the literature and that it may be the best possible method when a project has already been started, and
that it is certainly better than relying on a post-test-only method.
Just after the pre-test in time 0, the treatment was assigned to the experimental group. This treatment
consisted of increasing the level of employees’ autonomy and was a project initiated by the
organization itself. It was assumed that employees who obtained more freedom to act would shift their
tasks to more client oriented tasks which should result in a higher level of clients’ well-being.
Teams which participated in the project, obtained more freedom and less control. Since the project
was supported by the government, the participating teams did not have to comply to all government
requirements. This resulted in more actual freedom for the teams, and also in an increase in
experienced freedom which was a desirable side effect.
Each of the three teams started the project with a workshop to identify what clients’ well-being is
about. This workshop should guide the teams to common goals and more shared responsibilities. The
supervisor of each team had a great responsibility to actually increase employees autonomy. However,
supervisors were able to decide themselves on how to do this. Supervisors mentioned that is was
important to let employees feel trusted and in case of mistakes, it was emphasized that this could
happen and that employees should try again.
After the experimental teams had conducted the project for almost a year, the second measurements
were executed (time 1). In both the experimental and control group measures were conducted on team
activity pattern and team performance. In addition, semi-structured interviews were used to measure
the autonomy of all teams. The interviews strengthened and further explained the results on team
activity pattern and team performance of both measure moments. Figure 3.2 displays a complete
overview of all the used methods.
Three reasons explain why it was chosen to include semi-structured interviews in the research. First of
all, the interviews could function as robustness check for the quantitative results. Due to the small
samples at the quantitative measurements (team performance N=62, time registrations N=44), it was
useful to verify these scores using interviews. Second, interviews provided the opportunity to examine
the mechanisms of interest. Finally, the quantitative data was used as input for the interviews which
made the interviews semi-structured and not unstructured or fully structured. The used topic lists of
the interviews are presented in appendix A and B.
17
Figure 3.2 – Nature of pre-test and post-test methods at both experiment and control group
3.3 Sample strategy
The organization in which this research was conducted identified itself, which three teams should
participate in their project. Therefore, the researcher was only able to identify the teams of the control
group. These teams were selected on the basis of two variables, namely the housing type and the target
audience of the team. It was intended that the control group was as similar as possible to the
experimental group. Besides, the teams of the control group were selected on the basis of their
willingness to participate, which decreased the amount of possible teams enormously.
Each team consisted of approximately ten employees and one supervisor, and all teams provided care
to six to seventeen clients. Each employee and each client of the teams were included in the research,
implying that well-being of all clients was measured and that all employees needed to track their
activities during a certain week.
In total 21 interviews were performed at the teams. Because of time constraints it was not possible to
interview all employees, therefore there was made use of a sample strategy. First of all, the
supervisors were asked to participate in an interview. Next, at each team in the experimental group
three employees were selected and at each team in the control group two employees were selected to
participated in the interview. Employees were selected on the basis of their function since the different
functions could have influenced the data. Each team contains of employees with three different
functions referring to as mentor A, mentor B and assistant mentor. The functions differ in the degree
of required responsibility and competence. At the teams in the experimental group one employee of
each function was interviewed. At the teams in the control group only one mentor A and one assistant
mentor were interviewed, the respectively highest and lowest functions. Because the employees who
were interviewed had to work at least one year at the team and needed to be willing to join, no further
sample strategy was needed.
18
3.4 Instruments to collect the data
The various measurements of the variables are presented in this section. First, the operationalizations
of the variables are presented and then the data collection method is discussed in detail.
Autonomy
To individual autonomy is referred as: the amount of freedom and discretion an individual has in
carrying out assigned tasks. In accordance with this definition, to team autonomy is referred as: the
amount of freedom and discretion a team has in carrying out assigned tasks. In both individual- and
team autonomy the distinction can be made between work method autonomy, work scheduling
autonomy, and work criteria autonomy.
Both individual- and team autonomy were measured with the help of semi-structured and taperecorded interviews. As stated before, the topic lists of these interviews are presented in appendix A
and B. Questions were, for example, asked about job responsibilities, the work schedule, the
sequencing of activities and the degree of devising and implementing new initiatives. The interviews
were conducted on the basis of a zigzag approach, implying that data collection and analysis are semisimultaneously performed as in an iterative process (Boeije, 2010). In other words, after each
interview the data was analyzed and by using this knowledge, the questions for the next interview
were adapted. The advantage of this approach is that “each stage of data collection is informed by the
analysis of the previous data collection stage” (Boeije, 2010, p. 90).
In line with Kramer and Schmalenberg (2003), it was chosen to measure autonomy on the basis of
interviews. This method allowed the researcher to ask for examples and experiences. Besides, the
research is about the level of experienced autonomy of employees, thus in an interview respondents
could easily argue why they thought they could be autonomous or not. In addition, it was not chosen
to send all employees a questionnaire for the practical reason that the research already claimed a great
contribution of the participating teams. Since all interviews were on voluntary basis, the interviews
were of a smaller bother to the teams.
Team performance
Team performance is about the group-produced outcomes, in this research specific referred to as
clients’ well-being. In other words, a team has a higher performance in proportion as the average
clients’ well-being is higher in that team. Since the early eighties, researchers attention has grown
exponentially to the topic of well-being and happiness of humans (Fordyce, 1988). According to
Diener (2009) well-being is about a person’s believe that his or her life is desirable, pleasant, and
good. Uppal (2006) states that well-being refers to life satisfaction or happiness.
19
An quantitative instrument was created in order to determine the average level of clients’ well-being
in the teams. Since clients were not (always) able to answer the questions themselves, employees
completed these questions in cooperation with parents, the clients’ buddy, the behavioral expert and
the supervisor. According to Schalock, et al., (2002), is a measurement completed by another person
for an individual with intellectual disabilities called a proxy measurement, and is this, if it is
mentioned clearly, an accepted method in science .
The instrument which measured well-being is presented in appendix C and contains of six domains
based upon the Groningen Well-Being Indicator (GWI) (Slaets, 2013; Kastermans, Knuvers, & Slaets,
2008). This GWI is developed in 2008 by Kastermans, Knuvers and Slaets as measurement for
elderly’s well-being. Respondents have to indicate for each of the eight domains whether the domains
are important to them and, if so, whether they are satisfied with them. A few researchers included this
fairly new instrument in their research such as Spoorenberg, et al. (2013), Oeseburg, et al. (2013) and
Bleijenberg, et al. (2013).
With the help of an external consultant, the GWI was adapted in order to match the target audience,
namely mentally disabled. The eight domains of the GWI were transformed to six domains since not
all eight were applicable to the target audience. The six domains on which the well-being of clients
was scored were self-determination, personal development, material well-being, interpersonal
relations, physical well-being and emotional well-being.
In addition, one extra step was added to the procedure of the GWI. As mentioned before, at the GWI
respondents have to indicate for each of the eight domains whether the domains are important to them
and, if so, whether they are satisfied with them. At the adapted version of Prisma, the respondents had
to indicate whether the client has the potential to improve the indicators, and then complete the two
original steps of the GWI. The scores on the six domains together captured the average well-being of a
client.
So, the instrument of Prisma was created based upon the GWI (Kastermans, Knuvers, & Slaets, 2008),
and also according to the guidelines of Schalock et. al. (2002). Schalock et. al. (2002) provided 17
guidelines which should be applied when measuring quality of life of people with intellectual
disabilities. Schalock et. al. (2002) present five core principles for measuring quality of life at
intellectual disabled people and a few supportive guidelines for each principle.
A complete overview of these principles and guidelines is presented in appendix D, this section
provides an explanation of the five guidelines most relevant to this research. First of all, quantitative
measurements represents placement on a continuum between the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’. This guideline
is met since employees need to indicate in step 3 the actual score of the client on each indicator, in
which 1 represents worst and 10 represents best. Secondly, the measurement is based on wellestablished theory since the GWI underlies the instrument of Prisma. The third and fourth guidelines
20
were both met because of the additional step in the adapted instrument. These guidelines referred to
the fact that the key aspects of life can be improved, and that the measurement is interpreted within the
context of an overall lifespan. Because the potential on each domain is determined, the instrument is
useful during the whole lifespan of a client, and can it be seen whether improvement is possible. The
last discussed guideline is about the possibility to weight the several domains according to individual
values. This is also possible since the instrument appoint in step two the importance of each domain,
which makes it possible to prioritize the domains.
It was chosen to use this particular instrument in order to measure team performance because the
quantitative character made it possible to compare the teams easily. Besides, the instrument is created
for the specific target audience and still reliable and valid, since it was based upon existing methods.
Team activity pattern
Team activity pattern is defined as the allocation of time divided to the various activities a team
performs during a week. It was measured with a quantitative measure which was also described by
Kleipeis, et al. (2001). This method, or time registration, can be both executed orally or on paper
(Klepeis, et al., 2001), however this research made use of the method on paper in order to guarantee
unambiguous results. The time registration is described as a documentation “of what a person has
done during the course of a 24-hour day or multiples thereof. The record is taken down with precision
and detail, identifying what people have done with explicit reference to exact amounts of time”
(Klepeis, et al., 2001, p. 232). In this research employees needed to record what they had done during
the course of one week, or seven times a day of 24-hour. In appendix E is presented the form which
needed to complete by the employees each day.
This measurement method was used in order to measure the team activity pattern because it is one of
the most objective and reliable methods. Because each minute is tracked down after the completion of
an activity, employees were unable to forgot to write activities down. Besides, the method is not
vulnerable for misinterpretations and the internal validity is high.
Control variables
‘Type of housing’ and ‘target audience’ were the variables included in the research in order to control
for their influence on team performance.
Type of housing involves the setting in which the team operates and consists of three types. The
possible housing types are a house which is initiated by parents, an accommodation at the Land Park
of Prisma or an accommodation which is a combination between a parent initiated house and an
accommodation with care provided by Prisma. For practical reasons it is assumed that this variable
21
could have influenced team performance since the different settings have to deal with various levels of
material and different levels of influence of parents.
A short description of each of the three types is described in this section. A house which is initiated by
parents is not owned by Prisma, the staff employed by Prisma only provide care to the clients. Since
the accommodation is property of the clients and their families, the influence of Prisma is much
smaller. Secondly, an accommodation at the Land Park of Prisma provides much more protection and
safety to clients. The Land Park is a separate area in which only mentally disabled people live. The
last type is a combination of the aforementioned two types and is situated in the district.
The second control variable which may influenced team performance is ‘target audience’, implying
the functioning level of a client and the type of disability. Each team served a predetermined target
audience. For practical reasons is assumed that this variable could have an influence on team
performance since the type of disability determines for example to what extent clients need structure
or proximity. Therefore, employees need to adjust their behavior to the target audience which may
result in different team activity patterns which consequently could influenced team performance.
The target audience is distributed in eight care packages (ZZP) with a different level of intensity. The
intensity of care packages is distributed from ZZP 1 to ZZP 8 in which ZZP 1 is the least intensive and
ZZP 8 the most intensive. In figure 3.3 an overview of the intensity of care packages is presented.
Figure 3.3: Explanation of intensity of care packages (ZZP)
22
3.5 Data analysis
Autonomy
The data about autonomy resulted from 21 interviews conducted with supervisors and team members.
After each interview, the recorded tape was transcribed and coded. It was a non-cross-sectional
analysis which implies that all cases were analyzed independently and could obtained various codes
(Spencer, Ritchie and O’Connor, 2010). Since the semi-structured interviews were based on a topic
list, the main themes of the data were known in advance (Yin, 2003). Analysis started with open
coding, in particular line-by-line coding. Of each sentence in the transcript was viewed whether it had
a contribution to the research. To all relevant sentences were codes allocated. After this process, axial
coding was performed, referring to a process where categories and subcategories were distinguished
and connections between the categories were created. The codes for each category were specified and
the relevance of each code was checked. Then selective coding was applied in order to assign the
codes to the correct variable. At this stage it was important to check the described relations between
the categories with new data (Boeije, 2010). The results of this process are presented in appendix H.
The analysis on autonomy was based on phrases of the interviews in which employees referred to
autonomy. The amount of times an employee referred to autonomy determined the level of autonomy.
The more employees referred to some form of autonomy the higher the level of autonomy. Negative
phrases indicated low levels of autonomy and positive phrases high levels. The increase or decrease of
autonomy was also measured by counting how many times employees referred to it. The sentences
related to a decrease or increase were underlined in appendix H.
Individual autonomy
The phrases relating to individual autonomy were analyzed on the basis of the indicators of Langfred
(2005). Langfred applies for individual autonomy a nine-item scale with a reliability Cronbach’s alpha
of 0.90 (figure 3.4).
Individual autonomy
I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
I am free to choose how to carry out my work
I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work in the team
I have control over the scheduling of my work in the team
I have some control over the sequencing of my activities in the team
I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team
I can influence how I am evaluated, so I can emphasize some aspects of what I do and play down others
Figure 3.4 – Indicators of individual autonomy (retrieved from Langfred, 2005)
23
The analysis started with combining two items into one. These items were: ‘I am free to decide how to
go about getting my work done’ and ‘I am free to choose how to carry out my work’. It was assumed
that respondents would not make a distinction between these two items. Then, on all phrases was
decided to which item they belonged. This step resulted in the schedule presented in appendix H. The
next step was to count the amount of positive and negative phrases for each indicator. Finally, for each
item were the negative phrases subtracted from the positive ones. This last step was included because
respondents sometimes disproved 5 times autonomy on a certain factor and approved only once.
Subtracting the negative phrases of the positive ones resulted in just one score on each indicator which
is more clear then one positive and one negative score. The results of this process are presented in
figure 3.5. The figure shows for example that team A referred six times to the fact that individual
employees can decide on how to go about getting the work done. In addition, in team F there was one
employee who said that he or she was not able to choose how to go about getting his or her work done
in the team, therefore a negative number is mentioned. The blue line displays the total score on
individual autonomy for each location, which is an aggregation of the numbers below it. In summary,
team C has the highest level of individual autonomy and team F the lowest.
Figure 3.5 – Amount of positive phrases on each indicators of individual autonomy.
The final step of the analysis was to divide all indicators to work method autonomy, work scheduling
autonomy or work criteria autonomy. This step made it easier to draw conclusions on the results. The
distribution of the indicators over the three types of autonomy was based on the definitions provided
by Breaugh (see chapter 2.1, page 12). To work method autonomy were the indicators divided: ‘I am
free to choose how to go about getting my work done’ and ‘I am able to choose the way to go about
my work in the team’. To work scheduling autonomy were the indicators divided: ‘I can decide when
to do particular activities as part of my work in the team’, ‘I have control over the scheduling of my
work in the team’ and ‘I have some control over the sequencing of my activities in the team’ divided.
Finally, to work criteria autonomy were the indicators divided: ‘I am able to decide for myself what
my objectives are’, ‘I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team’ and ‘I
24
can influence how I am evaluated, so I can emphasize some aspects of what I do and play down
others’. In figure 3.6 are the definitive results of the analysis on individual autonomy presented.
Figure 3.6 – Number of times referred in a positive way to each type of individual autonomy.
Team autonomy
Because the analysis on team autonomy was performed in the same way as the analysis on individual
autonomy, the process was described with less details. The phrases on which team autonomy was
analyzed, are presented in figure 3.6. This 7-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.91) is also based on the
research of Langfred (2005).
Figure 3.6 – Indicators of team autonomy (retrieved from Langfred, 2005)
Also at team autonomy two indicators were combined into one, namely ‘The team is free to decide
how to go about getting work done’ and ‘The team is able to choose the way to go about its work’.
Figure 3.7 – Amount of positive phrases on each indicators of team autonomy.
In figure 3.7 shows the results of the analysis on team autonomy. It was seen that team A scored
highest on team autonomy and team D scored lowest on team autonomy. The negative numbers in this
figure indicated that employees referred to that indicator more in the negative sense than in the
25
positive one. The indicators were also for team autonomy divided on the three types of autonomy.
‘The team is free to decide how to go about getting work done’ and ‘The team is free to choose the
method(s) to use in carrying out work’ referred together to work method autonomy. The indicators
divided to work scheduling autonomy were ‘The team can decide when to do particular activities’,
‘the team has control over the scheduling of teamwork’ and ‘the team has control over the sequencing
of team activities’. Finally, to work criteria autonomy, was divided only the indicator ‘The team is
able to decide team objectives’. The results of this analysis were presented in figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 – Number of times referred in a positive way to each type of team autonomy.
Team performance
Data on team performance was based on the subjective well-being instrument of Prisma. The
instrument was in time 0 en time 1 respectively completed for 33 and 67 clients. Since all employees
of the control group mentioned that nothing changed in clients’ well-being compared to the year
before, the scores of the control group in time 0 were adopted from to time 1. This procedure made it
possible to also compare the experimental- and control group in time 0. The scores of the control
group on team performance are thus approximate.
The sample size (N=67) was decreased when both datasets from 2012 and 2013 were paired, and
resulted in a valid sample size of 62. The decrease was caused by clients who were not present in one
of the two measures through which they were excluded of the sample. Within the final sample (N=62),
there are thus equal numbers for the experimental and the control group in 2012 and 2013,
respectively N=28 and N=34.
26
Figure 3.7 – Distribution of sample (N=62)
The sample was structured as described in figure 3.7. The majority of respondents (55,2%) were men
and were living in a combined accommodation (47,8%). Amount of clients assigned to the
experimental- and control condition, were almost equal divided with respectively 49,3% and 50,7%.
Analysis of the data was done using SPSS, however, because of the small sample size (N=62) only a
limited amount of tests could be executed. The two-samples t-test and the Wilcoxon test were used to
compare the mean scores between and within the groups. Which one of the two test was chosen
depended on whether the scores were normally distributed or not. The normally distribution was tested
with the Shapiro-Wilk test. This test was chosen because it is a very usable test in case of small
sample sizes (N<50). The data is assumed to be normally distributed when the p-value is larger than
the selected alpha, usually this is a p-value larger than 0,05. In addition, the W-statistic could also be
used in order to interpret the data. A W-statistic which is larger than 0,9 assumes the data to be
normally distributed. In this research it was chosen to use the second possibility, in other words the
W-statistic. The W-statistic method was chosen because in case of a large sample, the p-value will
show a small but significant deviation from the normal distribution rather than the W-statistic. Since
the sample of this research (N=62) was larger than the recommended sample (<50), it was chosen to
interpret the data on the basis of the W-statistic.
The outcome of the Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that all average clients’ well-being scores could be
assumed to be normally distributed. In addition, the following seven variables were also assumed to be
normally distributed: self-determination (2012), personal development (2013), material well-being
(2012) and (2013), interpersonal relationships (2012) and (2013) and finally physical well-being
(2012). The results of these test are presented in appendix F.
For the assumed normally distributed variables were two-samples t-test conducted. The paired twosamples t-test was used when the scores which were compared originated from the same group at a
different time (T0 and T1). An unpaired two-samples t-test was used to test the mean scores between
the experimental- and control group. The unpaired t-test was used because the scores were derived
from different groups at the same time.
27
The variables which were not assumed to be normally distributed were compared by using the
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. This test compares paired mean-scores, implying scores of the same
group at a different time (T0 and T1). The unpaired variables which were not normally distributed
were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test.
Finally, the results of these tests were verified within interviews. Employees was questioned whether
they thought the scores were appropriate. All scores were listed as representative and correct.
Team activity pattern
The time registrations was completed in time 0 and time 1 by respectively 28 and 44 employees. Since
all employees of the control group mentioned that nothing changed in their activity pattern compared
to the year before, the scores of the control group in time 1 were copied to time 0. This resulted in
time 0 and 1 to a sample of respectively 48 and 44 employees. Because the data is analyzed on team
level, this difference has no influence on the results.
By analyzing the time registrations, several steps were taken. First, the daily scores of each employee
were add to create an overview of the week for that person. Then, the week totals of employees with
the same function were add and divided by the amount of employees in that function. Each team
consists of three different functions, namely ‘mentor A’, ‘mentor B’, and ‘assistant mentor’. The three
functions are distinct in tasks and responsibilities. Since Mentor A gives direction to the individual
development plan of the client this function contains the most administrative tasks. In general this
means that mentor A maintains the contact with the family, the behavioral scientists, the daycare or
work etc. The tasks of mentor B are both assisting to the tasks of mentor A and the general
administrative tasks of the team. The assistant mentor is mostly executive oriented, which means that
they have hardly administrative tasks.
The totals on each function were added which resulted in one week total for the whole team. By
making a distinction between the functions, and calculate the average per function first, there exists no
difference between the teams in functions.
Then, the scores on activities of the team were divided into categories. These categories were created
by experts, in specific the employees, family, the manager who leads the experiment and an external
consultant. These categories are presented in appendix F. The activities were divided in two possible
ways of distinction. Both types of distinction were included in the research since they did not always
present the same results. The first distinction was between client-oriented activities and otherwiseoriented activities, and the second distinction was between direct client contact, indirect client contact
and remaining activities. Which exact activities belongs to which categories is also presented in
appendix F. In figure 3.8, a graphical representation of the data analysis on team activity pattern is
presented.
28
Figure 3.8 – Graphical representation of data analysis on team activity pattern for one team
29
4. RESEARCH RESULTS
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between autonomy and team performance,
with the mediating effect of team activity pattern. This chapter describes the study findings as they
relate to these research aims. The first section includes a description of the studied teams. This context
outline ensures a better understanding of the results.
4.1 Description of studied teams
This study consist of an experimental design, in other words, two groups were part of this research.
The experimental group exists of Team A, Team B, and Team C. In the control group are Team D,
Team E, and Team F represented. Since the three teams within the experimental group differ very
much, the control group is composite with three teams which are comparable to the teams of the
experimental group. The following teams are equivalent in terms of housing type and target audience:
Team A and D, Team B and E, and Team C and F. The next section contains a short description of the
six studied cases.
