Synopsis

Because of the many different ethnic groups, cultures and languages (11 official languages) people refer to South Africa as the Rainbow nation. The presentation will cover the following:

• The distribution of Team Management Profile Questionnaire (TMPQ) roles in the South African sample
• The racial distribution of Team Management Profile Questionnaire (TMPQ) roles
• The balance/imbalance of + 10 management teams according to the Team Management Profile Questionnaire (TMPQ)
• The strengths and weaknesses of South African teams in terms of the criteria for effective teamwork
• The perception of managers and subordinates on the readiness of supervisors for leading self-directed teams

Paper/Conference Notes

South Africa is a country rich in diversity. Its people and their respective cultures and traditions, and its natural beauty and wildlife constitute a few of the aspects that make up a rainbow country in the true sense of the word. South Africa's population of more than 41 000 000 people is made up of various groups including the following: a few remaining members of the San (or Bushmen), the Nguni people, the South, North, West Sotho (Tswana), the Tsonga, the Venda, Coloreds, Indians, Afrikaners, English and people who have immigrated to South Africa from the Netherlands, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy and many other European countries. Many of these people still maintain their own traditions, languages and cultures. The Chinese people in South Africa also maintain a strong cultural identity.

Our national anthem is an example of the language diversity in the country. The official national anthem incorporates five languages and is both a prayer for the country and a poetic description of the land, ending on a highly inspirational note. The 1,35 minute anthem has eight lines comprising of the Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrica (Xhosa, Zulu and Sotho) and Die Stem (Afrikaans and English). The public also has the option of playing either of these two previous anthems.

South Africa had its first democratic election in April 1994 to elect a government of national unity. The first two years in the life of the "Rainbow Nation" contributed greatly to the unity of a new nation. Notably, the nation's achievements in several fields of international sports had a morale-boosting impulse. Some of the achievements on the sports fields are: winning the Rugby World Cup in 1995, winning the Africa Cup of Nations for soccer in 1996, five medals at the Olympic Games (three gold, one silver and one bronze), participation in the Para Olympic Games, and successes in the World Golf Cup and World Women's bowls championship. We even had a bid to host the Olympic Games in 2004.

Evidently sport plays a very important role in uniting the people of the country. As a result, sports teams were given new, creative names, supported and accepted by the majority of people in South Africa. Examples of these are the Amma Bokke Bokke (Rugby), Bafana Bafana (Soccer) and even the Ama Crokke Crokke (Team to compete at the Para Olympic Games).

Sports also plays a very important role in uniting people from totally different worlds within one country. People disadvantaged under apartheid, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, coloreds, Asians and political enemies suddenly support the same teams. The slogan "one nation, one team" originated from this unity. Against this background of current happenings in our country, supported by my experience with Team Management Systems (TMS) in my own consulting practise, I asked myself the following questions:

• Do we have rainbow teams within the South African Rainbow Nation?
• How do the major TMPQ role preferences of South African managers compare with those of managers in the rest of the world?
• Are there any differences in the distribution of roles on the TMPQ between South African Blacks, Whites and Asians?
• Are there any significant differences between Black, Asian and White South Africans in terms of job preferences?
• Do we have balanced teams in South Africa?
• What type of teamwork problems do South African teams experience?
• What perceptions exist with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of South African teams according to teambuilding facilitators?
• What perceptions exist with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of South African team leaders according to teambuilding facilitators?
• Are South African supervisors (team leaders) ready for self-directed teams?

2. Major Role Preference Distribution

The sample data consists of people tested in the process of selection, teambuilding and growth stimulation. The population of people tested on the TMPQ in South Africa is +2000. The sample of 917 people is not at all representative of the South African population, but merely a practical sample. The profiles were selected on the basis of the comprehensiveness of data. Consequently, some of the profiles were omitted due to missing information on the rest of the test battery. (The TMPQ is part of a complete test battery).

Table 2.1 Composition of South African sample based on ethnic groups

Table 2.2 Composition based on language

Table 2.3 Composition based on gender

Table 2.1 indicates that this sample consists of 68% White, 19% Black and 11% Asian people. The reason for this is that there is currently a very small percentage of Black and Asian people in more senior positions in South Africa. This can be expected to change drastically over the next few years. The affirmative action process is gaining momentum and we are in the process of implementing a new employment equity bill. This will have a definite impact on the composition of the sample based on race and gender. Another reason for the small percentage of female managers in Table 2.3 is the fact that many of the respondents are from traditionally male functional areas, namely engineering and production. The data in Table 2.2 only distinguishes between Afrikaans and English. A more reliable composition would be one based on home language.