Team A - is a large apartment building with 17 clients and ten employees. It is a combination of a
parent initiated house and an accommodation with care from Prisma. The target group is very divers,
which means that there are clients who need help with mundane things as showering to clients who are
able to do their own household but who need help for their psychological problems. The clients are
both men and women in the age group of late twenties up to sixty. The team is recently split up in two
groups in order to provide more specific support, but it is emphasized that it still function as one team.
Team B - is a team on the Land park of Prisma with six clients and nine employees. The target group
are clients who need intensive guidance and support. Most of the clients have autism or a contact
disorder which means they need structure and clarity. The clients are almost all male who are getting
older, which leads to additional care responsibilities. The team suffered last year from understaffing
resulting in a team of 6 employees.
Team C - is a parent initiated house with nine clients and nine employees. The target group is divers,
but all clients need to have a certain degree of independence. The clients are youths in the age group
of twenty to thirty. The team exists five years and the parents of clients have a very large influence
and voice at the team.
Team D - is a combination of a parent initiated house and an accommodation with care from Prisma.
The apartments of the 13 clients are spread out through the street. The nine employees mainly guide
the clients, since they must learn to become independent. The clients are both man and woman in the
aging group of twenty to forty. The parent initiative started in 2006 with a main focus on physically
disabled youths.
30
Team E - is situated at the Land Park of Prisma and offers accommodation to nine clients. The nine
employees offer different types of guidance since the target population is very divers. The clients are
all male in the aging group of thirty to seventy-five. A recently started project causes that a few clients
are at the team during the whole day and do not go to work or daycare center anymore.
Team F - is a parent initiated house with 11 clients and ten employees. The target group are
youngsters, between twenty and thirty, with a mild intellectual disability. The mild disabilities make
clients vulnerable to external seductions which is why they need clear boundaries. The team is quite
new, started in 2011.
4.2 Autonomy
The results on autonomy were based on interviews (N=21). Overall, it is assumed that the level of
autonomy was increased at the experimental group because respondents referred 15 times to an
increase of autonomy. At the control group, it is assumed that the level of autonomy was hardly
changed because only once an increase of autonomy was mentioned.
At the experiment group, the actual level of autonomy was higher than the actual level at the control
group. This is believed because respondents of the experimental group referred 61 times to autonomy
and respondents of the control group referred 9 times to autonomy. By ‘referring to autonomy’ is
meant that respondents mentioned that they have a certain level of autonomy.
It is assumed that the level of individual autonomy at the experimental group was increased because
respondents mentioned 11 times to an increase of individual autonomy. The increase of individual
autonomy at the control group was much smaller since only once an increase of individual autonomy
was mentioned.
The actual level of individual autonomy was also higher at the experimental group compared to the
control group. In the experimental group respondents referred 30 times to individual autonomy while
at the control group individual autonomy was only mentioned 8 times.
The increase of team autonomy was much smaller at both the experimental group and the control
group. Only 4 times respondents of the experimental group referred to an increase of team autonomy.
Respondents of the control group did not mention at all an increase in team autonomy.
The actual level of team autonomy was at the experimental group almost equal to the level of
individual autonomy. Respondents mentioned 31 times to team autonomy at the experimental group.
The control group scored very low on team autonomy since only one time was referred to team
autonomy. In figure 4.2, all results on autonomy were summarized in a table. The next sections
present explanations of autonomy at the different teams.
31
Actual level of autonomy
Increase of autonomy
Experimental group
Individual
Team
autonomy
autonomy
30
31
11
4
Control group
Individual
Team
autonomy
autonomy
8
1
1
0
Figure 4.2: Number of times respondents referred in a positive way to autonomy
Autonomy ‘team A’ – The main result at team A is that the level of team autonomy is higher than
that of individual autonomy. Respondents stated that the team has a great shared responsibility and the
possibility to discuss things together is always available. Because the team is very large, employees
never work alone which results in the possibility to ask questions when necessary.
The interviews revealed that the level of autonomy increased quite a lot. One team member stated:
“Within this team we are more flexible now. I really prefer to be flexible in my work, just as my
colleagues prefer it. This results in a team which can easily adjust to changing circumstances”. All
respondents mentioned that the increase of autonomy was partly caused by the work approach of the
supervisor. The supervisor provides a lot of freedom and trust to the employees. Although employees
already experienced this freedom for a while, the project emphasized and strengthened this feelings of
freedom even more.
Next to a high level of team autonomy is the degree of individual autonomy moderate. Though, it is
assumed that the supervisor sees individual autonomy as an important factor. The supervisor stated:
“autonomy is one of the basic needs of a human being according to the pyramid of Maslow. Even a
baby wants to be autonomous”. The statement suggests that the supervisor is quite aware of the level
of autonomy. In reaction to the question whether each employee wants some degree of autonomy the
supervisor said: “even if employees do not want to be autonomous, you have to offer them the
possibility to be autonomous. They need to have the feeling that they have the chance to be
autonomous”. The results of the analysis on team A were presented in figure 4.3. The figure displays
how many times respondents referred in a positive sense to autonomy.
Team A
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Total autonomy
Level of autonomy
8
17
25
Increase of autonomy
4
3
7
Figure 4.3: Number of times respondents team A referred in a positive way to autonomy
The eight times respondents mentioned individual autonomy were mostly about work method
autonomy. In accordance, team autonomy was also most about work method autonomy. But the 17
times respondents mentioned to team autonomy were also about work scheduling autonomy and work
criteria autonomy. This result indicates that the level of team autonomy was much higher at team A
and that this autonomy was also related to more different types of autonomy.
32
Autonomy ‘team B’ – The interviews at team B revealed that the level of individual autonomy was
clearly much higher than the level of team autonomy. Team autonomy was hardly recognized in this
team. Although employees always work in pairs, they do not cooperate very much. They stated that a
lack of time caused this: “it became automatism to execute the agreements reached, we have agreed on
this, so we will do it. It would be nice if there was more time to discuss or brainstorm on these kind of
things, but unfortunately that time is not available”.
Nonetheless, the individual employee suggest more innovative ideas now, one of them stated: “it is
part of the project to be more aware of what you do. You should not remain with things because it
always used to be like that”. The individual employee became more independent and aware of his
behavior. Employees stated that they are more conscious of their attitude towards clients and the effect
it has on the behavior of clients. The results of the analysis on team B were presented in figure 4.4.
Team B
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Total autonomy
Actual level of autonomy
10
1
11
Increase of autonomy
4
0
4
Figure 4.4: Number of times respondents team B referred in a positive way to autonomy
The individual autonomy was merely about work criteria autonomy. This suggest that the individual
was allowed to decide on its own objectives and contribution to the team tasks. It is a striking result
since none of the other teams scored this high on work criteria autonomy. With regard to team
autonomy is seen that the team could decide in a small degree on their work methods but not on their
scheduling or their work criteria.
Autonomy ‘team C’ – The interviews at team C revealed an interesting result about autonomy. Both
individual autonomy and team autonomy were quite high. Team members noticed that autonomy
always have been very high at their team, “the vision of the parent initiated house has very much in
common with the vision of the project. We have always experienced very much freedom”.
The individual independence of employees became visible when several employees mentioned that
they were independently in search for the possibilities within the project. The high level of team
autonomy was for example explained by the team seeking to shape the project in cooperation with the
parents. Respondents stated that there is enough time to try innovative ideas in the team.
With regard to autonomy, it is important to mention that team C is the only team in which the
supervisor functions also as a regular employee. This could have influenced the degree of autonomy.
It is possible that employees experience a smaller degree of autonomy because they work with their
supervisor. The supervisor mentioned that she is aware of this and tries to give employees as much
freedom as possible. It could also have lead to higher degrees of autonomy since employees feel more
33
secure to act independently in the presence of the supervisor. The exact results of the analysis on team
C is presented in figure 4.5.
Team C
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Total autonomy
Actual level of autonomy
12
13
25
Increase of autonomy
3
1
4
Figure 4.5: Number of times respondents team C referred in a positive way to autonomy
The individual autonomy was related to work method, work scheduling and work criteria autonomy. It
suggests that employees have a high degree of individual autonomy in many different areas. Team
autonomy was not related to work criteria, suggesting that the team felt not free to decide on their own
tasks. However, they can decide on their joint work schedule and the work methods they use.
Autonomy ‘team D’ – The overall level of autonomy at team D is very low. Some employees
mentioned that they experience a small degree of individual autonomy, however the presence of team
autonomy is not available at all. Team members described almost only situations in which they did not
experienced team autonomy. Especially the jointly created rules were obstructing to the employees. In
some cases team members did not meet the rules which resulted in difficulties for another employee.
The interviews also revealed that no changes occurred at the level of autonomy in the past year. Figure
4.6 shows among others this result of team D.
Team D
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Total autonomy
Actual level of autonomy
3
-4
-1
Increase of autonomy
0
0
0
Figure 4.6: Number of times respondents team D referred in a positive way to autonomy
The few times that there was referred to individual autonomy was about work method or the work
scheduling. Employees were partly able to decide on how to do their particular jobs. In contrast to this
was found that the team was not able at all to decide on how to go about its work. This is explained by
the high amount of routines developed by the team. The supervisor stated: “employees are hardly
aware of their behavior and its consequences. This may resulted from their standard work
procedures”.
Autonomy ‘team E’ – At team E, the level of team autonomy was very low and of individual
autonomy was low to moderate. It is striking to see that the team did not experienced any team
autonomy because they mentioned that the team is very close. According to the respondents caused
friendships within the team a lack of feedback. Likewise, the division of tasks was also called unfair.
These factors may resulted in the absence of team autonomy. The scores of team E on autonomy are
presented in figure 4.7.
34
Team E
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Total autonomy
Actual level of autonomy
5
-3
2
Increase of autonomy
0
0
0
Figure 4.7: Number of times respondents team E referred in a positive way to autonomy
When there was referred to team autonomy, it was especially mentioned that employees did not
experienced work scheduling autonomy. The dissatisfaction on distribution of tasks may is related to
this score. The level of individual autonomy was a bit higher. Employees experienced work method
autonomy and work scheduling autonomy. The contrast between individual- and team autonomy in
work scheduling is interesting. Employees experience freedom to decide on their own sequencing of
tasks but not on the sequencing of the team tasks.
Autonomy ‘team F’ – In general, the interviews revealed no individual autonomy at all in team C. In
contrast, the level of team autonomy was quite high compared to the other teams of the control group.
This result is very interesting since employees mentioned that they
hardly work together. One
respondent stated: “it is a very small location which makes it quite a lot when I see two colleagues in
one week. Sometimes this makes my work difficult but usually I like to work independently”. This
citation indicates a high degree of individual autonomy and a low degree of team autonomy which is
the opposite result. The results of team F are presented in figure 4.8. Important to note is that team F
mentioned once that individual autonomy was increased. This result is not in line with the results of
the other teams in the control group. However, since it was only mentioned once it is not a relevant
difference.
Team F
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Total autonomy
Actual level of autonomy
0
8
8
Increase of autonomy
1
0
1
Figure 4.8: Number of times respondents team F referred in a positive way to autonomy
Almost all times respondents mentioned team autonomy there was referred to work method autonomy.
The results suggest that team F was quite free to determine the work methods for its team. This result
is of importance since the team hardly work together.
In figure 4.9 and 4.10 an overview is presented on the results of each team. The division between
work method autonomy, work scheduling autonomy and work criteria autonomy was used at both
individual- and team autonomy.
35
Figure 4.9: Results on individual autonomy for each location (divided to types).
Figure 4.10: Figure 4.9: Results on team autonomy for each location (divided to types).
4.3 Team performance
In this section the results according to team performance were presented. Team performance was
measured in terms of average clients’ well-being within the team. In figure 4.11 the mean, minimum
and maximum scores of the variables were displayed.
A paired sample t-test was conducted to compare the means of the 2012-sample and the 2013-sample.
The results of the paired samples t-test suggest that after the implementation of the project there was a
significant difference in the scores of team performance within the experimental group. The average
clients’ well-being was increased with 0,3 point. Resulting in the following scores: team performance
2012 (M=7,011, SD=1,0422) and team performance 2013 (M=7,379, SD=0,7320) conditions; t(27)= 3,598, p < 0,05.
In addition, a significant difference was observed in the scores of interpersonal relationships 2012
(M=6,821, SD=1,6114) and interpersonal relationships 2013 (M=7,357, SD=1,2237) conditions;
t(27)=-2,419, p < 0,05. It is suggested that average clients’ well-being is mostly increased because the
wishes regarding their interpersonal relationships were accomplished.
The difference between the experimental group (M=7,303, SD=0,7253) and the control group
(M=7,018, SD=0,7234) after implementing the project was tested with a two-samples t-test. As
displayed in table 4.4 (appendix H), the results of the unpaired samples t-test suggest that after the
implementation (2013) of the project there were no significant differences in the scores between the
experimental group and the control group. The test indicated that the difference between the
experimental group and the control group could be coincidental.
36
Figure 4.11 - Total sample (N=67), sample size, mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum
In the experiment group, the average score on clients’ well-being 2012 of men (N=9, M=6,533,
SD=0,8441) was significant lower than the score of women (N=20, M=7,215, SD=1,0459); t(19)=1,863, p<0,1. After the project was implemented, this difference was not applicable anymore. The
score on average clients’ well-being 2013 of men (M=7,109, SD=0,4614) did not significantly differ
from women (M=7,405, SD=0,8231); ); t(29,76)=-1,301, p>0,1. It is indicated that the project was in
particular beneficial for men. At the control group, no significant differences between men and
37
women exists. In the next sections there is elaborated further on the results on team performance in the
different teams.
Team performance ‘team A’ – As displayed in table 4.5 (appendix H), the results of the paired
samples t-test suggest that after the implementation of the project there was a significant difference in
the scores of team performance 2012 (M=7,149 , SD=1,1422 ) and team performance 2013 (M=7,538,
SD=0,8469) conditions; t(15)= -3,015, p < 0,05. The results indicate that the average clients’ wellbeing increased significantly through the implemented project.
To the variables which were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was applied.
The results of these tests (table 4.6, appendix H) indicate a significant difference in the scores of selfdetermination 2012 (M=6,882, SD=1,3639) and self-determination 2013 (M=7,500, SD=0,8165)
conditions; Z= -2,428, p < 0,05. Besides, there was a significant difference between the scores of
interpersonal relationships 2012 (M=6,706, SD=1,7235) and interpersonal relationships 2013
(M=7,625, D=1,2583) conditions; Z=-2,565, p<0,1.
Respondents stated the measurement on clients’ well-being was rather subjective because different
employees could interpret the data different. They also
stated that the scores were more a
representation of the in- or decrease through the time.
Although employees were not sure of the usefulness of the scores, the results are in line with the
interviews. Two indicators, self-direction and interpersonal relationships, where reasonable higher
after the implementation of the project. These two indicators were also mentioned as most important.
Respondents mentioned the difficulty to link goals of clients to their well-being, since not all goals
will increase their well-being. Employees stated that they had discussions about the differences
between what clients want and what they need. Although respondents reported that the well-being of
clients is hard to describe in numbers, they also stated that the results of the measurements are
realistic. The enjoyable sphere within the team and the convenient team they work with is reported as
explanation for the high level of well-being.
Team performance ‘team B’ – The results of the paired samples t-test suggest a significant
difference between team performance team performance 2012 (M=6,200 , SD=0,8075) and team
performance 2013 (M=7,133, SD=0,6154) conditions; t(5)= -5,349, p <0,05. In addition, a significant
difference was indicated between the scores of Emotional well-being 2012 (M=6,000, SD=1,0328)
and Emotional well-being 2013 (M=7,667, SD=0,4216) conditions; t(5)=-2,193, p<0,1.
To the variables which were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was applied.
The results of these tests (table 4.8, appendix H) indicate a significant difference in the scores of
personal development 2012 (M=3,333, SD=2,4221) and personal development 2013 (M=6,429,
SD=0,7868) conditions; Z= -2,121, p<0,05.
38
In accordance with the statistical
results, employees of team B report large changes in team
performance. Clients demonstrate different, more desirable, behavior. “Since a few clients have
behavioral problems, it is nice to see that they now are better able to accept things. Or they will just do
something they like, like drawing. These things did not appeared at first”.
Next, link between the Emotional well-being indicator and the other indicators was mentioned. One of
the respondents stated that these indicators were linked and thus influenced each another. The results
of the tests seemed to be realistic, however, one of them stated that the increase could have been a bit
too high. Interestingly, another employee stated improvements are not always noticed by colleagues
because of the small steps. “At first I thought the results were not correct because the improvement
was that big. However, when I looked at it better I understood that the small improvements have a
very big effect on the behavior of clients”.
Team performance ‘team C’ – No significant differences were tested on basis of the paired samples
t-test (see table 4.9, appendix H). The average clients’ well-being before the intervention (M=7,333,
SD=0,5279) was a bit higher than after the implementation (M=7,200, SD=0,4147). However, this
change was not big enough to be significant.
To the variables which were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was applied.
Even as the results of the t-test, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test indicated no significant difference
(table 4.10, appendix H).
The respondents mentioned a slight change in clients’ well-being. They stated a bigger focus on the
client and the needs of the clients, however well-being of clients did not change very much. This result
is in line with the statistical results. Team members noted the influence of external factors on wellbeing measurements. The reduce in the scores was devoted to external influences by them. Employees
noted the authenticity of the scores, and repeatedly mentioned they understand why the scores
decreased.
Team performance control group – It was argued before that the average well-being of the control
group was lower than the average well-being in the experimental group in time 1. The degree of team
performance at team D was highest of the control group (M=7,286 SD=0,6893. Team E scored lowest
on team performance (M=6,444 SD=0,7876). The score of team F was moderate (M=7,145,
SD=0,4458).
It was striking to observe that team D had the highest score on team performance of the control group.
In one of the interviews it was mentioned that a different research at team D examined a very low
clients’ well-being. That research examined the well-being of clients by asking them and resulted in a
lower score. It is possible that the level of team performance is in fact lower than a 7,2.
39
Respondents in team E mentioned that it is possible that the low score was resulted by the sphere in
the team. “The relationship between employees is good, however, they never award something to each
other. The bad sphere could have had influence on the team performance”.
One of the respondents of team F mentioned that she was not sure about the scores on team
performance. It was stated: “When I see these scores I am not sure about the correctness. Maybe I you
view the wishes of clients more in depth, this scores would be different”.
4.4 Team activity pattern
The amount of client oriented tasks was increased after the treatment was implemented in the
experimental group. These tasks were increased from 59 percent to 64 percent (figure 4.12). This
change meant automatically that the amount of otherwise oriented tasks were decreased with 5
percent.
When the experimental group and the control group were compared, a higher amount of client
oriented tasks was observed at the control group. The control group spent 69 percent of their time to
client oriented tasks and 31 percent to otherwise oriented tasks. Respondents stated that they did not
change their team activity pattern in the last year .
All other results on team activity pattern were also in line with the interviews. All employees of the
experimental group described that they had more time and resources to perform activities with clients.
A vacation was one of the new and additional activities which was performed with the clients. All
clients of a team and a few of their mentors were together on vacation, something which was never
possible before the project started. Other activities which were mentioned during the interviews were
things as going cycling, shopping, to the cinema or the fair. Activities which already were conducted
before the project started but now they were carried out on a more regular basis.
Respondents also stated that they are now better able to set priorities. Most of them first ascertain
whether clients needed something and if that was not the case administrative tasks were performed.
Team members of the experimental group also stated that the project ensured that clients’ well-being
is always first priority now. This resulted in the trend that activities which were otherwise oriented
became less important.
The higher level of client oriented tasks at the control group may have been caused by the target
audience. Although the research tried to control for this variable, one of the teams in the control group
had a much simpler target audience. This less complex target audience meant less complex client
goals and thus spending less time to report on these goals.
40
80
70
60
50
Experimental group - Client
oriented
40
Experimental group - Others
oriented
30
Control group - Client
oriented
Control group - Others
oriented
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.12 – Orientation of activities (two categories) at the experimental and the control group.
Also a second type of distinction in activities was made in team A. This distinction was created to test
whether it resulted in the same outcomes or not. Figure 4.13 displays a graph in which this second
type of distinction is presented. Also this measurement type shows an increase in direct client contact
at the experimental group. A small increase from 50 to 52 percent direct client contact was observed at
this group. In contrast, the control group performed already 57 percent to direct client contact. This
finding was also in line with the first measurement type.
Team activity pattern at the experimental group changed as intended. The direct client contact
increased and both indirect client contact and remaining activities decreased. Still the control group
scored lower on both these categories.
During the interviews one employee of the experimental group mentioned that they were shocked of
the large amount of time they spend without the clients. She said: “As a result of the time registration,
we found out that the mentors spend a lot of time on unpacking groceries, which is not direct client
contact. We were thinking how this could be changed to direct client contact. Now we unpack the
groceries together with some clients. A small change, but the clients love to do it and they really feel
responsible and involved”. This is one example of an activity which changed from the category
‘indirect client contact’ to the category ‘direct client contact’.
41
60
Experimental group - Direct client
contact
50
Experimental group - Indirect
client contact
40
Experimental group - Remaining
activities
30
Control group - Direct client
contact
20
Control group - Indirect client
contact
Control group - Remaining
activities
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Graph 4.13 – Orientation of activities (three categories) at the experimental and the control group.
Team activity pattern ‘team A’ – The amount of client oriented tasks performed by team A
increased a lot (from 62 to 69 percent). Consequently this resulted in less otherwise oriented activities,
both displayed in figure 4.14. The amount of time spent on client oriented tasks is thus much higher
than the average of the experimental group. One respondent provided an example of the increase in
client oriented activities: “Actually we are not allowed to buy clothes with clients, however clothes are
necessary and the client cannot buy it himself. Then we examine what the best way is to buy the
needed clothes, and if that is with a mentor, he or she goes with the client. We try to make them as
little dependent as possible”. Team member mentioned that the client is more central now and rules
should be challenged sometimes.
42
70
60
50
40
Client oriented
Others oriented
30
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.14 – Orientation of activities (two categories) at Team A.