Table 2.4 Distribution of major role preferences - comparing South African data with the rest of the world

Table 2.5 Distribution of first related role preference - South African data

Table 2.6 Distribution of second related role preference - South African data

When one compares the distribution of major roles it is interesting to note that the South African sample has a significantly higher percentage of Assessor-Developers compared to other countries. 85% of the South African sample is spread across the roles of Assessor-Developer, Thruster-Organizer and Concluder-Producer role preferences. This is an unbalanced distribution compared to the rest of the world. Less than 5% of the respondents have a major role preference in the Reporter-Adviser, Upholder-Maintainer, and Controller-Inspector sectors. Stronger tendencies towards the right of the Wheel in the South African sample could be as a result of sanctions imposed during the apartheid era. Managers and companies were mainly assessed in terms of output. South Africa was not really part of the global environment where companies had to compete with market leaders. This was advantageous to many companies, as they were the only providers in the local market. Subsequently, a culture was established in which new ideas and products were less important than mass output.

If one takes into consideration that most of the major roles are external roles, this sample could be described as analytical and structured ( ECAS, EPAS, IPAS). According to the TMS Personal Development Manual this sample of managers could be summarized as people who prefer:

• attempting to establish objective decision-making criteria
• measuring decisions against pay-off's
• occasionally to be seen as detached and clinical
• emphasizing decisions based on the situation
• are open to change depending on the situation
• negotiate on the basis of evidence
• are objective and fair
• like analysis and clarity
• set objectives and beliefs follow
• are task orientated
• are action-oriented, especially in resolving issues
• are persistent and aggressive with regard to set goals
• make hasty decisions without sufficient information
• are punctual, organized and efficient
• are reluctant to change once decisions have been made
• emphasizes concluding and resolving rather than diagnosing
• dislike ambiguity.

3. Role Preferences in South Africa

Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 compare the major role preferences of White, Black and Asian South African.

Table 3.1 Major role preferences of Black, White and Asian South Africans

Table 3.2 First related role preference of Black, White and Asian South Africans

Table 3.3 Second related role preference of Black, White and Asian South Africans

The information in Table 3.1 indicates that there is quite a difference between the data of Blacks compared to that of Whites and Asians in terms of major role preferences on the Team Management Wheel. It is interesting to note that there was no Reporter-Adviser within the sample of Blacks. The percentage of Explorer-Promoter major role preferences in the Asian sample is significantly lower than in the White and Black samples. 36% of the Blacks prefer the Assessor-Developer role as opposed to 24% of the Whites. There is further a lower percentage of Concluder-Producers in the Black sample (15%) than in the White sample (24%) and Asian sample (21%). 90% of major role preferences in the sample of Black respondents is distributed across the Assessor-Developer, Thruster-Organizer and Concluder-Producer major role preferences, with just over 1% of the sample spread across the Reporter-Adviser, Upholder-Maintainer, Controller-Inspector major role preferences.

A conclusive majority of the major role preferences are in the outer Wheel where the Assessor-Developer, Thruster-Organizer and Concluder-Producer are people who tend towards analytical and structured preferences.

The t-test was used to determine the difference between the mean scores of the Black, Asian and White samples and a statistically significant difference was reflected in the means of the Black, Asian and White groups on the creative scale as measured by the TMPQ.

Interesting to note from the analysis is that the differences between the scales on both the E-I and the P-C scales are less than two for the White and Asian sample, whereas the difference between the average score for introvert and extrovert on the E-I scale for the sample of Black respondents is more than two. On the whole there is quite a difference between the average score for all three groups in terms of the A-B and S-F scales. This correlates with the net median scores of the rest of the world.

Traditionally, the black manager was often labelled as being less time-conscious and end-results driven. Similarly managers in this group were also viewed as being more concerned about the group than the individual. This could be due to the apartheid era where they had to stand together and unite against a common enemy. Various studies in South Africa indicate that Black people tend to move towards collectivism while the Whites tend to be more individualistic.

4. Distribution of Role Preferences in South African Teams

The following information has been collected from sixteen teams whose members completed the TMPQ. Information from the TMPQ was used in a teambuilding process.