In team A there was also made a second distinction in activities. This resulted in the same outcome as
the first distribution. The direct client contact increased from 50 to 55 percent (as displayed in figure
4.15). Both the indirect contact moments and the remaining tasks decreased after the project was
implemented. The decrease in remaining tasks has emerged, according to one of the employees, due to
splitting the team. This bifurcation caused that the administration of one group is divided over a
smaller amount of team members. One stated: “The short communication lines ensure that we are
more up to date of the tasks that still need to be performed. Because we feel responsible for our part of
the administration, we can work more efficient and tasks can be accomplished faster”.
It is possible that the decrease in administrative tasks is actual even bigger since the team participates
simultaneously in another project. This implementation of the electronic client dossier is central in this
project. “All client dossiers need to be digitalized” stated a few respondents. Entering all files into the
computer is labor intensive work and increased the level of administration. When this additional work
is disregarded, the amount of administrative tasks could even be lower than the indicating results.
43
60
50
40
Direct client contact
30
Indirect client contact
Remaining activities
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Graph 4.15 – Orientation of activities (three categories) at Team A.
Team activity pattern ‘team B’ – Either in this team an increase in client oriented tasks was
observed. Those tasks rose from 56 percent up to 62 and is showed in figure 4.16. Automatically, the
otherwise-oriented tasks decreased with 6 percent. This increase may have been caused by the staff
numbers since the understaffing problem was soled in the past year.
70
60
50
40
Client oriented
Others oriented
30
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.16– Orientation of activities (two categories) at Team B.
The division of activities into three categories is presented in figure 4.17. The remaining tasks
increased with 1 percent to 17 percent of the total time. This increase may was devoted to the extra
44
tasks resulting from the understaffing. Employees mentioned that both clients and employees really
suffered from this understaffing. A lot of temporary employees worked on team who were not able to
perform all administrative tasks which regular employees should perform. This caused more
administrative tasks for the small team. However, it is important to mention that the amount of
remaining tasks is rational low compared to the other teams in the experimental group. The small
increase in remaining activities had not been detrimental to the amount of direct client contact. Direct
client contact increased from 49 percent to 52. A decrease of 4 percent was observed at the indirect
tasks. According to the respondents they experienced a lot of time constrains which hold them from
performing more client oriented tasks. They also stated that they tried very hard to centralize the client
more and a few extra activities were performed.
60
50
40
Direct client contact
30
Indirect client contact
Remaining activities
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.17 – Orientation of activities (three categories) at Team B.
Activity pattern ‘Team C’ – The smallest change was observed at team C. Figure 4.18 shows the
client oriented tasks which were slightly increased at time 1 compared to time 0. The degree of client
oriented tasks increased from 60 to 62 percent. Respondents explained that their team activity pattern
did not changed that much because they already worked very client oriented. Although client oriented
activities were above 60 percent from the start, it is still a smaller amount than the start of team A. The
explanation of the respondents does not seem to imply.
45
70
60
50
40
Client oriented
Others oriented
30
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.18 – Orientation of activities (two categories) at Team C.
In figure 4.19 a small decrease in direct client contact is observed. The remaining tasks decreased
from 25 to 20 percent as well. The change in indirect client contact was opposite to the change in
remaining tasks. Indirect client contact increased from 24 to 30 percent. The results of the time
registration were not the same as the result of the interviews. Employees mentioned that they did not
change very much with regard to the division of time. Additionally they stated many times that they
already had a very high portion of client oriented time and a small portion of remaining tasks. These
results were contradicted by the results of the time registrations.
46
60
50
40
Direct client contact
30
Indirect client contact
Remaining activities
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.19 – Orientation of activities (three categories) at Team C.
Team activity pattern control group – The first team in the control group was team D. It showed a
reasonable low level of client oriented tasks. Especially when it was compared to the average level of
the control group. The time distribution of all teams of the control group is presented in figure 4.20
and 4.21. In this figures are the differences between the teams clearly observable. Because none of the
respondents indicated that team activity pattern had positively changed in the past year, all three teams
are presented in one figure. The scores of time 0 are approximate and based upon the interviews.
80
70
60
Client oriented 'team D'
50
Client oriented 'team E'
Client oriented 'team F'
40
Others oriented 'team D'
30
Others oriented 'team E'
Others oriented 'team F'
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Figure 4.20 – Orientation of activities (two categories) control group.
47
In figure 4.10 the division of activities in three categories is presented for the control group. Also in
the figure is observed that team D has the lowest level of direct client contact. In addition, the indirect
client contact and the remaining activities are way higher. In the interviews it was mentioned that
employees experience a lot of cost-cutting actions by the management. It was stated considerable
more than in other interviews that fewer hours and money is available compared to a few years ago.
Also the supervisor argued that employees experience high pressure which is according to the
supervisor not actual true.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 0
Time 1
Direct client contact
'team D'
Direct client contact
'team E'
Direct client contact
'team F'
Indirect client contact
'team D'
Indirect client contact
'team E'
Indirect client contact
'team F'
Remaining activities
'team D'
Remaining activities
'team E'
Remaining activities
'team F'
Figure 4.21 – Orientation of activities (thee categories) control group.
In figure 4.20 the division of activities in two categories is presented. Team E performs a very high
amount of client oriented tasks, namely above 70 percent. The interviews revealed a different result
than the time registrations. Employees indicated that they experience a lot of time pressure. One of
them even said: “sometimes I feel guilty when I go home because I am not sure whether all clients got
enough attention”. The team activity experienced by employees is far less client oriented.
In figure 4.21 the division of tasks in three categories is presented. These outcomes are in accordance
with the outcomes in figure 4.20. Employees mentioned in the interviews that they have a hard time
with mentoring new employees. They stated that there is a lack of time to instruct new employees
correctly and that this results in the long run in more work pressure. Again, the experienced time
differs from the actual measured times.
The results in figure 4.20 showed team F had the highest amount of client oriented tasks of all teams.
However, the results of the interviews partial contradicted this finding. Employees mentioned that
clients have less need for collective moments compared to a year before. In addition it was stated that
48
the time registrations were conducted during a holiday resulted in less work pressure. It is assumed
that the results of team F appears to be excessive.
Looking at the division of tasks in three categories resulted in the same outcomes. The direct client
contact is by far the highest of all teams. Approximately 65 percent of the time is spend in direct
contact with the client. This may have been caused by the holiday period. One employee stated: “I am
glad when all clients have returned from their holiday. It was very quiet in the past six weeks.
However, it is noticed that the sphere is more relaxed during these weeks. Conversations are more
spontaneous and very pleasant”.
4.5 Mechanisms between the variables
The interviews provided a few mechanisms which may explain the relationships between the
variables. Respondents argued why they thought autonomy resulted in more client oriented activity
patterns or how a more client oriented team activity pattern resulted in higher team performance.
However these explanations did not confirmed the existence of the mediating effect of team activity
pattern on the relationship between autonomy and team performance.
First of all, the possible explanations for the relationship between autonomy and team activity pattern
are described. Respondents of team A mentioned that they became more aware of the time they spent
on activities they performed. Because they have more shared responsibility they are more conscious of
their time and consequently divided their time different. Secondly, they mentioned that they were now
aware of the possibilities they have. Since they have more freedom they are able to deal with more
possibilities for the contact moments with clients. The third reason they gave is that they got more
freedom to act since they had a new supervisor. This supervisor was appointed before the experiment
started so did not influenced the project. The last reason mentioned was the experiment itself. The
notion that they participate in an experiment gave them more autonomous feelings and did make them
change their activity patterns.
Respondents of team B only could give one explanation. They mentioned that they got more freedom
since they participated in the experiment and therefore changed their team activity pattern.
A few explanations were provided at team C. First of all, they mentioned that experience, personal
development and learning abilities were things which made autonomous employees or an autonomous
team change the team activity pattern. According to them, experience for example ensured that
employees were able to change activities in the correct way. The second explanation was partly
related to the first, and was about prioritizing. They mentioned that employees who were able to set
priorities correctly, were also able to divide time in the right way. The last explanation they argued
was that clear expectations helped employees to divide their time proper.
49
The relationship between team activity pattern and team performance was less clear to the employees.
Only a few explanations were argued in the three experimental teams. Respondents of team A
mentioned only that if their team activity pattern is more flexible, they have more time to think of
alternatives which increases clients’ well-being. If they do not have a flexible activity pattern, things
will always be done the same way and there is no time to improve things.
Also respondents of team B provided one possible explanation for the relationship. They stated simply
that the flexible team activity pattern resulted in organizing more activities. They said that clients’
well-being increased because of this additional activities.
In accordance, also team C mentioned one possible explanation. They argued several times that the
housing type, namely the parent initiated accommodation ensured that the flexible team activity
pattern resulted in higher team performance. They stated that the vision of the initiators of the location
ensured that they all focus more on results.
50
5. CONCLUSION
In this chapter the answer on the research question is described. First, a summary of the results is
presented. Then, the answer on the research question is provided as well as the conclusions which
resulted from the differences between the teams.
5.1 Summary
Overall, at each team within the experimental group, autonomy was increased. Whether it was in team
autonomy, individual autonomy or both. The degree of autonomy was much lower at the control
group. No changes in the level of autonomy occurred at the control group.
The experimental group performed more client oriented tasks after the intervention. However, the
control group still showed more client oriented tasks both before and after the intervention. An
increase in direct client contact occurred at the experimental group. But again, the control group still
showed more direct client contact. At the experimental group, both indirect client contact and the
remaining activities decreased after the intervention. The control group scored lower at these two
categories than the experimental group.
The last variable was team performance, measured as the average score on clients’ well-being. The
experimental group scored significantly higher after the implementation than before. The average
clients’ well-being at the experimental group increased from 7,011 in T0 to 7,379 in T1. Between the
experimental group and the control group no significant difference was found. However, the
experimental group scored higher in T1 than the control group, respectively 7,379 and 7,018.
5.2 Conclusions
The first aim of this research was to examine if the relationship between autonomy and team
performance with the mediating effect of team activity pattern exists. Following the results at the
experimental group, a positive relationship between the variables is assumed. Autonomy and team
performance both increased and the team activity pattern was more client oriented. When the three
experimental teams were analyzed separately, this relationship was also observed. Team A and B both
had an increase in autonomy, an increase in client oriented time of at least six percent and an increase
in team performance of at least 0,4. In contrast, at team C autonomy also increased, but a decrease at
direct client contact and team performance was observed. In the third paragraph of this section, an
explanation is given why also team C seemed to confirm the positive relationship between the
variables.
The control group did not show any change in the variables and therefore it was assumed that changes
at the experimental group were dedicated to the results of the project. However, one inconsistent
finding was found at the control group when the absolute scores were considered. Although the
51
control group scored lower on both autonomy and team performance, the team activity pattern was
more client oriented at the control group. The explanation for this inconsistent finding was not found
in the existing data. It may indicate a limitation on the measurement of team activity pattern at the
control group. Data was gathered in July and August which may was during the holiday period. This
could have resulted in a more client oriented team activity pattern since employees had limited other
work than client contact.
Thirdly, it was concluded that both high individual autonomy and high team autonomy resulted in a
less client oriented activity pattern. This negative relationship was also applicable when both
individual and team autonomy were low. Team C scored both high on individual autonomy and on
team autonomy, which resulted in less direct client contact and a very small increase in client oriented
activities. This was also the case for team D, although at team D a low score was observed both on
individual autonomy and on team autonomy. None of the other teams, both in the experimental group
and the control group, scored as low on direct client contact as teams C and D. In addition, the
increase in client oriented time at team C was very small in comparison to team A and B. It can be
concluded that high (or low) levels of both individual and team autonomy at the same time, resulted in
low levels of direct client contact and client oriented time. The reason for this negative relationship
between autonomy at both levels and client oriented time could be that employees did not know what
they needed to perform when they had a lot of individual freedom and freedom as a team. When an
employee has a high degree of individual autonomy, he for example can decide for himself the
sequencing of his activities. In case he participates in a team which also has a very high degree of
team autonomy, the team can also decide on the sequencing of their team activities. It could be very
confusing for this employee to decide on the sequencing of his activities, and he may not decide at all.
In addition, when an employee has no decision power at all, not on his own tasks or in the team, an
employee is probably less satisfied and puts less effort to his tasks. The best option is to optimize
either individual autonomy or team autonomy, like team A and B did.
In summary, it can be concluded that there is a positive relationship between autonomy and team
performance which was mediated by team activity pattern. This finding is consistent with the
hypothesis which had been drawn in advance. In case one of the two components of autonomy
(individual or team) is high, both client oriented time and team performance increase (see team A and
B). In addition, it can be concluded that when both components of autonomy (individual and team)
were high or low, a decrease in direct client contact and a decrease in team performance emerged.
The second aim of this research was to understand how team activity pattern mediates the relationship
between autonomy and team performance. During the interviews, each team provided a few
explanations about the possible functioning of the relationship. It was clear that the functioning of the
relationship between autonomy and team activity pattern was more evident than the relationship
between team activity pattern and team performance. Eight different explanations were mentioned for
52
the first relationship, namely: being aware of time division, being aware of the possibilities you have,
the supervisor gives freedom, the experiment itself, experience and personal development, the ability
to set priorities, establish clear expectations and shared responsibilities. According to the employees of
the various teams, these mechanisms ensured that autonomy led to changes in the team activity
pattern.
The second relationship was observed between team activity pattern and team performance. For this
relationship three explanations of the mechanism were mentioned. However, it was less clear how this
relationship functioned. The three explanations were: having the time to think of alternatives which
increases clients’ well-being, having the possibility to organize more activities and the housing type
which was in that case a parent initiated accommodation. According to the employees, these three
facets ensured that a client oriented team activity pattern resulted in higher team performance.
In the introduction, it was stated that healthcare professionals spend on average 40% of their workday
on administrative tasks. Before the project, the experimental group was part of this group (41% others
oriented activities). However, after the implementation of the project they did not belong to this group
anymore (36% others oriented activities). So, it could be concluded that certainly one of the goals of
the project was achieved.
53
6. DISCUSSION
The first part of this chapter discusses the theoretical implications of the research. Then, a critical
reflection is conducted on the limitations of the research. Finally, recommendations are made for
future research.
6.1 Theoretical implications
In section six point one the theoretical implications of the findings are discussed. Taken theory in
mind, the impact of the findings is described. This section starts with the major findings of the
research, then discusses the meaning and importance of this findings, subsequently the relation with
previously done research is discussed and at last an alternative explanation of the findings is
described.
6.1.1 Major findings of the study
The findings of the research confirmed the assumed positive relationship between autonomy and team
performance with the mediating effect of team activity pattern. In case either individual autonomy or
team autonomy is high, team activity pattern becomes more client oriented and team performance
increases. In case both individual autonomy and team autonomy are high (or both low), team activity
pattern becomes less client oriented and team performance decreases. Eight mechanisms explain the
functioning of the relationship between autonomy and team activity pattern. In addition, three
mechanisms explain the relationship between team activity pattern and team performance.
6.1.2 Meaning and importance of the findings
The first major finding is that if either individual autonomy or team autonomy is high, the team
activity pattern becomes more client oriented and team performance increases. This first finding is
applicable on both team A and team B of the experimental group. Team A and B scored different on
the various indicators of autonomy. In specific, team A scored high on team autonomy and in
particular they scored on five of the six indicators (83,3%). Team B scored high on individual
autonomy and in particular they scored on three of the eight indicators (37,5%). These findings imply
that team A has a high degree of team autonomy and that this team autonomy is also applicable on
many areas. In contrast, team B has a high degree of individual autonomy, however, team members
are only autonomous on a few areas. Besides, the members of team B are able to decide on how to
perform their tasks, but not on when to perform their tasks, the sequencing of their tasks or their
objectives. It is clear that team A has autonomy at many different areas in contrast to the members of
team B who are autonomous only on a few areas. However, from these results it is not clear whether
individual or team autonomy is more desirable. Although the changes at team B resulted in a very
large increase in team performance, the high degree of team autonomy at team A resulted in
the
intended change at team activity pattern. This pattern was not only more client oriented, but also
54
showed a decrease in remaining activities and indirect client contact. Besides, the employees of team
A could name way more mechanisms for the occurred relationships which indicates that team A was
more involved in the experiment. Besides, the increase in team performance of team B could also have
an alternative explanation, like the improvement in the understaffing problems. Summarized, the
results at team B are not necessarily better or worse than the results of team A.
The second major finding of this research was that if both individual- and team autonomy are high (or
both low), the team activity pattern becomes less client oriented and team performance decreases. This
finding is applicable on team C and indicates that employees who have a lot of freedom to decide on
their own tasks and who are in a team which has a lot of freedom to decide on their tasks are not able
to change their activity pattern to a more client oriented one. Since team C scored on five of the eight
indicators (62,5%) of individual autonomy and on four of the six indicators (66,7%) of team
autonomy, both levels of individual- and team autonomy are considered to be strong and diverse. It is
possible that team C did not suffered from the high scores on both individual- and team autonomy in
case they scored only strong on the indicators and not also divers.
The third major finding of this research were the eight mechanisms which explains the relationship
between autonomy and team activity pattern. Each of these mechanisms is now discussed in detail and
in addition a suggestion is made to which component of autonomy they relate. It is assumed that three
mechanisms relate to individual autonomy, namely: being conscious of the division of time, having
the ability to set priorities and finally experience and personal development of employees. Being
conscious of the division of time is about employees who divide their time to the various tasks not
automatically. Administrative tasks for example are performed when clients are not around. The
ability to set priorities is about employees who can judge which tasks is important at which time.
Experience and personal development is about the length of time that an employee is working at the
team and the amount of learnt lessons in that time. These three mechanisms make an employee with a
lot of individual autonomy make his part of the team activity pattern more client oriented which in
turn increases team performance. One mechanisms relates to team autonomy, namely shared
responsibilities. Shared responsibilities ensure shared goals and a focus on the same things. Within the
experiment this focus was on clients’ well-being which resulted in a more client oriented team activity
pattern. The other four mechanisms could both relate to individual autonomy and to team autonomy.
First of all the experiment itself was mentioned implying that the experiment legally ensured more
freedom and in addition it was a official message that employees got more freedom. Besides, it is
possible that employees had the feeling that they had to set a good performance during the experiment.
Secondly, the supervisor at one of the teams was mentioned. A supervisor is a very important person
who can stimulate autonomous employees or an autonomous team to perform as intended. The
supervisor could have stimulate and motivate employees to actual change the team activity pattern
since employees were able to it. Thirdly, employees and the team both need to know what their
55
possibilities are. If employees have freedom they also need to be aware of the possibilities in which
they can invest their time. For example whether or not it is possible to go to the cinema with a client.
The last mechanism is applicable to both the individual and the team, which is obtaining clear
expectations. For both the individual and the team it is important to obtain clear expectations since
they otherwise do not know what to change at their team activity pattern.
The last major finding of this research were the three mechanisms which explain the relationship
between team activity pattern and team performance. The first mechanism is about time to think of
alternatives which increases clients’ well-being. When employees do not have space within their
activity pattern to try new things and think of alternatives, they will be stuck in routines and not
improve clients’ well-being. Secondly, sometimes more is needed than time to improve clients’ wellbeing. For example the possibilities to organize more activities and thus money. A team can have a
very flexible team activity pattern but in case there is no possibility to organize more activities,
clients’ well-being does not increase. Finally, the housing type is mentioned a few times which
functions as a mechanism between a flexible team activity pattern and an increase in team
performance. The team which mentioned the housing type as mechanism had ‘the parent initiative’ as
housing type which implies that this type of housing positively influence team performance in case of
a flexible team activity pattern.
6.1.3 Relation to previously done research
This section presents the differences and similarities between this research and the studies of Langfred
(2000), Langfred (2005), and Cordery, et. al (2010). These studies are compared with this research
since they have roughly the same research question or design.
Langfred (2000) examined the effect of both individual- and group autonomy on team effectiveness
with the mediating effect of group cohesiveness. He stated that work group autonomy is similar to
team autonomy and he uses the terms interchangeably. Although team autonomy is both studied in
this research and in the study of Langfred (2000), his study differs in the dependent variable. Langfred
(2000) studied the effect on team effectiveness, what according to Cordery, et. al (2010) differs from
team performance. Cordery, et. al (2010) suggest in their research that team performance is a part of
team effectiveness, and thus not the same variable.
Langfred (2000) referred to group cohesiveness as the extent to which group members like, and
interact with, other group members and want to remain part of the group. The results of Langfred
(2000) indicate partial support for the hypothesis that group autonomy results in more cohesive
groups. In addition, strong support is found for the negative relationship between individual autonomy
and group cohesion. In reaction to this findings, partial support is found for the hypothesis that group
cohesiveness mediates the relationship between group autonomy and team effectiveness. However, for
56
the hypothesis that group cohesiveness mediates the relationship between individual autonomy and
team effectiveness is found strong support.
The study of Langfred (2000) and this research agree on the relationship between both group- and
individual autonomy and group effectiveness. It is suggested that both levels of autonomy could
influence team effectiveness at the same time. However, the findings of Langfred (2000) also differ
with the findings of this research. Langfred (2000) found a negative relationship between individual
autonomy and team effectiveness through the mediating effect of group cohesiveness. The findings of
this research indicate at both levels of autonomy a positive relationship with team performance. These
differences in findings are probably explained by the mediator Langfred (2000) studied. However, it is
striking that his results were not observed at this research. Team B of this research scored high on
individual autonomy, the negative relationship with group cohesiveness should, according to Langfred
(2000), result in a decrease in team performance, which was not the case. In contrast, at team B the
increase in team performance was largest of all teams. A possible explanation may be found in the
dependent variable, since Langfred (2000) studied team effectiveness and this research examined team
performance. Perhaps, this negative relationship has only effect on an alternative part of team
effectiveness and not on the part of team effectiveness which was studied here.
In the last section of his study, Langfred (2000) mentioned that autonomy at the team level may
conflict with autonomy at the individual level, which also resulted from this research. He stated that
“An organization could thus experience little or no results from empowering employees, if such
empowerment included granting autonomy at both individual and group levels” (Langfred, 2000, p.
581). Although a different mediator is examined, both studies indicate the negative result of at the
same time empower employees at the individual level and at the team level. According to Langfred
(2000), the countervailing influence of both levels of autonomy on the mediator explains this result.
Still this explanation is not applicable on this research since both levels of autonomy resulted in a
positive effect on team activity pattern.
The second research which represents a lot of similarities with this research is a later study of
Langfred (2005). He examined the effect of both individual- and team autonomy on team performance
with the moderating effect of task interdependence. An important difference is the moderating effect
he examined instead of the mediating effect examined in this research.
Task interdependence, which moderates the relationship between autonomy and team performance,
was defined as “the degree to which the interaction and coordination of team members are required to
complete tasks” (Langfred, 2005, p. 514). Both task interdependence of Langfred (2005) and team
activity pattern of this research are measured on team level. Langfred (2005) indicates that team
performance is influence by the optimal combination of individual- and team autonomy and that this
combination depends on the level of task interdependence.
57
Langfred (2005) suggest with his findings that teams characterized by high task interdependence had a
better performance with high levels of team autonomy, but worse with high levels of individual
autonomy. It is interesting to see what the results of Langfred (2005) indicate for this research. It is
assumed that the level of task interdependency differs between the six teams. Two possible directions
are considered. First, it is assumed that the more complex the target audience, the higher the level of
task interdependence since a complex target audience has a lot of, and hard to accomplish, goals.
These goals request for a close collaboration between employees which make their tasks highly
interdependent. According to the study of Langfred (2005), team B has a high degree of task
interdependence (complex target audience) and thus will perform best with high levels of team
autonomy and worse with high levels of individual autonomy. This is at odd with the findings of this
research since team B has a high level of team performance and a high level of individual autonomy.
However, it is also possible that a team which serves a complex target audience has a low degree of
task interdependence since a complex target audience requires way more individual care. In a team
with a less complex target audience, care is provided more collectively which makes tasks more
interdependent. For example, clients of team A does collectively exercise each Monday which results
in a higher task interdependency at team A. In this case, a high degree of team autonomy is preferred
at team A in order to get a high degree of team performance, which is in line with this research.
Altogether, it is not clear what the degree of task interdependence is at the participating teams of this
research. However, it will vary between target audience and housing type.
The last study which is compared to this research is the study of Cordery et. al (2010). They examined
by means of a quasi-experiment the effect of team autonomy on team performance with the
moderating effect of task uncertainty. However the study of Cordery et. al (2010) differs most with
this research compared with the above mentioned studies, the research design of the study of Cordery
et. al (2010) is most similar to this research.
The dependent variable of the study of Cordery et. al (2010) is also comparable to the dependent
variable of this research. Both studies examined the effect of autonomy on team performance, in
which team performance was measured as a quality indicator. However, Cordery et. al (2010)
examined the effect on the quality of water and this research studied the effect on quality of care. In
other words, the sector differs very much, besides water quality is mostly a more objective measure
than quality of care.
Task uncertainty is the examined moderating team level variable, and is defined as “a team’s lack of
prior knowledge about which operational problems will arise when, and the best way of dealing with
them” (Cordery, Morrison, Wright, & Wall, 2010, p. 240).
Cordery et. al (2010) did not found a direct relationship between team autonomy and team
performance which is consistent with this research. Although team A has the highest degree of team
58
autonomy as well as the highest level of team performance, this relationship was not observed at any
of the other teams.
The main findings of Cordery et. al (2010) were that higher task uncertainty initially was associated
with reduced performance. In case of increased team autonomy, a positive relationship appeared
between task uncertainty and team performance. In other words, the positive relationship between
team autonomy and team performance is stronger under condition of high levels of task uncertainty.
Because of the professionalization in the disability sector, it is assumed that tasks have a low degree of
task uncertainty. Employees work most on routine basis during their caring responsibilities, besides
during unintended events most of them have the ability to act intuitively. According to the study of
Cordery et. al (2010), the positive relationship between team autonomy and team performance is
weaker because of the low degree of task uncertainty, which is a contradiction finding with this
research. Perhaps the findings of Cordery et. al (2010) are not applicable to the healthcare sector since
the aforementioned study is conducted in a large water utility organization in Australia.
Next to generalizability issues, the interaction effect of individual- and team autonomy is not
examined which makes it hard to compare the results of this research with the results of Cordery et. al
(2010).
Finally, Cordery et. al (2010) mention the possible occurrence of the Hawthorne effect, which may
also be applicable on this research. The Hawthorne effect is about people under study demonstrate
different behavior because they are aware of the fact they are observed. In addition, they may give
desirable answers during interviews. Cordery et. al (2010) described “one team member said: ‘once
we knew that we could do certain things without waiting for higher-up approval, we just did’”
(Cordery, Morrison, Wright, & Wall, 2010, p. 256). Kinds like this citation were also mentioned
during the interviews of this research so the Hawthorne effect could also be applicable to this research.
In summary, since a lot of similarities and differences were observed between this research and
previously studies, this research contributes to the existing literature by making previous results more.
More empirical data is now available on the possible mediators between autonomy and team
performance. In addition, the assumption that both individual- and team autonomy could have
countervailing effects is also in this research confirmed. The ideal combination of individual- and
team autonomy depends not only on team activity pattern, but may also depend on group
cohesiveness, task interdependence, and task uncertainty. On the basis of this research it is impossible
to conclude which type of autonomy should be optimized at each team.
6.2 Limitations
In this section the limitations of the research are discussed. First of all, this research is performed in
such a specific context which makes the generalizability low. In order to test this external validity, the
research processes were described in detail so that the research can easily be replicated.
59
Second, the reliability is decreased because not all descriptive statistics were collected during the first
measurement moment of the control group. It is assumed that there are no differences compared to the
second measurement moment since there is no treatment at the control group. To test this assumption,
questions were asked about this assumption during the interviews at the control group.
Thirdly, the internal validity might be affected because the cases in this research are not randomly
selected. Differences between the experimental- and control group may be the result of other aspects
than the treatment. Interviews were used to determine possible differences between the two groups.
Next, the control group is selected because it matched as good as possible with the experimental
group. However, teams in the control group participated voluntarily which perhaps results in teams
scoring extremely high or low. And although the control group is similar to the experimental group in
housing type, target audience and functions of employees, they still differ very much from each other.
It is difficult to draw unambiguous conclusions from six various cases.
Retrospective measure in the control group is not very reliable. Although it is better than no first
measurement at all, the effects of this alternative measurement should be taken in mind. Perhaps
employees did not mention that team performance at the control group increased as well.
The team performance measurement was quite subjective, resulting in difficult to compare data
between teams. Although it is a useful instrument to compare teams through time, the absolute
numbers are less valuable. In addition, it is important to mention that team performance exists of
many other indicators than just clients’ well-being. If other indicators were included in this research,
perhaps different results would have appeared. However, team performance is difficult to measure in
healthcare and especially in mentally disabled care.
6.3 Future research
This last section discusses some recommendations for future research. Although this research
contributes to the existing literature, still little is known about the variables which mediates the
relationship between autonomy and team performance.
First of all, the mediating effect of team activity pattern between autonomy and team performance
should be examined in other parts of the healthcare sector. Although this research confirmed the
mediating effect of team activity pattern, it is a contribution to know whether this relation is also
applicable at the, for example, elderly care or the hospital. These kind of studies will make the
findings of this study more generalizable.
Besides, the variable team activity pattern should be studied in detail. It is assumed that team activity
pattern will have a great influence on the quality of care, especially for chronically sick or disabled
people. The assumed influence of team activity pattern on team performance was confirmed with this
research, however, still little is known on the functioning of this relationship. The mechanism of this
60
relationship need to be researched in detail. A larger sample will result in more generalizable
mechanisms.
More research is needed on possible moderating and mediating variables between autonomy and team
performance. Especially empirical data obtained from experiments is most valuable since the
mechanisms may be better identified. Future research should eventually show what the ideal
combination of individual- and team autonomy is. Besides, it should be examined whether both forms
result in countervailing effects or not.
61
LITERATURE REFERENCES
Agarwal, S. (1999). Impact of Job
Formalization and Administrative
Controls on Attitudes of Industrial
Salespersons. Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 28, 359–368.
Au, K., & Cheung, M. W. (2004). Intracultural Variation and Job Autonomy
in 42 Countries. Organization Studies,
Vol. 25, 1339-1362.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case
Study Methodology: Study Design and
Implementation for Novice
Researchers. The Qualitative Report,
Vol. 13, 544-559.
Bleijenberg, N., ten Dam, V. H., de Wit, M. E.,
Drubbel, I., Numans, M. E., de Wit, N.
J., & Schuurmans, M. J. (2013).
Development of a Proactive Care
Program (U-CARE) to Preserve
Physical Functioning of Frail Older
People in Primary Care. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 45, 230–
237.
Boeije, H. (2010). Doing Qualitative Analysis.
In J. Gelissen, Qualitative Research
Methods (pp. 63-91). London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The Measurement of
Work Autonomy. Human Relations,
Vol. 38, 551-570.
Carpenter-Aeby, T., Aeby, V. G., & Mozingo,
M. (2011). A Practice Evaluation of
Professional Learning Communities
among School Social Workers Using a
Recollection Proxy Pretest Design.
Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, Vol. 21, 766-783.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007).
Research methods in education.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., &
Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of
autonomy and task uncertainty on
team performance: A longitudinal field
study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31, 240-258.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design:
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic
Motivation and Self-Determination in
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum
Press.
Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. The
science of well-being: Social
Indicators Research Series, Vol. 37,
11-58.
Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002).
Effects of rotated leadership and peer
evaluations on the functioning and
effectiveness of self-managed teams: a
quasi-experiment. Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 55, 929-948.
Farh, J.-L., & Scott, W. (1983). The
Experimental Effects of "Autonomy"
on Performance and Self-Reports of
Satisfaction. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 203-222.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013).
Employee Empowerment and Job
Satisfaction in the U.S. Federal
Bureaucracy: A Self-Determination
Theory Perspective. The American
Review of Public Administration, 1-27.
Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research
on the happiness measures: a sixty
second index of happiness and mental
health. Social Indicators Research,
Vol. 20, 355-381.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996).
TEAMS IN ORGANIZATIONS:
62
Recent Research on Performance and
Effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psychol,
Vol. 47, 307–338.
Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975).
Development of the Job Diagnostic
Survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60, 159-170.
Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976).
Motivation through the design of
work: test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance,
Vol. 16, 250-279.
Klepeis, N. E., Nelson, W. C., Ott, W. R.,
Robinson, J. P., Tsang, A. M., Switzer,
P., . . . Engelmann, W. H. (2001). The
National Human Activity Pattern
Survey (NHAPS): a resource assessing
exposure to environmental pollutants.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology, Vol. 11,
231-252.
Kramer, M., & Schmalenberg , C. E. (2003).
Magnet hospital staff nurses describe
clinical autonomy. Nursing Outlook,
Vol. 51, 13-19.
In voor zorg. (2013, januari 24). Regelarme
instellingen. Retrieved from In voor
zorg:
http://invoorzorg.nl/ivzweb/experimen
tregelarm.html#
Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of selfmanagement: Individual and group
autonomy in work groups. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21,
563-585.
Joyner, R. L., Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A.
A. (2012). Writing the winning thesis
or dissertation: a step-by-step guide.
Corwin: Sage.
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too Much of a Good
Thing? Negative Effects of High Trust
and Individual Autonomy in SelfManaging Teams. The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47, 385399.
Kastermans, M., Knuvers, K., & Slaets, J.
(2008). Groningen Wellbeing
Indicator. Groningen: UMCG.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task
interdependence and job design: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 31,
145-173.
Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M., Kim, S.-P., &
Wang, J. (2009). Emotional
competence and work performance:
The mediating effect of proactivity
and the moderating effect of job
autonomy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 983-1000.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond
self-management: antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
42, 58-74.
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and
Performance in Teams: The Multilevel
Moderating Effect of Task
Interdependence. Journal of
Management, Vol. 31, 513-529.
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and
Performance in Teams: The Multilevel
Moderating Effect of Task
Interdependence. Journal of
Management, Vol. 31, 513-529.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., &
Jackson, P. R. (2005). Team
Autonomy, Performance, and Member
Job Strain: Uncovering the Teamwork
KSA Link. Applied psychology: an
international review, Vol. 54, 1-24.
Nandhakumar, J. (2002). Managing Time in a
Software Factory: Temporal and
Spatial Organization of IS
63
Development Activities. The
Information Society, Vol. 18, 251-262.
NPCF. (2012, september). Meldpunt 'Meer tijd
voor de cliënt'. Retrieved from
Patiëntenfederatie NPCF:
http://www.npcf.nl/index.php?option=
com_content&view=article&id=4420
&catid=1:help-doe-mee&Itemid=5
Oeseburg, B., Hilberts, R., Luten, T. A., van
Etten, A. V., Slaets, J. P., & Roodbol,
P. F. (2013). Interprofessional
education in primary care for the
elderly: a pilot study. BMC Medical
Education, Vol. 13, 161-168.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006).
Transformational leadership and job
behaviors: the mediating role of core
job characteristics. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49, 327340.
Rosch, D. M., & Coers, N. (2013). How Are
We Educating Agricultural Students?
A National Profile of Leadership
Capacities and Involvement in College
Compared To Non-Agricultural Peers.
Journal of Agricultural Education,
Vol.54, 83 – 96.
Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R.,
Cummins, R. A., Felce, D., Matikka,
L., . . . Parmenter, T. (2002).
Conceptualization, Measurement, and
Application of Quality of Life for
Persons With Intellectual Disabilities:
Report of an International Panel of
Experts. American Association on
Mental Retardation, Vol. 40, 457-470.
Slaets, P. d. (2013). Oude mensen behandelen
aan de grenzen van leefplezier.
PROMs CBO 2 april 2013 (pp. 1-27).
Groningen: The University Medical
Center Groningen.
Spoorenberg, S. L., Uittenbroek, R. J., Middel,
B., Kremer, B. P., Reijneveld, S. A., &
Wynia, K. (2013). Embrace, a model
for integrated elderly care: study
protocol of a randomized controlled
trial on the effectiveness regarding
patient outcomes, service use, costs,
and quality of care. BMC Geriatrics,
Vol. 13, 62-73.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A Meta-Analytic
Review of Relationships Between
Team Design Features and Team
Performance. Journal of Management,
Vol. 32, 29-55.
Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965).
Industrial job and the worker.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Uppal, S. (2006). Impact of the timing, type
and severity of disability on the
subjective well-being of individuals
with disabilities. Social science &
medicine, Vol. 63, 525-539.
van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Vermunt, J. K.,
Kompier, M. A., & Doorewaard, J. A.
(2007). A multi-level mediation model
of the relationships between team
autonomy, individual task design and
psychological well-being. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 80, 647-664.
Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Bouckaert, G., &
Verschuere, B. (2004). The Study of
Organisational Autonomy: A
Conceptual Review. Public
Administration and Development, Vol.
24, 101-118.
Wang, W., Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M.
(2009). A model of how motivating
language moderates the relationship
between job autonomy and worker
outcomes. Motivating Language and
Job Autonomy, 1-9.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research:
Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
64
APPENDIX A
Topiclist teamleider
Introductie
- Inleiden interview + voicerecorder
- Soort locatie
- Soort team
- Doelgroep locatie
- Project regelarm & zorgrijk
Deel I: subjective well-being
- Algemeen geluk locatie
- Uitschieters
- Regie op eigen leven
- Gezondheid
- Eigenheid
- Fijn in eigen huis
- Zinvolle invulling van de dagen
- Sociaal netwerk
- Invloed doelgroep op score
- De gemiddeld score op locatie was ---, overeenkomstig met algemeen beeld locatie?
Deel II: efficiency
- Inwerken medewerkers
- Samenwerking
- Reflectie op knelpunten
- tijdsbeleving
- Omgaan met tijdsdruk
- Voorbeeldgedrag teamleider
Deel III: formalization
- regels wvz
- administratiedruk
- veranderingen wvz
Deel IV: autonomy
Deel V: routine change
Afsluiting
65
APPENDIX B
Topiclist medewerker
Introductie
Inleiding
Locatie
Functie
Project Regelarm & Zorgrijk
Deel I: Regels & administratie
Regels
Vastleggen op papier
Administratiedruk
Verandering tijdens project
Mogelijkheden verlagen administratie
Deel II: Geluk-meting
Geluk-meting
Uitbijter/uitschieters
Regie
Sociaal netwerk
Gezondheid
Fijn in eigen huis
Eigenheid
Zinvolle invulling van de dagen
Invloed doelgroep
Verschil in de praktijk
Deel III: Tijdregistratie
Inzicht tijdindeling
Prioriteit werk
Minder belangrijke activiteiten
Tijdsdruk
Tijdsbeleving cliënten
Verstoringen
Bewuste verandering tijdens experiment
Deel IV: Autonomie
Controle werk
Verantwoordelijkheden
Indicatietijd/eigen inschatting
Regels leidraad/bindend
Deel V: Routines
Diensten op elkaar lijken
Lijn improviserend werken/routine werk
Werken regelarm principe
Verandering werkwijze geluk cliënt
Afsluiting
Vragen?
Bedanken
66
APPENDIX C
Team performance was measured on the basis of this ‘well-being questionnaire’:
Deel I
Geef bij de volgende indicatoren aan was het potentieel is voor de cliënt:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ik heb regie op mijn leven
Ik heb zinvolle invulling van de dagen
Ik heb een prettige woonomgeving (veiligheid, sfeer, inrichting)
Ik heb een sociaal netwerk
Ik ben gezond op lichamelijk, fysiek, psychisch en mentaal gebied
Ik heb een eigen ik
Score
A–B–C–D–E
A–B–C–D–E
A–B–C–D–E
A–B–C–D–E
A–B–C–D–E
A–B–C–D–E
De betekenis van de voorgaande antwoorden:
1. Ik heb regie op mijn leven:
A. Kan geen eigen besluiten nemen, kan geen verantwoordelijkheden aan
B. Kan kleine, operationele besluiten nemen en de gevolgen daarvan overzien (bijv.
wat wil ik op mijn brood?)
C. Kan de regie nemen voor de invulling van een dag(deel) (bijv. ik ga een puzzel
maken, mijn kamer poetsen)
D. Kan de regie nemen voor terugkerende activiteiten (bijv. ik ga schilderen, ik ga in
een atelier werken)
E. Kan de regie nemen over iemand anders of een dier(bijv. op kinderen passen, een
hond nemen)
2. Ik heb zinvolle invulling van de dagen
A. Heeft behoefte aan een zo veel mogelijk vaste structuur, elke dag
B. Heeft behoefte aan een vast weekritme, met variatie per dag
C. Heeft behoefte aan een aantal vaste activiteiten in de dagen en weken, maar
waardeert ook afwijkingen
D. Heeft naast de vaste afspraken ten aanzien van werk en vrije tijd behoefte aan een
afwisselend programma
E. Heeft behoefte aan veel afwisselingen en waardeert verrassingen en afwijkingen
3. Ik heb een prettige woonomgeving (veiligheid, sfeer, inrichting)
A. Sterk/volledig afhankelijk van de omgeving
B. Enigszins afhankelijk van omgeving
C. Neutraal
D. Kan daar enigszins op sturen
E. Kan daar zelf goed op sturen
4. Ik heb een sociaal netwerk
A. Kan zelf geen sociaal netwerk opbouwen en onderhouden
B. Kan met steun een sociaal netwerk onderhouden van familie en/of medebewoners
(intern)
C. Kan met steun een sociaal netwerk onderhouden van familie, medebewoners,
collega’s en vrienden (intern en extern)
D. Kan met steun een sociaal netwerk opbouwen en onderhouden van familie,
medebewoners, collega’s en vrienden (intern en extern)
E. Kan zelfstandig een sociaal netwerk opbouwen en onderhouden van familie,
medebewoners, collega’s en vrienden (intern en extern)
5. Ik ben gezond op lichamelijk, fysiek, psychisch en mentaal gebied
A. Heeft chronische klachten
B. Heeft zeer regelmatig klachten
C. Heeft regelmatig klachten
D. Heeft incidenteel klachten
67
E. Heeft nooit klachten
Ik heb een eigen ik
A. Is zich niet of nauwelijks bewust van het eigen ik
B. Is zich enigszins bewust van het eigen ik
C. Is zich beperkt bewust van het eigen ik
D. Is zich redelijk bewust van het eigen ik
E. Is zich sterk bewust van het eigen ik, dus ook van de handicap, geloof, het ‘zijn’
6.
Deel II
Geef bij de volgende stellingen aan in hoeverre deze indicator van belang is voor de cliënt:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ik heb regie op mijn leven
Ik heb zinvolle invulling van de dagen
Ik heb een prettige woonomgeving (veiligheid, sfeer, inrichting)
Ik heb een sociaal netwerk
Ik ben gezond op lichamelijk, fysiek, psychisch en mentaal gebied
Ik heb een eigen ik
1–2–3–4–5
1–2–3–4–5
1–2–3–4–5
1–2–3–4–5
1–2–3–4–5
1–2–3–4–5
De betekenis van de voorgaande antwoorden:
1. Ik heb regie op mijn leven:
Cliënten moeten eigen keuzes kunnen maken, autonomie hebben, verantwoordelijkheid
dragen, e.d. Dit kan gaan over kleine dingen ´wat eten we vandaag?’ of ‘welke kleren trek ik
aan?’ tot grotere dingen ‘waar ga ik op vakantie?’ of ‘ik neem een hond’.
- Eigen keuzes maken en risico’s nemen
- Vrijheid, zelfstandigheid, zelfbepaling
- Uitdaging krijgen, gestimuleerd worden
- Ook nee kunnen zeggen
- Mogen dromen en wensen
2. Ik heb zinvolle invulling van de dagen:
Dit betreft niet alleen de invulling van de dag met werk en vrije tijdsbesteding maar ook het
patroon in het jaar. Denk daarbij aan vakanties, logeren, e.d. Het gaat hier ook om de variëteit
van activiteiten.
- Afwisseling in de dagen en weken
- Uitdagende werkzaamheden
- Nuttige, leuke vrijetijdsbesteding
- Zelf invulling mogen bepalen (vrije tijd, vakantie)
- Mogelijkheid om te leren en te ontwikkelen
3. Ik heb een gevoel van veiligheid en geborgenheid thuis:
Ik vind de sfeer in huis prettig (met andere bewoners)
Ik vind de voorzieningen in huis prettig (inrichting)
Het is van belang dat een cliënt een fijne woonplek heeft, zowel wat betreft sfeer als
materieel. De woonomgeving moet veiligheid en geborgenheid bieden.
- Veilige omgeving, geborgenheid
- Gezellige, vriendelijke, respectvolle sfeer
- Persoonlijke begeleider die steunt en troost biedt
- Mooie leefplek met een eigen karakter
- Huishouding op orde, hygiënisch
4. Ik heb een sociaal netwerk
Hierbij gaat het niet alleen om de omvang van het netwerk maar ook de variëteit. Dus niet
alleen familie en medebewoners, maar ook een netwerk rondom bijvoorbeeld sport of een
vriendennetwerk om mee op stap te gaan
- Deel uitmaken van de omgeving
- Contact met familie, vrienden en bekenden
- Samen leuke dingen ondernemen
68
5.
6.
- Mensen om je heen waarbij je jezelf kunt zijn
- Netwerk opbouwen en onderhouden
Ik ben gezond (fysiek)
Ik ben gezond (mentaal)
Gezondheid betekent niet alleen lichamelijke gezondheid maar ook psychisch
- Goede gezondheid
- Lekker in je vel zitten, emotioneel in balans
- Balans tussen spanning en ontspanning
- Veiligheid ervaren
- Aandacht voor uiterlijk
Ik heb een eigen ik
Het is van belang dat de cliënt gezien en geaccepteerd wordt met een eigen identiteit, waarbij
er ruimte is voor het eigen ik
- Mogen zijn wie je bent
- Gehoord worden
- Veilig voelen
- Genieten
- Zeggenschap hebben
Deel III
Geef bij de volgende indicatoren aan wat de actuele score is voor de cliënt:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ik heb regie op mijn leven
Ik heb zinvolle invulling van de dagen
Ik heb een prettige woonomgeving (veiligheid, sfeer, inrichting)
Ik heb een sociaal netwerk
Ik ben gezond op lichamelijk, fysiek, psychisch en mentaal gebied
Ik heb een eigen ik
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 10
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 10
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 10
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 10
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 10
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 10
69
APPENDIX D
Principles
1. Quality of life measures
the degree to which
people have meaningful life
experiences that they value.
2. Quality of life
measurement enables people
to move toward a
meaningful life they enjoy
and value.
Guidelines
1. The measurement framework is based on well-established theory of broad life concepts.
- The theoretical framework is comprehensive and multidisciplinary.
2. It is recognized that the meaning of life experiences that are positively valued varies across time and among cultures.
3. The measurement framework provides a clear way to demonstrate the positive values of life.
- Assessment methods provide categories or terminology that describe how life is valued.
- Measurement describes quality of life clearly, using terminology that illustrates the degree to which life experiences are
positively valued.
4. Quantitative measurement of quality of life represents placement on a continuum between the ‘‘best’’ and the ‘‘worst.’’
- Measurement uses clear categories that have an ordinal relationship or terminology that can be clearly related to a best–
worst continuum.
- Measurement scales show life at its ‘‘best’’ at one end of the scale and its ‘‘worst’’ at the other end.
1. Measurement focuses on key aspects of life that can be improved, such as:
- the degree to which basic needs are met,
- the degree of material and social attainment,
- choices and opportunities available and acted upon, and
- the degree to which environments enable people to improve.
2. Measurement is carried out for a clear, practical purpose that supports people moving toward better lives.
- It sets out a clear purpose related to improved policy, service, or individual support.
- It helps identify unmet needs and suggests ways to remediate those unmet needs.
- It helps determine those aspects of a person’s life that are of very good quality for him or her so that quality can continue to
be supported, fostered, and maintained for these aspects of life.
- It is used as baseline and outcome data in evaluation of service delivery or interventions with a view to enhancing the
quality of people’s lives.
- It may differ according to the purpose for which it is being carried out (e.g., education, service, housing, employment)
3. Measurement is described within a framework that is potentially positive, neutral, and negative— suggesting that it is
possible to move toward the very positive.
- Measurement scales clearly show positive, neutral, and negative ratings/scores.
- Measurement methods describe categories or use terminology that is positive, neutral, and negative.
4. Measurement is interpreted within the context of an overall lifespan approach.
- It is interpreted within the age range of those being measured.
- It is interpreted with a view to supporting people in moving smoothly from one life stage to another.
70
3. Quality of life measures
the degree to which life’s
domains contribute to a full
and interconnected life.
4. Quality of life
measurement is undertaken
within the context of
environments that are
important to individuals with
intellectual disabilities:
where they live, work, and
play.
1. Measurement uses a broad range of life domains, which are widely accepted as key indicators of the fullness and
interconnectedness of life.
- Domains are validated by a consensus of a wide range of people.
- Domains are relevant for all people being measured.
- Domains encompass a substantial but discrete portion of the quality of life construct.
- The main domains are the same for people with and those without disabilities. Some domains (e.g., services to people with
disabilities) vary according to the special needs of the group (e.g., people with behavior or emotional problems).
2. Quantitative measurement uses key indicators of the fullness and interconnectedness of life within specific domains.
- There is consensual validation that key indicators adequately reflect the life domain.
- Key indicators may vary for people at various stages of life.
- Key indicators may vary for people within specific cultural environments.
- Key indicators may vary for people with special needs.
3. Qualitative measurement procedures are used to explore and describe a range of aspects within each domain.
1. Proxy measurement (measurement by another person for an individual with intellectual disabilities) is not valid as an
indication of a person’s own perception of his or her life.
- Those who measure quality of life from the perspective of people who are not able to speak for themselves should use
methods such as observation and participant observation that are most applicable to such people.
- Measurement of one person’s quality of life from another person’s perspective might be useful in some instances, such as
when people are not able to speak for themselves and others make life decisions on their behalf, but such measurement should
be clearly identified as another person’s perspective.
2. Measurement takes an ecological approach, viewing the individual in interaction with his or her living environments.
- Interpretation is carried out within the context of the individual’s environment.
5. Quality of life
measurement for individuals
is based upon both common
human experiences and
unique, individual life
experiences.
1. Both objective and subjective (perceptual) measurements are used.
- Either qualitative or quantitative methods or both are used.
- For objective measurement, quantitative instrumentation that reports frequencies and quantities of observable indicators are
employed. Degrees of expressed satisfaction with aspects of life or other kinds of subjective evaluations or descriptions about
people’s lives are employed for subjective/perceptual measurement.
- Subjective measurement has both cognitive and affective components.
2. Measurement allows for weighting of domains and key indicators, according to individual or group significance or value.
Where it is not possible to do this, quality of life measures need to be interpreted in light of significance or value to the
individual.
3. Measurement allows for weighing to reflect individual or group cultural life experiences.
4. In most cases, domain scores and descriptions are more useful and expressive than are the total scores or descriptions
aggregated from separate domain data.
* Adapted from Schalock, et al., (2002), Principles and guidelines for Measuring Quality of Life.
71
APPENDIX E
The form which each employee needed to complete each day during one week in order to measure
team activity pattern:
Activiteit met cliënt
Datum
Starttijd
Eindtijd
Direct cliënt
#
Indirect cliënt con#
contact (face to minuten tact (tbv de cliënt) minuten
Activiteit gericht op
ontwikkeling
Activiteit gericht op
ontspanning
Koken / eten /
drinken mét cliënt
Overig
Contact/ Communicatie
Gesprek met cliënt
Anders (tbv
algeme-ne gang
Contact ouders
Werkoverleg
Contact
dagbesteding
Contact collega('s)
Logistieke looptijd
Overleg
gedragskundige
Contact overige
disciplines
Contact ondersteunende
Contact taxi /
vervoer
Overig
Verzorging /
Verpleging
Verzorging/ verpleging speciaal
Verzorging/ verpleging functioneel
Overig
Medicatie
regelen/bestellen
Huishoudelijk
e taken
Overig
# uren
# min
Huishoudelijk
werk mét cliënt
Gezamenlijk koken
(+
Overig
Boodschappen bestellen en
Huishoudelijk
werk zonder cliënt
Overig
#
totaal #
minuten minuten
0
0
Contact ondersteunende
Overig
Administratie
medicatiebeleid
0
Administratie /
verslaglegging /
financiën
Overig
0
Plannen en
evaluaties
OT aanpassen
Administratie
Prisma
Rooster
Rapportages lezen
en schrijven
Financiën woning
Rapportages lezen
en schrijven
Financiën Prisma
Overig
Overig
0
Overig
Arbo/HACCP/Legionella/Seksualiteit,
Eigen tijd
0
Onbetaalde pauze
Tijdregistratie
experiment
Overig
TOTAAL
Direct cliënt
contact (face to
0
Indirect cliënt contact (tbv de cliënt)
0
Anders (tbv
algeme-ne gang
0
0
Te veel/
Tekort
0
Opmerkingen gebruik 'overig'
72
Opmerkingen 'afwijkend patroon'
APPENDIX F
Test for normality - Complete sample
Variables
W- statistic
Self-determination(2012)
,947*
Self-determination(2013)
,886
Personal development (2012)
,855
Personal development (2013)
,928*
Material well-being (2012)
,925*
Material well-being (2013)
,939*
Interpersonal relationships (2012)
,920*
Interpersonal relationships (2013)
,919*
Psysical well-being (2012)
,937*
Psysical well-being (2013)
,860
Emotional well-being (2012)
,759
Emotional well-being (2013)
,849
Average clients’ well-being (2012)
,980*
Average clients’ well-being (2013)
,945*
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality complete sample.
* W>0,9, variable is normally distributed.
Test for normality - Team A
Variables
Self-determination (2012)
Self-determination (2013)
Personal development (2012)
Personal development (2013)
Material well-being (2012)
Material well-being (2013)
Interpersonal relationships (2012)
Interpersonal relationships (2013)
Psysical well-being (2012)
Psysical well-being (2013)
Emotional well-being (2012)
Emotional well-being (2013)
Average clients’ well-being (2012)
Average clients’ well-being (2013)
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality Team A.
* W>0,9, variable is normally distributed.\
W- statistic
,864
,856
,885
,906*
,913*
,927*
,933*
,889
,949*
,900*
,825
,787
,984*
,936*
73
Test for normality - Team B
Variables
Self-determination(2012)
Self-determination (2013)
Personal development (2012)
Personal development (2013)
Material well-being (2012)
Material well-being (2013)
Interpersonal relationships (2012)
Interpersonal relationships (2013)
Psysical well-being (2012)
Psysical well-being (2013)
Emotional well-being (2012)
Emotional well-being (2013)
Average clients’ well-being (2012)
Average clients’ well-being (2013)
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality Team B.
* W>0,9, variable is normally distributed.
W- statistic
,902*
,999*
,552
,552
,961*
,984*
,961*
,821
,881
,771
,902*
,961*
,939*
,928*
Test for normality - Team C
Variables
Self-determination (2012)
Self-determination (2013)
Personal development (2012)
Personal development (2013)
Material well-being (2012)
Material well-being (2013)
Interpersonal relationships (2012)
Interpersonal relationships (2013)
Psysical well-being (2012)
Psysical well-being (2013)
Emotional well-being (2012)
Emotional well-being (2013)
Average clients’ well-being (2012)
Average clients’ well-being (2013)
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality Team C.
* W>0,9, variable is normally distributed.
W- statistic
,640
,827
,921*
,915*
,805
,861
,496
,915*
,866
,866
,814
,814
,876
,868
74
APPENDIX G
Activities were divided to categories:
Measurement possibility 1:
1. Client-oriented activities
- Activiteit met cliënt gericht op ontwikkeling
- Activiteit met cliënt gericht op ontspanning
- Koken/eten mét de cliënt
- Gesprek met de client
- Verzorging/verpleging speciaal
- Verzorging/verpleging functioneel
- Huishoudelijk werk mét de cliënt doen
- Gezamelijk koken (incl. afwas)
- Contact ouders
- Contact dagbesteding
- Contact collega’s
- Contact overige disciplines
- Overleg gedragskundige
- Contact taxi/vervoer
- Medicatie regelen/bestellen
2. Otherwise-oriented activities
-
Boodschappen bestellen en opruimen
Huishoudelijk werk zonder client
Contact ondersteunende diensten
POP, doelen beschrijven, signaleringsplan, beeldvorming,
voortangsrapportage, evaluatie
OT aanpassen
Financien woning
Werkoverleg
Administratie
Rooser
Financiën Prisma
Arbo/HACCP/Legionella/Seksualiteit
Eigen tijd
Tijdregistratie experiment
75
Measurement possibility 2
1. Direct client contact:
-
Activiteit met cliënt gericht op ontwikkeling
Activiteit met cliënt gericht op ontspanning
Koken/eten mét de cliënt
Gesprek met de client
Verzorging/verpleging speciaal
Verzorging/verpleging functioneel
Huishoudelijk werk mét de cliënt doen
Gezamelijk koken (incl. afwas)
2. Indirect client contact
-
Contact ouders
Contact dagbesteding
Contact collega’s
Contact overige disciplines
Overleg gedragskundige
Contact taxi/vervoer
Medicatie regelen/bestellen
Boodschappen bestellen en opruimen
Huishoudelijk werk zonder client
POP, doelen beschrijven, signaleringsplan, beeldvorming,
voortangsrapportage, evaluatie
OT aanpassen
Financien woning
3. Remaining activities
-
Werkoverleg
Contact ondersteunende diensten
Administratie
Rooser
Financiën Prisma
Arbo/HACCP/Legionella/Seksualiteit
Eigen tijd
Tijdregistratie experiment
76
APPENDIX H
77
78
79
80
APPENDIX I
81
Concept
Individual
autonomy
Team
autonomy
Indicators (Original in English)
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
3. I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work
in the team
4. I have control over the scheduling of my work in the team
5. I have some control over the sequencing of my activities in the
team
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
7. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in
the team
8. I can influence how I am evaluated, so I can emphasize some
aspects of what I do and play down others
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out
work
3. The team can decide when to do particular activities
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
5. The team has control over the sequencing of team activities
6. The team is able to decide team objectives
Indicatoren (Vertaald naar Nederlands)
1. Ik ben vrij om te beslissen hoe ik mijn werk afkrijg
2. Ik ben in staat om zelf te kiezen hoe ik mijn werk binnen het
team uitvoer
3. Ik kan beslissen wanneer ik bepaalde activiteiten uitvoer als
onderdeel van mijn werk in het team
4. Ik heb controle over de planning van mijn werk in het team
5. Ik heb enige controle over de volgorde van mijn werk in het
team
6. Ik kan voor mijzelf beslissen wat mijn doelstellingen zijn
7. Ik heb enige controle over wat ik moet volbrengen in het team
8. Ik kan beïnvloeden hoe ik wordt geëvalueerd, dus ik kan
bepaalde aspecten benadrukken en andere bagatelliseren
1. Het team is in staat om zelf te kiezen hoe het werk uitgevoerd
word
2. Het team is vrij om de methode(s) te kiezen om het werk uit te
voeren
3. Het team kan beslissen wanneer het bepaalde activiteiten
uitvoert
4. Het team heeft controle over de planning van het team
5. Het team heeft controle over de volgorde van de
teamactiviteiten
6. Het team is in staat om te beslissen over teamdoelen
82
Team A
Individual autonomy
Citation
Positive +
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Want ik ga echt niet als ik drie weken op vakantie ben geweest van drie weken de rapportage teruglezen”
- “Wel een vrije rol eigenlijk. Je bent heel erg bezig met zorgen, en dat valt wel binnen bepaalde regels, maar het is niet dat die heel vaak
overtreden worden”
- “Ik denk nooit zo in al die regels. Het gaat meestal ook wel goed. En het is alleen maar fijn dat als je het mag, je het ook niet hoeft te doen.
Dat is wel lekker”
- “En ik denk altijd ik ga het gewoon aan, wel verantwoord, maar ik probeer wel altijd dingen aan te gaan”
- “Het is een beetje een mindset, als ik het los mag laten dan laat ik het ook los. Prima”
- “Dat is zo’n piramide van Maslow ofzo, zo’n behoefte piramide. Met eten en drinken enzo, en uiteindelijk ook autonomie. Dat is gewoon
een behoefte. Een basisbehoefte eigenlijk van de mensen. Dus dan denk ik, ja, waarom niet op je werk, waarom wel thuis?”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Het project was voor mij een vrijbriefje om het zo dan ook te doen. Voorheen werd er dan gezegd ja dat kan zomaar niet, en nu kan ik wel
die keuzes zo maken. Nu mag het dus wel, nu krijg ik de ruimte”
3. I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work in the team
- “De dingen die moeten dus de afspraken en de regels die volg je, dus die cyclus, dat plan, die hou je aan, maar daarin kan ik best veel
schuiven als ik denk nou ik wil het een keer wat vroeger afhebben en als het een keer een week te laat is, dat is niet netjes maar dan is dat
maar zo”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “Dat zie je ook, die nemen ook steeds meer hun rol. Die komen veel meer in positie. Die worden ook veel meer betrokken bij het primaire
proces. Voorheen waren zij ook de uitvoerders en nu komen ze ook met ideeën”
7. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team
- “Ja het kan nou he. Je hebt meer de vrijheid daar ook in, om dat te doen [red. activiteiten organiseren]”
Negative –
3. I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work in the team
- “Dat vind ik ook in een dag overdracht, als er dingetjes staan die moeten gebeuren op een dag. Dan vind ik wel dat je dat ook moet doen,
dan vind ik niet dat je moet denken van, ahg dat doen ze morgen wel. Dan vink ik dat, dat wat op papier staat ook wel echt moet gebeuren”
7. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team
- “Ik vind het fijn dat we een OT hebben, waarin staat wat je nou precies doet. Dat vind ik heel fijn, dan kan je daar op terugvallen. Nee ik
83
Team autonomy
hoef niet veel verantwoordelijkheden, begeleider A hoef ik absoluut niet te worden”
Positive +
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “We doen heel veel omdat het moet, en het is ook echt noodzaak. En ik denk dat we best wel wat los kunnen laten hoor”
- “Iedereen ziet zelf nou dat wil ik graag doen, die doet iets extra’s”
- “We hebben toen wel echt zo’n kaart opgesteld. Voorheen was er ook wel een verdeling hoor, maar dat is eigenlijk wel meer opgesteld nu
eigenlijk. Voor een beetje houvast zeg maar binnen het team”
- “Ja we hebben het er ook met collega’s over gehad en geen bijzonderheden dan hoef je het ook allemaal niet op te schrijven”
- “Een medewerker zei dat een aantal jaar geleden, met name ouders van het ouderinitiatief haar niet zagen staan en nu anders naar haar
communiceren, haar gewoon ook meer aanspreken, vroegen hoe het met haar gaat, haar serieuzer namen in haar rol. En ik zit nu te denken
dat zou best wel eens voort kunnen komen ook uit de gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid die we nemen”
- “Het is echt een flow, en als die flow goed is, dan kan je die met elkaar in stand houden. En dan hoef ik daar niet perse aanwezig te zijn
behalve af en toe om wel die richting te blijven houden zeg maar. Dat hoeft ook niet perse van mij, dat kan ook vanuit het team zijn. Je doet
het toch als groep”
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Hier is het toch wel veel meer die, continu die ondersteuning die altijd zal blijven, met meerdere mensen, waardoor je als een team werkt”
- “Maar hier heb je sowieso ook wel het voordeel dat je doordeweeks altijd wel met elkaar staat, dus je staat wel met drie collega’s dus je kan
altijd even vragen aan je collega. Dus dat is wel een voordeel”
- “Ja ik denk dat we er nog flexibeler in geworden zijn, dat was eigenlijk al wel”
- “Net na nieuwjaar heb ik het een beetje met een grapje gebracht, dan gaan we nu naar een zelfsturend team, dus zo van dat is dan de
volgende stap. Toen schrok iedereen heel erg, terwijl ik het echt zo een beetje als grapje bracht. Zij hadden echt zoiets van wat moeten we
dan nog allemaal nog meer doen, zo. Maar eigenlijk is het wel een logische stap in de van Regelarm Zorgrijk, vraagt ook om vertrouwen,
vraagt om, met vertrouwen dingen uit handen te geven. En te weten dat je een beroep op jet gezond verstand van mensen kunt doen”
3. The team can decide when to do particular activities
- “Iedereen heeft wel een aantal taken. Kijk de ene doet de Arbo, de andere doet seksualiteit, de andere doet de HACCP, dus iedereen heeft
nog wel z’n eigen taken binnen de woonvoorziening maar daar staat niet echt een dag of een tijd voor. Dat doe je als je de ruimte ervoor
hebt. Dan pak je zulke dingen op”
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
- “Dat wij met z’n allen ook heel erg goed nadenken over wat iedereen wil”
- “Als locatie zijn wij wel flexibel. Ja ik merk dat wel, ik vind dat zelf ook wel fijn om flexibel te zijn, daar voel ik mijzelf prettig bij, en
andere ook, dus dat maakt toch dat je met z’n allen toch een beetje meebeweegt”
- “Ja en daarnaast heb je nog andere collega’s die je kunnen helpen en als dat de groep boven is, is dat ook niet erg. We moeten elkaar
84
gewoon helpen want we zijn wel gewoon één team”
6. The team is able to decide team objectives
- “Ik vind ook wel dat iedereen die verantwoordelijkheid mee moet dragen eigenlijk”
- “Ik denk dat we met elkaar met het team ook een beetje moeten kijken van hoe gaan we dat precies doen hoe moeten we de ouders mee bij
gaan betrekken of hoe moeten we dat een beetje gaan vormgeven, het is allemaal nieuw maar wel weer leuk”
- “En ik ben zelf ook heel erg voorstander van om daar het hele team bij te betrekken. En dan niet meestal gebeurd dat met alleen de PB’ers,
die hebben dan de grote lijnen in hun hoofd. Dan hoor ik ook wel op locaties zeggen, en ja de PB’er heeft het zo bedacht dus wij voeren het
zo aan. En dan ja, dat werkt niet. Dat werkt niet omdat je dan niet de gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid hebt. Dan kun je, je daarachter
verschuilen”
- “We doen het echt wel samen, dus daar sluit het wel aan. Als ik mezelf dan daar als beleidsmaker of hoe je het ziet, dan denk ik dan sluit
dat aan omdat we daar samen opgewerkt hebben en samen deze kant op zijn gegaan”
Team activity
pattern
Team performance
Negative –
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Maar ik vind het altijd wel fijn, dat je even in gesprek kunt. En dat doen we eigenlijk te weinig vind ik. Kan nog wel meer, want het is echt
gewoon goed. En je bent dan een soort van, je hebt dan een gedeelde verantwoording he”
- “Ik werk meer met indirect contact en iemand die in de avonduren meer werkt, die minder de kantooruren pakt, die heeft meer direct cliënt
contact”
- “Er is wel meer tijdswinst door bepaalde dingen die je niet meer doet, ik moet eerlijk zeggen dat ik ze ook niet echt kan opnoemen hoor, dat
is wel verminderd, in die zin hou je wel wat meer tijd over”
- “Dan is een keer wel uh, een uitje naar de stad ofzo. Daar ben ik wel heel bewust van. Dat dat af en toe echt wel moet, om het ook leuk te
houden”
- “Je kan wel projecten creëren dat er meer tijd vrij komt. Maar aan de andere kant wordt er gewoon keihard bezuinigd en heb je minder uren
en heb je minder collega’s”
- “Dus automatische het draaiboek aflopen kan ook risico met zich meebrengen dat het maar normaal is dat er bepaalde handelingen
uitgevoerd worden, terwijl er een leerproces inzit en dat iemand ook zelf dingen kan, of kan oppakken”
- “Er is weinig routine wat dat betreft, dat vind ik echt. Ook al heb je een draaiboek, ook al zijn het dezelfde bewoners, ook al draai je elke
keer met dezelfde collega, dan is het elke, elke keer weer anders. Er gebeurd zoveel op de een of andere manier”
- “Als ik iemand niet te pakken krijg dan kan ik wel heel de avond gaan bellen wat ik daar voorheen deed, maar dan denk ik van ja weet je ik
doe het niet ik heb nu mijn dingen te doen, morgen is die collega er en dan vraag ik het wel aan haar”
- “Je bent zo automatisch bezig met zo’n dagprogramma, en daar ben je wel bewust van geworden, en dan denk ik ja”
- “Soms is het zo dat je dan je doelen niet behaald, maar dat iemand wel een prachtig leven heeft ineens, dan kun je je afvragen hoe kan dat
85
Autonomy -> Team
activity pattern
-
Team activity
pattern -> Team
-
nou ineens? Of dat er iets verschrikkelijks gebeurd voor iemand maar dat de doelen wel behaald worden binnen een jaar, en dan is iemand
ook helemaal niet gelukkig”
“Het is gewoon een indicatie, een schatting die je maakt”
“Ja daar zetten we wel op in, ook omdat we vanuit Prisma zo’n sociaal netwerkkaart hebben ingevuld”
“Ik denk dat wij met ons team, en met iedereen hier ook wel echt goed bezig zijn”
“Ik denk dat wij ook wel een leuk team hebben, waar iedereen ook gewoon het altijd zelfs bewerkt”
“Ik denk dat de locatie leuk is, dat het wel een locatie is waar veel mogelijk is waarin wij werken aan het samen dingen doen”
“Ik ben wel, ik en andere, zijn zich wel meer bewust denk ik van wat de cliënt wil”
“Dat het eigenlijk heel vaak kleine dingetjes zijn die bij hun geluk brengt zeg maar, de normale dingetjes zeg maar”
“Ja dat vind ik wel reëel ja. Het kan altijd beter natuurlijk, maar ik vind het wel een heel dikke voldoende eigenlijk ja”
“Maar ik denk dat we daarin ook steeds kritischer worden denk ik. He? Het wordt ook natuurlijk vanzelfsprekend. Dat we zo de zorg
bieden eigenlijk aan hun”
“Ja het netwerk, daar zijn we echt allemaal bewust mee bezig, dat ze toch hun netwerk allemaal wel wat uitgebreid worden”
“Regie is zo toegenomen omdat we daar juist zo mee bezig zijn, wat wil je graag, wat wil je graag doen in de toekomst, wat wil je nu
doen?”
“Ik vind ook wel dat het moet, rapporteren, maar ik vind dat ik zelf vrij weinig rapporteer omdat ik liever dan bezig ben met dingen die er
voor mijn gevoel wel toe doen”
“Uit die meting kwam bijvoorbeeld ook dat als er bij de Albert Heijn boodschappen besteld worden, dat wij die als begeleiders uitpakken,
en geen direct cliënt contact, dus toen zijn we gaan nadenken, hoe kan je daar nou direct cliënt contact van maken?”
“Ik ben wel bewuster geworden van de tijd denk ik. Dat komt toch wel door dat regelarme denk ik ook wel. Maar ook gewoon dat je nou
ook wel eens denkt van nou dat moet gewoon kunnen. We moeten gewoon iets leuks met haar kunnen gaan doen, of met een groepje”
“Je gaat wel anders met je tijd om. Want dan laat je natuurlijk wel eens iets anders liggen wat dan een andere keer opgepakt wordt. Dus je
gaat wel bewuster met je tijd om”
“Je kunt wel zeggen van ze kunnen een ondersteuningsmoment hebben, maar dat hoeft niet altijd op het appartement te zijn voor een
gesprekje bijvoorbeeld. Voor een gesprekje kun je bijvoorbeeld ook de fiets pakken en dan samen gaan fietsen. Of je kunt boodschappen
gaan doen en dan pak je gelijk dat gesprekje onderweg. Dus je gaat wel anders dat indelen ook wel”
“Toen begonnen we ook iets ruimer te denken allemaal [red. bij komst van nieuwe teamleider]. Toen kwam er ook meer tijd om leuke
dingen met cliënten te doen, en dingen die ze nodig hadden”
“Nu mag ik, daarvoor mocht ik nooit. Werd er altijd gezegd nee dat kan zo niet. Dus het geeft mij ruimte. Nou ja, ja de kijkwijze, de visie,
de denkwijze, kijken naar cliënten is echt wel veranderd”
“Tijdsdruk, tijdsnood. Je gaat daarheen, je doet dat je doet dat, weinig tijd om na te denken van, nou wat zullen we dan eens doen. En ooit
is het ook tot stand gekomen, en het is ook onderbouwd”
86
performance
-
“Ja want ze wilde het zo graag, maar daar was geen tijd voor of er was een strak dagprogramma en dat hebben we nu ook wel een beetje
veranderd”
87
Team B
Individual autonomy
Citation
Positive +
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Wat je wel hebt, en dat vind ik wel heel sterk, iedereen wil wel heel graag. Dus wil je een keer iets geregeld of gedaan hebben en je vraag
het, dan gebeurd het eigenlijk ook wel. En de ene het daar wel meer hulp bij nodig dan de ander, of de ene doet er wat langer over dan de
ander, maar iedereen pakt het wel mee op. Dat is wel kenmerkend voor het team”
- “Als je dan krediet hebt opgebouwd kun je wel zeggen van, ik ben nu niet bij jou, maar ik blijf daarna ene kwartiertje langer bij wijzen van
spreken”
- “Van een begeleider A kan je wel verwachten dat ze besluiten nemen en het leuk vinden om die verantwoordelijkheid te hebben. Maar,
zoals ik al zei, het is ook persoonlijkheid. Tussen m’n begeleiders A zie ik ook verschil”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Op het moment dat ik afwijk van bepaalde regeltjes en structuurtjes kan ik het andere collega’s heel erg lastig maken. Dus dat is wel iets
waar ik me heel erg bewust van ben, maar soms heb ik ook gewoon zoiets van, we kunnen dit allemaal wel zo doen, maar we gaan nou dit
doen”
- “Ja het hangt er van af hoe, maar het is natuurlijk heel dikwijls eigen initiatief. Oké werkt dat zo, en als dat dan ook lukt dan is dat ook wel
oké dan is het weer goed. En als het niet lukt, dan is het balen”
- “Nu zie je dat ik veel meer met de PO’ers samen gedaan heb, die het vervolgens naar het andere team gebracht hebben”
- “Ik geef eigenlijk kader waar binnen de dingen geregeld moeten worden, en dan kunnen ze zelf bepalen op welke manier dat wordt
ingevuld, en als ze hun werk doen dan maakt het mij niet uit hoe ze dat invullen”
7. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team
- “Nee ik ben wel iemand die graag een vinger in de pap heeft. Nee weet je, ik vind het wel fijn om mee te kunnen denken in uh, ja wat de
cliënt leuk zou vinden of fijn zou vinden”
- “Als ik er meer uren zou zijn dan zou ik ook meer verantwoordelijkheid pakken zeg maar. En uh, ja ik vind dat gewoon leuk om te doen. Ja
de één heeft dat dan meer eigen dan de ander natuurlijk, en iedereen heeft ook z’n eigen ding”
- “Nou ik merk wel dat er op dit moment toch wel wat actie ondernomen wordt in het doen van leuke dingen met cliënten, dat daar nou wel
echt ruimte voor gemaakt wordt”
- “Ja het wordt altijd wel besproken, nieuwe ideeën zijn welkom. Dat zie ik eigenlijk ook we een beetje als regelarm, dat we niet echt blijven
hangen op zo is het altijd geweest. Nou oké, schiet maar met nieuwe ideeën, worden besproken, is het goed en zien we daar het nut in, dan
gaat het zo gebeuren”
- “Ja je werkt met mensen, dan heb je altijd een grote verantwoordelijkheid. Ik ervaar dat wel zo”
- “Nee want je bent toch eindverantwoordelijke als je hier vast werkt”
- “Medewerkers weten wel waarom ze dingen moeten doen. Het is nu ook steeds minder van Prisma wil dit of zegt dit, maar het is meer
88
-
Team autonomy
geworden, Prisma doet dit omdat het vanuit de overheid de norm is, omdat dit zo moet van bovenaf. Ze begrijpen nu steeds meer waarom,
dat verschil zie ik wel sinds een jaar”
“Medewerkers tonen nieuwe ideeën en initiatieven, hoewel ik dat nu wel meer zie dan eerst. Eerst durfde medewerkers gewoon denk ik niet
zoveel te laten zien. Zoals ik al zei, de individuele medewerker kan daar best wel invloed op hebben. Ik denk dat als er één of twee inzitten
die daarin een bepaalde mening hebben, dat daardoor de rest ook niet altijd heeft kunnen zeggen wat ze er van vonden”
Negative –
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Er komt dadelijk ook, ik ben nu wat eerder, maar er komt dadelijk ook een collega. Ik vind dat wel prettig ja, het lijkt me toch lastig om
het alleen te moeten doen”
- “Je beslist eigenlijk niet, eigenlijk niet makkelijk in je eentje”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Ja je hebt best veel, dan wordt er wel aan je gevraagd ‘nou wat vind je er nou van’, ‘nou dat kunnen we beter zo doen’ dat wordt ook wel
geaccepteerd door de meeste mensen, dan kan dat ook”
- “Nou we, ze, hebben meer besloten om bijvoorbeeld, niet dat je zegt, neem die alleen mee, dan gaan er altijd meer mee”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “Het is fijn om wat verantwoordelijkheden te hebben, maar het moeten er ook niet te veel zijn. Ik vind het zo allemaal wel prima. Ik zou
ook geen begeleider A willen zijn vanwege de verantwoordelijkheden. Daar zit ik gewoon niet op te wachten, ik doe m’n ding en ja..”
Positive +
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Ik denk dat het werken binnen team B in het algemeen zeg maar, dat dat heel erg hier zit, gewoon echt, ja bijna alles routinematig. Met uh,
daarbij denkend wat kunnen we extra doen zeg maar? Binnen die routines om daar toch iets mee te doen”
- “Er wordt een idee geopperd en dan wordt het toch in het team besproken en dan wordt het wel met het team besloten”
- “De leidinggevende die luistert, stelt nog een paar vragen, kijkt, kunnen jullie het onderbouwen. En dan, als iedereen het wil dan wordt het
zo eigenlijk altijd wel, ja mits het mogelijk is he. Dan kan er eigenlijk best veel, het gebeurd wel zo”
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Je bent altijd met z’n tweeën, dus als je twijfelt om een beslissing te nemen dan kun je altijd met een collega overleggen. Maar daar komen
we eigenlijk altijd wel uit”
- “Ik zie ook vaak mailtjes waarin staat je hebt het zo en zo gedaan, de cliënt reageert daar als volgt op en we zien dit steeds terug, kunnen
we het in de toekomst niet beter zo doen? Of hebben jullie andere ideeën? Dat is dan op zo’n aardige toon, ze zijn heel kritisch naar elkaar,
maar helpen elkaar ook en geven elkaar feedback”
89
Team activity
pattern
Team performance
Negative –
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Dat het ook een beetje als automatisme allemaal gewoon weer opgepakt wordt we hebben afgesproken dat, dus we gaan dat doen”
- “Afwijken van bepaalde regeltjes of structuurtjes, maar dat kan niet iedereen doen, dat is, als nieuwe mensen komen zeg maar, die hier een
paar maanden werken, die moeten dat eigenlijk gewoon niet doen. Die moeten zich eigenlijk gewoon vast houden aan de routine, zorgen
dat eerst de cliënt weet wie ze zijn en vertrouwen hebben in het geen wat ze zeggen en dat ze ook doen wat ze zeggen”
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
- “Op het moment dat we iets meer tijd hebben, dan zijn er heel veel ideeën rondom verschillende cliënten die we graag aan zouden pakken
om bepaalde routines te verbreken en ook om daarmee wat prikkels te vergeven waardoor dag nacht ritme mogelijk beter op orde blijft”
6. The team is able to decide team objectives
- “Maar het is niet zo dat het stil is in denken, we zijn onszelf daar wel bewust van. Dit doen we eigenlijk en eigenlijk zouden we dat graag
oppakken”
- “Je bent heel erg geneigd om op de oude voet weer verder te gaan, en het POP te gaan herschrijven. En daarvan hebben we nu gezegd, het
POP moeten we gewoon eigenlijk het POP laten, maar we moeten gewoon eens kijken naar de doelen die er zijn en die evalueren en
aanpassen zodat we daarmee aan de slag kunnen gaan”
- “Het zijn met name de kleine dingetjes die veranderd zijn. Met name ook de dingetjes tussen de vaste momenten door”
- “We hebben twee routes zal ik maar zeggen. En ieder werkt er één. En ja, de ene heb je wat meer te rapporteren als bij de andere. Dus het is
maar net welke weg je die dag bewandeld. En bij de een die heeft dus veel langer een contactmoment als de ander, dus dan ben je meer
cliëntgericht bezig”
- “Ja ik ben niet iemand die echt zo van grote veranderingen houd. Het is wel leuk als er een keer iets niet zo loopt als normaal, maar het is
natuurlijk prettiger als, als het hier hetzelfde is als een andere dienst, dan wil het zeggen dat het hier rustig verlopen is. Dat is voor jou fijn
en dat is voor hun ook weer fijn”
- “We hebben, dat is misschien wel interessant om te vertellen, we hebben daar een hele tijd onder onze bezetting gedraaid, qua personeel.
Dus het personele plaatje was niet up to date. En dat is sinds nu eigenlijk, sinds augustus wel up to date”
- “Ik weet dat we veel tijd besteden aan direct cliënt contact. Ja we komen natuurlijk gewoon op afspraak, of afspraak, nou ja, je komt wel
veel bij de cliënt, dan heb je natuurlijk direct cliënt contact. Er wordt gewoon heel veel tijd aan de cliënt besteed. En ik denk dat als je dit
naast het OT legt dat dit wel klopt”
- “Maar in de praktijk komt het wel eigenlijk erop neer dat met name de zorg rondom de cliënten, toch wel gewoon laten lopen zeg maar. En
dat dat eigenlijk wel voor gaat zeg maar. En met name het stukje levensvreugde en de dagelijkse gang van zaken”
- “Ja, je ziet het wel terug, Alleen dan meer uh, dat naam bijvoorbeeld wat meer zou kunnen hebben. Ja, dan is ze op vakantie geweest, en
dan zal ze dingen wat eerder accepteren. Omdat die wens dan wel bevredigd is zal ik maar zeggen”
- “Ja dat denk ik wel, zoals ik al zei we zijn heel erg gegroeid. Dat zie je wel terug aan cliënten. Vooral op de indicatoren zoals daginvulling,
90
Autonomy -> Team
activity pattern
Team activity
pattern -> Team
performance
-
omdat je daar in geïnvesteerd hebt. Dan kan het makkelijk zijn dat eigenheid ook mee stijgt”
“Wij hebben eigenlijk sinds het project Regelarm Zorgrijk dat we die maandelijkse, daarvan hebben we gezegd die doen we niet meer, we
doen nu echt kijken op basis van geluk op die geluksmeting”
“Ik denk dat wij wel meer kijken naar wat de cliënt nodig heeft ja, en dat ze ook wel vaker op pad zijn geweest, wat meer uitstapjes
gemaakt zijn”
91
Team C
Individual autonomy
Citation
Positive +
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Sommige dingen worden echt gewoon dubbel gedaan, en zodra ik dat denk ga ik daar wel over in discussie of ga ik daar wel het gesprek
over aan, dat komt ook wel doordat we met die pilot meedoen, doordat je daar meer over nadenkt”
- “Doordat je er bewust van wordt gemaakt dat het een mogelijkheid is om alles ter discussie te stellen. En dat weet je misschien wel, maar
door die pilot kregen wij natuurlijk wel veel meer ruimte om eens kritisch te kijken naar waarom doen we dit nou. Bij mij heeft het wel echt
geholpen om uh, om echt wel te kijken naar dingen van als ik niet snap waarom we dingen aan het doen zijn of als ik het nut er niet van in
zie dan wil ik daar wel eens over in gesprek gaan”
- “Ja en jezelf bewust zijn steeds van wat is nou belangrijker op dit moment. Ja dan is die aandacht voor de cliënt gewoon belangrijk”
- “Heel objectief te kijken naar hoe je, je werk uitvoert. Ook als je hier rondloopt, om niet zomaar rond te lopen, maar om objectief rond te
lopen. En naar jezelf ook te herkennen als je iets, als je weer in hetzelfde gedrag vervalt”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “En ik denk dat dat is dat ze het vertrouwen heeft dat het toch wel gebeurd. Dat heb ik denk ik wel laten zien de afgelopen jaren”
- “Ik ben ook wel iemand die graag uh, die graag dingen aan de kaak stelt en dingen, ik ben ook wel iemand die ook een keer out of the box
wil kijken en niet in het, in het vast gezette hokje zeg maar”
- “Medewerkers zijn wel echt gegroeid in hun manier van denken. Van goh, dan moeten we dit nou allemaal collectief doen of niet? En we
gaan de discussie aan met ouders. En waar gaat het nou over en wat is nou belangrijk en hoe zien we hem nou? Dat denk ik zeker wel ja”
- “Ik denk dat, dat ook misschien wel meer zorg voor mensen iets meer vrijheid krijgen als je medewerker ook blijft prikkelen. Hoe zou jij
dat doen? Ja ik ben daar wel voorstander van”
4. I have control over the scheduling of my work in the team
- “Ze legt niet zoveel op van ik wil dat dit en dat dan af is. Er zijn een aantal regels dat bijvoorbeeld een rapportage of dat een POP gewoon
afgerond is, of dat een rapportage af is. En als je dan maar zorgt dat, dat rond die tijd af. Dan zal zij nooit gaan zeggen wanneer ik dat moet
doen”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “Hoe ik deze manier van werken eigen heb gemaakt? Nou ik denk dat zelf, uhm, nou wel, best wel belangrijke rol in heb gehad. Ik ben daar
zelf ook in gaan vragen. Goh wat zijn mogelijkheden en hoe kan ik wat taakjes op me nemen”
- “Ook met het naar buitentreden met onze bewoners ook in het kader van een stukje WMO, daarin voelen medewerkers zich, ik weet niet of
dat zozeer geho, gerelateerd is aan regelarm, maar daarin zouden medewerkers wel echt hun creativiteit in kwijt kunnen als ze dat zouden
willen. En de een heeft daar iets meer behoefte aan dan de ander, dat denk ik absoluut wel ja”
7. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team
- “Ik denk dat ik altijd wel de achterliggende gedachte weet achter regels. Vaak ook omdat we het dan omdat ik er dan soms ook zelf naar
92
-
vraag. Als ik het ergens niet mee eens ben dat ik dan ook wel graag zelf wil weten waarom ik dat dan moet doen”
“Ik zou het heel vervelend vinden als er nooit naar m’n mening geluisterd wordt of als ik een goed idee heb dat het dan van tafel geveegd
zou worden. Maar dat gevoel heb ik hier niet”
Negative –
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Tijdens teamvergaderingen lever je, je bijdrage zal ik maar zeggen. Dat kun je aangeven wat je er zelf van vind. Maar verder, ja niet dat ik
zo echt zelf iets ga beslissen over regels, nee”
Team autonomy
Positive +
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “We kijken wel denk ik, vind ik, kritisch naar of we de regels nog nodig zijn of dat we daar echt gebruik van maken of dat we het doen
omdat het van iemand moet of opgelegd wordt of omdat het de normale gang van zaken is”
- “Medewerkers worden tot op zeker hoogte meegenomen in beslissingen, wat kan. Kijk ik bedoel, mensen geven wel iets aan, en ik koppel
dat terug. Maar op een gegeven moment houdt mijn invloed ook op. Dat is soms wel lastig hoor, mensen zijn wel bereid om mee te werken
maar als ze dan vervolgens zoiets hebben van ja dat gaat niet dan..”
- “Indelen van hoe je dingen anders doen, ja en elkaar daar ook op aanspreken, of daar samen over nadenken hoe je daar ook nog winst op
kunt behalen”
- “Steeds als wij de ervaring hebben van oh dat kan misschien anders, dan gaan we daar wel naar kijken of we daar een oplossing voor
kunnen vinden”
- “Ik denk niet dat we volgens routine werken of klakkeloos aannemen want zo doen we het altijd dus zo doen we het maar zo. Nee dat
helemaal niet. Ik denk dat wij daar wel heel kritisch in zijn, en heel goed naar elkaar kijken, en elkaar spiegelen en collega’s durven te
spiegelen, en uitspreken naar elkaar dat dingen anders kunnen bijvoorbeeld”
- “Ik vind het wel fijn om zelf dingen te kunnen bepalen, maar ik vind het wel belangrijk dat je daar samen op één lijn in zit. Kijk ik vind het
heel prettig om bepaalde ideeën te delen met mensen of een mening te geven voor bepaalde zaken, maar ik vind niet dat ik m’n eentje grote
dingen kan gaan beslissen”
- “Kijk we zijn wel een team hier, en je moet bepaalde dingen wel samen dragen. Dus uh, dat vind ik vooral belangrijk. We moeten het er
wel over hebben”
- “Er wordt wel van je verwacht dat je meedenkt ja. En kijk er is natuurlijk een verschil in die het doen en die het misschien minder doen,
maar het wordt van iedereen wel verwacht dat je in zekere mate wel meedenkt”
- “Het is niet zo van één iemand zegt iets en we gaan allemaal mee en uh, ja dat is regelmatig in een vergadering dat mensen ook mee
spiegelen. Van goh, hoe gaan we dat nou doen of zitten we daar nou in”
93
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Dan denk ik dat wij wel iets meer improviserend zijn als routinematig. En dat moet ook wel. Met name alleen al in de denkwijze in wat
ouders verwachten of wat ouders willen of wat ouders voor ogen hebben”
3. The team can decide when to do particular activities
- “Op zich hebben we best wel veel vrijheid. Er zijn wel vaste dingen die terug komen maar de rest kunnen we wel veel zelf indelen”
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
- “Ook door de tijdsmeting die we hebben ingevuld. Dan raak je er ook met elkaar over in gesprek over met elkaar. En dan hoor je ook van
een ander van oh daar heb ik ook last van en dan zegt iemand van oh ik gebruik altijd een things-to-do-boekje of ja het is niet als je taken
laat liggen maar schrijf even op waarom je ze hebt laten liggen. Op die manier ben je er ook bewust samen mee bezig. En je weet dat je
allemaal hetzelfde probleem hebt dus dan kan je het ook wel weer los laten”
- “Ik vind het wel fijn dat je, je hebt zeg maar bepaalde dingen die komen elke keer weer terug die moeten gedaan worden, maar voor de rest
zijn we eigenlijk heel erg vrij om zelf de avond in te vullen met de bewoners”
- “Nou qua taken hebben we een duidelijke rol verdeling, proberen we. We hebben best wel een divers team. Ieder heeft z’n eigen kracht.
Kijk de één is iets beter in een stukje administratie wat moet, en de ander is qua denkniveau net wat verder en spiegelt mensen daar ook op.
Dus ja, om nou. Ik denk dat het beide is. Kijk ik denk dat de een iets meer individuele ontwikkeling, ja daaraan toe is als de ander. En die
heeft dan zoiets van ik vind het wel prima ik ben er echt voor de bewoner”
Team activity
pattern
Negative –
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Maar wij vinden dat het POP, de manier waarop we het moeten maken, daar staan wij niet helemaal achter. Dus dat wordt gedaan omdat
het zo moet en omdat het een regel is. Maar als wij kijken naar het geluk van de cliënt dan denken wij dat het op een andere manier kan.
Dus dat zijn voorbeelden van dingen waarvan wij denken dat het anders kan”
- “Ik ben wel minder tijd gaan besteden aan het vastleggen en het lezen en het rapporteren, ja dat denk ik wel. Maar meer omdat ik me
bewust ben van hoe ik het effectiever kan doen. En niet zozeer omdat ik heel veel dingen niet meer doe”
- “Ik was alleen af en toe verbaast dat wij gewoon heel veel tijd hebben voor onze cliënten. Wij kunnen echt heel veel tijd invullen bij direct
cliënt contact. Wij zijn echt heel veel tijd aan het koken mét de cliënt, uh of aan het koffie drinken met de cliënt, dus echt heel veel tijd zijn
wij echt direct met hun bezig, en dat vind ik alleen maar mooi om te zien”
- “Ja het komt gewoon, of hoe zeg je dat, het loopt gewoon heel soepeltjes. Dus het is niet dat je, dat je echt een hele planning hebt voor heel
de avond dus het komt gewoon een beetje zoals het komt. Dat klink misschien wel gek..”
- “Ik denk dat wij altijd al wel heel cliëntgericht bezig zijn geweest”
- “De administratieve taken die wij in het begin hadden, die hebben wij nu nog. Maar wij hebben gewoon heel veel dingen die wij in het
begin ook niet hadden en dat is een stukje indicatie, we hebben veel minder te maken met andere disciplines, de betrokkenheid van ouders”
94
Team performance
-
Autonomy -> Team
activity pattern
-
-
Team activity
pattern -> Team
performance
-
-
“Ja, ik denk wel een algemeen beeld, want ik denk dat wij algemeen dus vrij hoog scoren en ik denk dat wij, dat dat dan ook zo is in de
realiteit”
“Op regie hebben we heel veel acties uitgezet, en dat is ook iets dat ouders ook heel erg aan hebben gegeven vanuit hun groep zorgplan wat
wij elkaar schrijven”
“Wat is ons belangrijkste doel. Cliënten moeten zich veilig voelen, moeten ons vertrouwen, moeten elkaar leren kennen. Om daar veel
energie in te steken en de rest komt wel. Dus dan ga je toch wel met een andere gedachte start je ook zo’n initiatief”
“Ouders zijn erg bewogen, maar dat houdt je ook scherp hoor. Ik vind dat zelf wel prettig. Het is niet altijd makkelijk. Maar het is wel
prettig in de zin van, ja je wordt continue geprikkeld. Je hebt geen tijd om lang achterover te gaan zitten en te denken ho”
“Ik ervaar de administratiedruk wel als verbeterd. Ik vind dat het wel echt veranderd is in vergelijking met hoe het eerst was. Ik ervaar het
niet perse als vervelend. Het is alleen dat je daar soms zelfs keuzes in moet maken. En dat is denk ik wel iets dat je moet leren”
“Toen ik hier in het begin werkte dacht ik oh ik moet alles doen, en ik moet alles afgewerkt hebben, en alles wat in de agenda staat moet ik
af hebben, en ik moet nog rapporteren voor alle cliënten. Dat gaat gewoon niet altijd. Dus soms moet je voor jezelf daar gewoon een
duidelijke lijn trekken. Dus ik vin de administratiedruk in principe wel overzichtelijk”
“Ik denk dat ik voor mezelf wel heel duidelijk prioriteiten stel. En voor mezelf ook wel denk oké, deze avond lees ik de rapportage want dat
vind ik belangrijk, en wat mailtjes die ik belangrijk vind, maar de rest van de avond ben ik er voor hun. Dat is wel echt, ik vind dat wel
echt, dat is wel echt veranderd”
“Je weet wel wat er per cliënt van je verwacht wordt, maar het is niet dat wij daar dagelijks op terug kijken. Dus met die dingen in je
achterhoofd ga je toch een beetje je eigen weg met de cliënt zeg maar”
“Kijk ouders hebben natuurlijk niet voor niets voor een ouderinitiatief gekozen, die willen juist absoluut niet dat instellingsidee, uh, en die
vinden het juist heel belangrijk dat de cliënt centraal staat en dat daar hee bewust naar gekeken wordt, en dat er ook uitstapjes gedaan
worden”
“Ik bedoel er wordt hier heel veel ook met ouders terloops besproken, dan denk ik, als wij alles wat wij bespreken nog eens terug zouden
laten komen in overleg. Dan denk ik, dan zijn we ons doel voorbij”
95
Team D
Individual autonomy
Citation
Positive +
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Ik ben behoorlijk zelfstandig in m’n werk, en ik, je krijgt ook steeds meer vrijheid. Je krijgt natuurlijk dat iedereen z’n leerdoelen heeft,
zo wordt ik ook gecoacht. Ze hebben bij mij ook dingen die verbeterd kunnen worden, dat is alleen maar goed”
- “Innovatief denken van hoe kunnen we nou zorgen dat iedereen aan z’n trekken komt waar hij recht op heeft. Nou ja, een signalerende taak
als zijnde, als je problemen ziet en iemand heeft bijvoorbeeld een te lage indicatie, ja dan moet je zorgen dat z’n indicatie weer verhoogt
wordt. Daar komt best veel bij kijken”
- “Ik kwam al uit een omgeving waarin alles best wel gestructureerd was en ze werkte hier nog niet op de manier wat ik gewend was. Dus
dan is het wel moeilijk om in je eentje zeg maar, dat zeg maar terug te krijgen binnen een team die dat niet gewend is. En nu voel ik me
steeds meer als een vis in het water”
- “Dan bel ik geen collega. Nee meestal dan los je het, lossen we het echt wel zelf op. De volgende dag ga je uitleggen wat er is gebeurd en
waarom je dat hebt gedaan. En soms is het gewoon zoals het is en dan is het ook wel prima. Dan neem je allemaal in de overdracht mee”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Hoe meer druk je ervaart, hoe meer oplossingen er voor jezelf en, ja, bij je gaat houden. En tips en ja dingen verzint om het maar goed te
laten verlopen”
- “En van regels, als, als een cliënt, wat ik zei, om zelf zeg maar in een goed daglicht te staan bij een cliënt, maken ze daar, zijn ze
makkelijker daarin om daarvan af te wijken”
3. I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work in the team
- “Ik kan beslissen wanneer ik wat doe ja, dus ik kan beslissen wanneer ik de andere taken doe. Dus dat is een keuze die ik zelf heb”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “De afspraken die ik maak met ouders en cliënten, om het goed te laten verlopen. Maar dan wordt er ook verwacht dat je samen met het
team, want je staat er niet alleen voor. En je moet dingen die je uit handen kan geven ook delegeren naar je teamleden”
Negative –
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Je wordt weer op de feiten, als er een nieuwe collega in dienst is, dan moet je dus overal uitleg geven van, waarom doe je het zo. Waarom
is dat van belang dat. Dus je moet altijd wel weten waarom je dingen doet. Je moet je altijd kunnen verantwoorden en kunnen uitleggen
waarom. Dus routine is er wel, maar wees alert van waarom je dingen doet”
- “Ik hou wel van een beetje hectiek en een beetje druk. Maar teveel is soms ook wel uh.. soms denk je van, als ik nou nog een bij hou wat ik
allemaal doe op een dag. Dan denk ik van, zou ik dat kunnen veranderen? Nou het enige wat je kan veranderen is dat je, je afspraken goed
nakomt, en dat je, nou, processen blijft volgen en daar in…”
96
“Wat de basis is van, is een stukje houding van medewerkers. Is een stukje bewustwording van wat doe ik en wat geeft het, wat brengt het
teweeg en hoe ik het doe zoals ik het doe. Dat is een soort onderwerp, ik denk dat we daar nog wel in kunnen groeien”
- “Medewerkers zitten wel vast aan deze werkwijze, omdat het een redelijk relaxte woning is denk ik. Maar dat komt ook wel terug, dat is
ook soms, dus als ze een keer op een andere woning zijn geweest, dan is het van o jee, daar moet je echt hard werken. Dat zijn de dingen
die ik eigenlijk echt niet moet horen. Dat zijn wel dingen die niet voor mijn oren bestemd zijn. Dat typeert ook wel iets he”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “Met routinematig bedoel ik, je moet bij ons over straat lopen om bij de volgende bel aan te bellen, en er zijn bij ons beneden en boven
appartementen om een voorbeeld te geven. Dat de medewerk op ondersteuning gaat, die belt aan, hoe is het? Die komt boven bij die cliënt,
hoe is het? Zoals op de automatische piloot, hoor ik wel eens van cliënten, het lijkt wel alsof ze een bandje afdraaien. Dat ze eigenlijk niet
meer weten, ze hebben eigenlijk beneden al gevraagd hoe het is, en boven komt dat bandje weer hoe is het heb je goed gegeten en hoe was
je dag vandaag. Helemaal zo van jeetje”
Positive +
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Ik vind het fijn om eigenlijk zelf te kunnen bepalen hoe je dingen uitvoert en verantwoordelijkheden te nemen. Maar ik vind het ook fijn
om daar met m’n collega’s, met m’n leidinggevende van gedachte over te wisselen. Ook om me gesteund te voelen zeg maar. En ook
omdat, dan kan je weer kracht bijzetten bij het uitdragen ervan”
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
- “Natuurlijk besluiten over het dagprogramma en dat soort dingen, dat is van hun verder zelf. Het rooster, het maakt mij niet uit hoe ze dat
rooster indelen, als het maar klopt en als het maar eerlijk is en als er maar diensten zijn op de vloer”
-
Team autonomy
Negative –
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Bij ons is dat niet aan de orde, dus mensen worden daarin ook niet geprikkeld. Mensen hebben daar ook niet, die zien niet, die hebben daar
ook geen interesse in, anders werken ze niet op deze doelgroep”
- “Tijdens teambesprekingen, teamoverleg, worden ze wel betrokken bij besluiten. Bepaalde dingen als het Prisma dingen zijn vaak ook niet,
als er dingen gewoon vast staan dan is dat zo. Daar heb ik dan ook geen invloed op. Dat is voor sommige medewerkers ook lastig om dat
uit te dragen, want ik vind, dan zeg ik ook, dat doet er niet toe wat jij vindt of wat ik vind, dit is het beleid. Dat is lastig!”
- “Je werkt ook als team, dus je moet toch wel proberen één lijn te staan, wat niet altijd makkelijk is. Maar de regels zijn er, dus in sommige
gevallen is het ook heel duidelijk en ook wel heel veilig. Want die regels zijn er, en dat bepaalt tot hoever of wat je mag, of wat kan”
- “Nieuwe ideeën, niet zo veel, het is niet zo’n initiatiefrijk team. Dat komt omdat bepaalde doelgroepen bepaalde type mensen ook
aantrekken. De mensen met dit soort doelgroepen die houden niet van hectiek, die zijn minder bevlogen, laat ik het zo zeggen. Ik wil niet
zeggen dat ze het niet zijn, maar ze zijn minder bevlogen dan dat je op woningen werkt waar je continue moet schakelen continue moet
97
Team activity
pattern
Team performance
nadenken van hey hoe kunnen we dat aanpakken want het werkt niet”
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “En je werkt altijd alleen, je ziet niet hoe je collega dingen doet. En doe je inderdaad wel wat we zeggen en als we zeggen, oké, doen het
bij die altijd rechtsom en de cliënt vraag mag dat nou voor één keertje. En dan nou vooruit, en dan blijkt dan zo’n lastige. Nee hoor, ik doe
dat ooit, ik hou me altijd aan wat afgesproken is. Snap je? En als je dat dan niet doet, ben je dan juist die goede begeleider? Of maak je het
juist voor je collega onmogelijk die zich wel aan de afspraken houdt?”
6. The team is able to decide team objectives
- “Tijdens een teamoverleg doet iedereen toch wel zijn zegje, maar we hebben er twee die nogal dominant aanwezig zijn. Wat de andere ook
wel afschrikt”
- “Vroeger kon je maar die ondersteuning bieden, ik zie in de laatste jaren dat ik hier werk. We werkte altijd met dubbele diensten, dat is
allang niet meer. Alle uren, er wordt echt gekeken naar wat is echt nodig? En alleen de hoogst, het hoogste wordt geboden zeg maar. Het
leuke is er niet meer bij”
- “Maar één ding staat voorop, dat dingen gewoon sneller moeten. Door de kortere tijd. Dus dat is wel, ja, dat vraagt gewoon om, het goed te
doen weet je wel, van het praatje dat je wel eens met een cliënt hebt op een ondersteuningsmoment, nadat je daar werkelijk z’n
ondersteuningsvraag hebt beantwoord, gewoon het menselijke. Dat wordt, ja, dat wil in niet kwijt, maar het wordt wel van me gevraagd om
daar professioneel mee om te gaan”
- “Over het algemeen zijn we, ik denk geen van allen, gaan we op tijd naar huis, op de tijd dat het tijd is. We zitten altijd nog wel een
kwartier uh, ja zeker wel een kwartier nog wel langer door te werken”
- “Ik vind dat je wel, er zal wel eens wat meer tijd aan cliënten, want het contactmoment is met een half uur echt genoeg. Maar sommige
verzorgingsmomenten vind ik dat het echt wel eens wat meer mag zijn, iets ruimer”
- “Ik vraag me af hoe het ingevuld is. Of het inderdaad ingevuld is zoals gevraagd is of dat het toch een beetje anders is ingevuld.
Bijvoorbeeld, ik weet dat er twee dagen waarop er in plaats van 3, 2 diensten waren. Dan zeggen mensen je moet wel administratie, dat
doen we niet maar dat hoort er wel bij. Daar moet je wel een kwartier voor rekenen hoor. Zo weet je wel? Het is van daar dat ik denk van
hey, hoe zit dat nou precies? Dat mensen uit hun beleving zeggen altijd dat ze veel administratie hebben”
- “Nou ik vond het best wel lastig, want uh, niet alles, ik denk dat ik alle cliënten heel goed ken, en als je dan bepaald soort vragen krijgt, dan
denk ik, ja dat weet ik eigenlijk helemaal niet”
- “En als er dan problemen liggen die al vanaf z’n zestiende bekend zijn en nu pas aan het licht komen. Dan denk ik, ja natuurlijk loop je niet
altijd met je problemen te koop, maar je moet ook denken, realistische denken van, wat is nou in het belang van mijn zoon of dochter. Wat
moeten ze wel weten of niet?”
- “Als je kijkt naar een jaar geleden, dan waren cliënten hier toen ongeveer even gelukkig. Ik denk, weet je, je denkt altijd automatisch aan
mensen die hier niet op hun plek zitten, waarvoor je allemaal acties gaat doen. Maar als je gewoon kijkt naar het algemeen, naar de groep”
- “Je moet wel de grote lijnen in de gate houden, dat er niet te vaak wordt gezegd van oh. Maar andersom kan het ook he. Dat een cliënt
98
-
Autonomy -> Team
activity pattern
-
-
Team activity
pattern -> Team
performance
-
bijvoorbeeld als staat van, ja ik heb niet veel te bespreken, mag ik al naar m’n moeder? Nee, jij heb je ondersteuning. Dan moet je ze ook
terug fluiten”
“Dat heeft ook te maken met teamsamenwerking. Als jij om acht uur in dienst komt, en ik ben een avond dienst dan heb ik kunnen lezen.
Op het moment dat ik zie dat het van belang is dat, als m’n collega er is dat ze bepaalde dingen weten dan is het even een briefje neerleggen
voor mij. Want dan denk je ook mee met je collega. Want je hebt te maken met een hele groep. Zeg maar, dat is wel heel belangrijk dat het
goed verloopt. Dan is die teamsamenwerking zeker van belang”
“Er is nog een ander onderzoek naar het geluk van de cliënt geweest, en dat is aan cliënten zelf gevraagd, en dat scoort dan beduidend
minder zeg maar”
“Nou routines zijn meer de dingen die we allemaal gewend zijn, die er allemaal ingeslopen zijn, dan heb je het bijvoorbeeld over directe
zorgverlening van een cliënt. Dat gaat allemaal zo automatisch”
“Ja de regels die zijn er, en dat moet je ze ook duidelijk maken dat ze er zijn omdat het voor iedereen duidelijker gemaakt kan worden. Dan
heerst er ook gewoon rust, dan is het duidelijk. Dan hoef je dan, ja goed, soms kan je, je eigen er ook een beetje achter verbergen. Terwijl je
het er eigenlijk helemaal niet mee eens bent. Maar goed, de regels zijn er, dus het moet zo”
“Het zou misschien wel fijn zijn als je soms wat meer tijd kunt besteden aan iedere cliënt. Dat het af en toe niet zo strak in de uren zit. Maar
goed, daar ben je zelf ook flexibel in. Als je bij iemand gewoon wat meer tijd nodig hebt, en je staat met z’n tweeën dan probeer je gewoon
even wat te regelen”
“Wij hebben een ondersteuning thuis. Dat is een planning en ja daar, dat is leidend voor ons. Ook zien wij niet zoveel wat er met de cliënt
is, omdat de cliënt wonen door de straat zeg maar. Maar er zijn weinig collectieve ondersteuningen”
“Je bent altijd opzoek naar het organisatiebelang en het belang van de cliënt. Want die zou het liefste willen dat ik mee ging naar het
ziekenhuis”
“Ik vind dat geeft weer een gekleurd beeld, want als ik, als je iets vraagt op een moment dat een cliënt niet lekker in z’n vel zit, of die heeft
net zoiets van bijvoorbeeld, zijn ondersteuning heeft lichamelijke verzorging nodig, dat is altijd op dezelfde dag, op een vaste afspraak,
omdat het anders niet georganiseerd kan. Dan krijg je te horen, oké, ze regelen alles voor mij, ik heb geen regie, ik mag er zelf niks over
zeggen”
99
Team E
Individual autonomy
Team autonomy
Citation
Positive +
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Ja ik vind het wel prettig als ik zelf wat beslissingen kan nemen. Ja soms, ja je kan natuurlijk heel vaak zomaar zelf iets niet beslissen,
maar als dat wel kan”
- “Het is niet altijd makkelijk om volgens die richtlijnen te werken, maar die richtlijnen zijn er wel. Alleen het is aan jou als persoon wat je
daar mee doet”
- “Ja, ik doe hier bijvoorbeeld heel veel in de tuin en daar heb ik eigenlijk een beetje carte blanche, dat is wel, dat is makkelijk en leuk”
- “Ik ben niet zo iemand die echt volgens, of naar de regels leeft, het is niet zo dat ik er dwars tegen in ga, dat niet. Maar ik moet ook heel
eerlijk zeggen dat heel veel regels mij niet echt bekend zijn”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Aan de ene kant is het goed dat je af en toe in het diepe gegooid wordt, aan de andere kant is het ook af en toe wel eens fijn om een duwtje
in de juiste richting te krijgen. Waardoor je misschien wat sneller bepaalde dingen kunt afhandelen als dat je het zelf moet onderzoeken”
4. I have control over the scheduling of my work in the team
- “Ja bij bepaalde dingen die je moet doen heb je wel voor jezelf een pad uitgestippeld hoe je dat wil gaan aanpakken. Als je dat op die
manier kan gaan uitwerken, dan is dat wel heel fijn!”
5. I have some control over the sequencing of my activities in the team
- “Ja de vaste taken kun je altijd wel een beetje bepalen wanneer je die doet of uitwerkt, maar er gebeuren ook veel onverwachte dingen
tussendoor, die hebben wel vaak prioriteit”
Negative –
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Ik heb niet zoveel met die regels te maken. Ik werk hier met m’n hart en met m’n gevoel. En dan merk je al gauw dat als je dat doet, dat
het dan heel makkelijk samenvalt met de regeltjes die er op een woonvoorziening zijn. Dat gaat eigenlijk automatisch, dat doe je zonder na
te denken”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Er zijn altijd afspraken omtrent cliënten die gemaakt worden waar je het misschien niet mee eens bent, of waar je een andere menig over
hebt, maar ja, sommige dingen zijn gewoon nodig”
Positive +
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Ik denk dat wij allemaal flexibel blijven, maar af en toe is het wel weer eens goed om een nieuweling binnen te kijken die een hele andere
kijk heeft. Ik denk dat een frisse wind af en toe niet verkeerd is, dat dat iedereen scherpt houdt”
100
-
Team activity
pattern
“Medewerkers worden wel veel betrokken bij besluiten, ze kunnen altijd zeggen wat ze ergens van vinden. Dat doen ze ook wel. Ze hebben
nu wel meer het gevoel dat ze gehoord worden, dat zie je ook terug in de medewerkers-tevredenheidsonderzoeken”
Negative –
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Nou ik denk dat wij als team zijnde ook wel zodanig hecht zijn dat het niet altijd makkelijk is om je collega’s ergens op aan te spreken. Ik
denk dat wij wel meer zijn van elkaar dan alleen collega’s. Maar dat zorgt er ook wel voor dat het af en toe lastig is om je collega’s ergens
op aan te spreken”
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
- “Ik maak de agenda. Dit is echt gewoon een agenda, ja, wat er moet gebeuren op een dag, gewoon hoofdlijnen en ook bepaalde afspraken
die cliënten hebben. Dat soort dingetjes, maar niet, geen OT lijst, daar is het niet mee te vergelijken. Dingen die gedaan moeten worden
buiten de gewone dingen om”
- “Op dit moment kun je heel veel bij de maatjes wegleggen, dus dat is alleen maar fijn. Dat zou ervoor moeten zorgen dat je wat werk uit
handen genomen wordt. Alleen dat is niet altijd makkelijk om te doen, want er zijn bepaalde dingen met dagprogramma’s die heb je dan,
daar heb je zoveel tijd en energie in gestoken, dat wil je dan ook gewoon het liefste zelf afmaken. Omdat je daar dan gewoon veel en heel
lang en heel lang mee bezig bent geweest En ik ben dan wel iemand ik vind wel lastig om dat dan door te schuiven maar me maatje en dan
te zeggen maak jij het maar veder af”
- “We hebben al een aantal keer aangegeven van, kies een geschikte begeleider B, die kan dat prima. Maar goed, tot nu is dat nog niet
gebeurd, en ja, ik heb er niet zoveel last van want ik hoe het niet te doen. Maar ik zie wel dat mijn collega daar in mijn ogen af en toe mee
worstelt, dat vind ik wel vervelend en jammer”
- “Ze gunnen elkaar het licht niet in de ogen, dat is heel erg. Dan zeggen ze, ja want de PO’er wordt ervoor betaald om dat te doen, dus
waarom zou ik dat doen? Dat zijn hun taken. Dan denk ik, nee, jij bent begeleider B, jij moet die PO’er ook ondersteunen. Dat zijn jouw
taken”
- “Tussen 13 en 15 sta je alleen. Wel alle cliënten zijn gewoon thuis, ondertussen heb je was, afspraken, noem maar op. Waardoor het ook
heel lastig wordt om echt de tijd en energie in cliënten te stoppen. Je bent met van alles en nog wat bezig, en wij zijn wel een team die er
voor wil zorgen dat alles af is als de avonddienst binnen komt”
- “Nou als ik zag wat ik in bepaalde diensten deed, en als ik zag hoe ik hem had ingevuld, dan leek het net of mijn tijdsregistratie aangaf dat
ik niks had uitgevoerd. Terwijl ik zelf voor mijn gevoel in de auto zat dat ik dacht, dat was m’n dienstje wel”
- “Als je echt heel lang niks te doen hebt, dan ga je dingen zoeken om bezig te zijn. Omdat, ja als je een half uur buiten gaat zitten. Iedereen
gaat zich dan toch wel een beetje schuldig voelen, omdat die denkt kan ik hier zomaar zitten?”
- “Ja, ja voor het geluk, voor de leuke dingen voor de cliënt he, ja natuurlijk ze krijgen de bakje koffie, en de was is gedaan, en ze krijgen er
een koekje bij, en je maakt een praatje met ze, maar je kan niet zeggen het is lekker weer en we gaan een rondje lopen”
101
Team performance
-
-
Autonomy -> Team
activity pattern
Team activity
pattern -> Team
performance
-
-
“Ja je begint hier om zeven uur. Je haalt de eerste uit bed en het is tot half elf toe is het gewoon eigenlijk een beetje oneerbiedig gezegd
lopende band werk. Tot elf heb je absoluut geen tijd voor andere dingen, nee”
“Als ik kijk naar m’n collega’s en als ik kijk naar wat wij hier doen, zou ik hem hoger geven. Omdat ik van mening ben dat wij, wij zijn
een heel divers en goed team vind ik, en als ik kijk naar hoe iedereen hier werk, dan heb ik het idee dat onze cliënten gelukkiger zijn dan
een 6,4 weergeeft”
“Maar met zo’n tijdsregistratie kom je er toch wel weer achter, het gaf mij wel het gevoel dat je dat ik me eigen min of meer schuldig
voelde tegenover de cliënten omdat ik bang was dat ze iets tekort waren gekomen. Omdat je met zoveel andere dingen bezig bent”
“Er wordt heel veel van het team verwacht dat ze die extra diensten op zich nemen, maar voor je gevoel krijg je daar nooit een stukje
waardering voor, dat mensen op een gegeven moment ook zoiets hebben van, ja luister, ik leef niet om te kunnen werken”
“Zo kan iemand steeds meer gaan leren, maar dan moet je voor het inwerken wel tijd maken. Medewerkers zien het nu echt wel als een
last”
“Ik kan wel zwart wit zeggen dat het personeel hier een haat liefde verhouding heeft. Aan de ene kant doen ze heel veel met elkaar, ze gaan
met elkaar op vakantie, ze gaan uit met elkaar enzo. Maar aan de andere kant zorgt dat er wel voor dat ze elkaar geen feedback durven
geven. Dat is dan wel weer moeilijk. Soms denk ik, is dit nog wel werkbaar?”
“Mensen voelen dat wel, als iemand niet goed in z’n vel zit. De sfeer is gewoon niet heel prettig. Ik denk dat de cliënten dat ook voelen.
Dus ik den dat het uiteindelijk wel terug te zien is in het geluk van de cliënt”
“Maar je ziet daar wel, het resultaat al heel positief zijn. Dat mensen zich echt, zich meer verantwoordelijk voelen voor die cliënt waar ze
bij horen zeg maar. Omdat ze bij die PO’er horen. En dat ze daar ook meer taken mee gaan oppakken”
“Medewerkers ervaren het niet zo, dat er genoeg tijd is om in te werken. Ze hebben er best wel moeite mee. Op dit moment is dat ook iets
dat speelt. Dan zeggen ze tegen mij dat het zo lang duurt om iets uit te leggen en dat ze het zo net zo goed zelf kunnen doen. Dan zeg ik ook
dat, dat niet waar is. Ik heb zelf ook ervaring op de werkvloer, en ik begrijp wel wat ze bedoelen maar uiteindelijk komt het er op neer dat
je het altijd zelf blijft doen. Op de lange termijn werkt het dus niet”
“Dan zeggen ze dat ze geen zin hebben om met een bepaalde flexer te staan omdat die niet alles kunnen, en dan zeg ik, maar hoe komt dat?
Ja, omdat ze niet goed ingewerkt zijn, en dan zeg ik ook, ja maar dar heb je zelf dan ook niet gedaan. Daar moet gewoon tijd in worden
geïnvesteerd, en dat is wel belangrijk voor de toekomst”
102
Team F
Individual autonomy
Citation
Positive +
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Het kan wel voorkomen, dat je er door het rooster vier dagen vrij bent, dan moet je wel heel veel bijlezen. Ja dan moet je toch wel een
beetje selectief lezen”
- “We hebben HKZ controle gehad, daar hebben we een pluim gekregen dat we het goed hadden gedaan. Daarin heb ik ook wel aangegeven
dat ik ook wel afwijk van regels, als je bijvoorbeeld kijkt, dossiers moeten achter slot, in de kast, ja dat is bij ons niet. Wij hebben een
kantoor dat is ingericht door ouders, daarin staat een bureau en een kast en daar zit geen slot op. Ouders vinden dat ook helemaal niet
belangrijk, die hebben zoiets van het kantoor gaat toch op slot dus die kast hoef niet op slot. Dan heb ik zoiets van prima, dat heb ik ook
uitgelegd aan die vrouw van HKZ”
- “Nee ik vind eigen inbreng gedeeltelijk ook wel fijn”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “We zijn vooral met overleggen die we dan hebben bezig. Ja we zien elkaar bijna niet. Het is hier natuurlijk heel klein. Als je twee
collega’s in de week ziet, dan is het heel veel. Op sommige momenten vind ik dat natuurlijk wel lastig. Maar ik vind het ook wel fijn om,
om gewoon zo zelf bezig te zijn”
- “De begeleiders A zijn wel autonoom, nemen zelf beslissingen, verantwoordelijkheden. Ik heb drie begeleiders A waarvan er twee echt
sterkte begeleiders A. Ja die kunnen beslissingen nemen en die houden mij dan op de hoogte, of vooraf of achteraf, het is maar net wat
mogelijk is. Ze zitten ook op dezelfde lijn als ik daar kun je veel aan over laten”
3. I can decide when to do particular activities as part of my work in the team
- “Ja en vrijheid in je werk, als begeleider A heb ik dat natuurlijk wel.. met mijn overhead. Ik kan dat wel invullen van nou, dit ga ik doen he.
Ik weet niet hoe dat voor de andere collega’s is”
4. I have control over the scheduling of my work in the team
- “Ja ik ben wat dat betreft wel heel flexibel. Als er dan iets anders moet gebeuren dan doen we dat. Dan gaan we dat zo goed mogelijk uh,
proberen in te passen”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “Ze nemen wel veel initiatieven, ook de begeleiders B zelfs. Ook ideeën van een burendag, of een ja, een avond voor de cliënten om een
activiteit te doen of uh, dat dat zijn wel dingen die hun gewoon allemaal zelf doen”
7. I have some control over what I am supposed to accomplish in the team
- “Nou ik denk dat dat hier eigenlijk wel om het even is. Ik denk dat je hier best veel dingen kan bepalen. En natuurlijk heb je gewoon dingen
waar je je aan moet houden, dat is overal natuurlijk wel. Maar dat is hier wel een beetje om het even denk ik”
Negative –
103
Team autonomy
1. I am free to decide how to go about getting my work done
- “Ik heb een begeleider en die werkt maar 18 uur. Dan probeer ik ook uit te leggen, je hoeft niet alles te volgen, je kunt in 18 uur niet
verwachten dat jij hetzelfde informatie kunt volgen als iemand die 36 uur werkt, of 32 uur werkt. Dus maak een selectie van wat je wel of
niet moet lezen. Dat zijn ze in de rapportages wel een beetje aan het proberen te doen, om aan te geven van hey, dit moet je lezen”
- “Met de cliënt vind ik het fijn als dat ook wel een beetje vast is he, dat je gewoon weet van, op een gegeven moment wordt dat ook wel
routine wat je doet, terwijl je kunt nooit de invulling kunt voorspellen van zo’n gesprek”
- “Dan komt naam er moet een brandblusser zijn. Ja dat is leuk, dat maken we bespreekbaar met ouders, maar als die zeggen nee dat vinden
wij niet nodig. Dit pand is door de brandweer goed gekeurd en is gewoon een normaal, als een normaal woonhuis bestempeld en wij
voldoen gewoon aan, want we hebben brandwerende deuren en er hoeft helemaal geen brandblusser want dat heb ik thuis ook niet, dus dan
ga ik niet op m’n strepen staan. Dan is dat gewoon zo, ik leg het wel vast. In die zin probeer ik ook wel kritisch naar regels te kijken”
2. I am able to choose the way to go about my work in the team
- “Nee er zijn er ook wel bij die wat meer aansturing willen hebben en zeg maar gewoon hoe ik het moet doen”
- “Dat is meer de handelingsverlegenheid bij de begeleiders B en de assistent begeleiders”
- “Ik denk dat het meer de handelingsverlegenheid is van, hey als ik niet weet wat er is gebeurd met die cliënt in die avond, en hij komt er bij
mij op terug, dan weet ik niet zo goed hoe ik moet reageren”
4. I have control over the scheduling of my work in the team
- “Ja het staat natuurlijk gewoon voorgeschreven hoe je je tijd indeelt. En de ‘vrije’ tijd die je dan hebt, dan ben je eigenlijk altijd bezig wel
met het één of het ander”
- “Ja nou soms weet ik ook wel precies van welke tijd tot welke tijd ik wat moet doen, maar het is toch uh, ja.. toch wel fijn. Je kan er
gewoon op terugvallen als je het even niet weet. Ik heb het OT altijd bij me op papier”
6. I am able to decide for myself what my objectives are
- “We hebben huisregels, en die hebben we samen opgesteld met ouders, het bestuur en met bewoners hebben daar natuurlijk inspraak over.
Ja daar moeten ze zich eigenlijk gewoon aan houden. Doen ze dat niet, dan krijgen ze waarschuwingen. Het kan zelfs zover gaan dat het bij
het bestuur komt . En dan heeft het bestuur, uh, dan moet ik het goed zeggen, volgens mij een gele en een rode kaart”
Positive +
1. The team is able to choose the way to go about its work
- “Binnen het team kan ik genoeg meebeslissen, ja dat zeker. Ik vind dat hier geen onderscheid wordt gemaakt in het hokjes denken zeg
maar. Wij staan eigenlijk allemaal op één lijn”
- “Ja wel een routine in uh, die je in OT volgt, maar ook dat wordt dagelijks aangepast, dus ze zijn ook heel erg alert in uh, dat is in een POoverleg besproken, dan is dat ook aangepast, dan staat er ook achter wanneer dat is aangepast, dan zijn ze wel kritisch, ook naar elkaar.
Maar ook ideeën opperen, zo van hey, uh, kan dit niet beter zo en..”
- “Ja wel een routine in uh, die je in OT volgt, maar ook dat wordt dagelijks aangepast, dus ze zijn ook heel erg alert in uh, dat is in een PO104
overleg besproken, dan is dat ook aangepast, dan staat er ook achter wanneer dat is aangepast, dan zijn ze wel kritisch, ook naar elkaar.
Maar ook ideeën opperen, zo van hey, uh, kan dit niet beter zo en..”
- “Ik vind het wel meevallen qua regels. Ik vind dat we best veel vrijheid hebben. Natuurlijk heb je regels, maar ja, dat zijn eigenlijk gewoon
regels vanuit, vind ik, de maatschappij”
- “Ik denk dat iedereen hier wel een beetje meer naar het improviserend zit. Dat zal ook wel toeval zijn, maar ik denk ook omdat we dat
allemaal wel moeten omdat we ook met ouders te maken hebben. Je zit niet in een instelling te werken maar ouders hebben ook inspraak in
een heel groot deel. Dus ik denk dat iedereen daar ook gewoon zo mee om moet kunnen gaan”
- “Verschillende niveaus onder cliënten vinden ze een uitdaging. Zeker de, ja twee verschillende groepjes dat is ook echt van medewerkers
gekomen. Zo van, kunnen we het niet beter splitsen want dan komen ze allemaal aan het woord en anders overbluft de ander de andere
cliënt. Daar willen ze dan wel iets mee doen. Dat vinden ze dan wel een uitdaging om daarmee aan de slag te gaan”
- “Er wordt veel met elkaar ook gesproken en uiteindelijk ook op de mail gezet naar mij of ik hoor dat als ik er ben. Waar ze tegenaan lopen,
ja goed, daar wordt wel open over gesproken”
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Dus in die zin wordt er gewoon wel samengewerkt, maar ze trekken ook wel aan de bel zo van hey hier missen wij iets. Dan probeer ik
ook altijd wel zo goed mogelijk in te springen of er een teambespreking aan te wijden of een team-dag”
- “Ja als er een probleem geconstateerd word dan wordt er ook wel gelijk als team zijnde, zoek je daar een oplossing voor. Zoals ook met die
boodschappen dan ga je daar niet maanden mee door”
- “Ik denk dat iedereen die hier werkt heel scherp is. Ook hoe iedereen hier met dingen omspringt en, ja, ik geloof dat iedereen daar heel
scherp op is”
6. The team is able to decide team objectives
- “Er komt ook veel uit het team, dan trekken ze aan de bel van hey kunnen we weer een keer een extra bespreking hebben. Nogmaals, ik
blijf het zeggen, bij PGB heb je die mogelijkheid keer een extra bespreking hebben”
Negative –
2. The team is free to choose the method(s) to use in carrying out work
- “Ja goed je kunt hier nooit zomaar iets doen zonder uh, zonder de ouders er bij te betrekken zeg maar. Die zouden dat niet kunnen
waarderen. Dus daar moet je, je wel heel bewust van zijn”
4. The team has control over the scheduling of teamwork
- “Ik heb zelf het hele team aangenomen, want ja, dat is natuurlijk het voordeel als je net start, dan heb je gewoon zelf je mensen aan kunnen
nemen. Ik heb ook meteen taakverdeling, en een algemene taakverdeling, maar ook de begeleiders A die dan een aantal cliënten onder zich
hebben waar ze verantwoordelijk voor zijn, die hebben een koppeling met een begeleider B of een assistent begeleider dat is dan hun subgroepjes dan, die hun ondersteunt. En die hebben ook hun verwachtingen naar elkaar uitgesproken”
105
Team activity
pattern
Team performance
Autonomy -> Team
activity pattern
Team activity
pattern -> Team
performance
6. The team is able to decide team objectives
- “Daar zijn we nog niet. Daar hebben we het al best vaak over gehad, maar je mist dan gewoon die contactmomenten met elkaar om goed
feedback te geven”
- “De ondersteuning thuis die gebruiken we wel strikt. We hebben daar gewoon een map uh, lossen papieren zeg maar. Dat nemen we ook
altijd in onze diensten overal mee naar toe”
- “De collectieve momenten vind ik echt minder dan een jaar geleden. Ik heb hier dus eigenlijk een jaar gezeten voor ik met verlof ging, en
elke avond als ik hier terug, ja alle cliënten kwamen. En nu moet je ze echt uitnodigingen”
- “Ouders, dat ze toch wel hun stempel. Dat is ook het hele moeilijke, we werken vanuit Prisma, vanuit de kernwaarden, maar goed, van ons
wordt een bepaalde houding verwacht en uh, ouders hebben natuurlijk, zijn hier begonnen, met allemaal hun eigen beeld en in het begin
lijkt het allemaal soepel te verlopen, en het is nog wel dat het goed gaat, maar nu we langer op weg zijn merk je toch wel dat ze steeds meer
voor hun eigen kind, dat vind ik belangrijk en uh.. dat verschil is voor mij wel enorm sinds ik weer terug ben”
- “Ik heb ze gezien en ik vond ze eigenlijk heel positief ingevuld. En dan vraag ik me af, is dat echt allemaal zo, of dat als je daar op zou
doorvragen bij de cliënt, zitten er dan niet diepgaande, ja problemen wil ik niet echt zeggen, maar diepgaande dingen die het geluk mogelijk
toch iets lager scoren”
- “Zo werk je, want het staat eigenlijk gewoon vast. Wat je van drie tot negen gaat doen. Het beïnvloed wel. Dat is ook zo lekker aan de
weekenden, dat je dan ook wel een beetje de mogelijkheden hebt om iets anders te doen in het weekend”
- “Kijk het hoeft echt niet zoals de afgelopen zes weken te zijn, ik ben blij dat iedereen zo weer terug is en dat het weer allemaal normaal.
Maar ik merk ook wel in die weken dat het echt, leuke gesprekken, en ook spontaan. Want normaal staat wel in het OT van je hebt een
gesprek met die en die, maar dat is natuurlijk wel heel erg gepland. En nu komt er gewoon door al die weken heen kom je wel gewoon op
leuke gesprekken uit”
106
107