Table 4.1 Distribution of major role preferences within South African teams

Table 4.1 is a summary of the different major role preferences of sixteen South African teams. The following is an indication of the level and type of industry in which every team operates (Table 4.1 & 4.2):

• Team 1 - Top management : Manufacturing Industry
• Team 2 - Top management : Milling and Baking Industry
• Team 3 - Top management : Mining Industry
• Team 4 - Top management : Chemical Industry
• Team 5 - Top management : Electric Industry
• Team 6 - Top management : Local Authority
• Team 7 - Top management : Chemical Industry
• Team 8 - Area management : Milling and Baking
• Team 9 - Top management : Tertiary Training Institution
• Team 10 - IT team : Dairy industry
• Team 11 - IT project team : Engineering Industry
• Team 12 - Management team : Business Unit (Chemical Industry)
• Team 13 - Management team : Operations (Chemical Industry)
• Team 14 - Management team :Technical Department (Chemical Industry)
• Team 15 - Departmental Management team : Local Authority
• Team 16 - Owners : Legal Practise

Table 4.2 gives an indication of the major role preferences of the different leaders in every team. An interesting aspect is that all three Creator-Innovator leaders are inner Creator-Innovators, in other words a preference for the introverted, creative, analytical and flexible.

Table 4.2 Distribution of leader's major role preferences within South African teams

5. Teamwork in South Africa

In this part of the paper I will firstly concentrate on the strengths and weaknesses within South African teams based on the results of a questionnaire. Secondly I will discuss the perceptions of experienced team facilitators with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of South African teams as well as South African team leaders.

Table 5.1 Building blocks for effective teamwork

Table 5.1 provides an overview of eleven teams' own assessment against the criterion for effective teamwork as developed by Woodcock.

The scores given in Table 5.1 give an indication of the strengths/weaknesses of the specific criterion (building block) within the team. The maximum score for any one criterion is 12. A high score (out of twelve) is an indication of a possible problem area within the team. The last column on the right-hand side indicates the average score for this specific building block. From this Table it could be concluded that clear objectives, cooperation and regular review, control and feedback are possible areas of concern within South African teams. Individual development, leadership and effective procedures are not really areas of concern. The following are specific behavior or a lack of behavior identified as problems within most South African teams:

• Communication needs improving.
• We are all very busy but we do not seem to get anywhere.
• We do not spend adequate time planning for the future.
• We do not really work together.
• Skills and information are not shared sufficiently.
• There is not enough listening.
• We should discuss our differences more often.
• Priorities are unclear.
• We do not understand what other departments are aiming at.
• We do not plan for the future together.
• Different parts of the organization are pulling in different directions.
• We seldom question the content or usefulness of our meetings.
• We do not learn from our mistakes.
• We should spend more time questioning the way we operate.
• We spend too much time doing and not enough thinking.
• Delicate issues are never raised.

This correlates with my own perception of the strengths and weaknesses within South African teams. Teams do not spend enough time on clarifying objectives. Often when doing exercises or teambuilding with teams you will find that they try to solve a problem without knowing exactly what the problem is. Teams are so result-driven that, in the process, they are not working as a team but as individuals, and this creates conflict. Team members are often unwilling to put conflict on the table and solve it in a constructive way. One finds in South Africa that teams do not spend enough time to evaluate their own successes or failures. My personal feeling is that they do not have a learning orientation towards the achievement of results. They seldom learn from their mistakes or successes.

Although the teams did not identify individual development as a concern within the different teams, it is my personal opinion that there is still a culture in South African organizations that training and development is not that important. I think we are in a process where this culture is changing and in which development of people will become increasingly important. Many teams are strongly procedure-driven but they do not always question the meaningfulness of the procedures. Leadership was a further criterion that was not an area of concern. A possible reason for this is that teams completed this questionnaire in the course of the past five years and that they did not really understand the difference between leadership and management. It is once more my opinion that the concept of leadership within teams has changed over the last twelve to fifteen months and that it is possible that if teams were to complete the questionnaire again, they will assess the leadership of the team leader in a different way.

I have decided to add another dimension to this paper by asking non-TMPQ users to complete a short questionnaire on:

a) The importance of the types of work in teams;
b) The actual behavior (performance) of teams in the types of work;
c) The strengths and weaknesses of South African teams;
d) Challenges for teams and teamwork in South Africa;
e) The strengths and weaknesses of South African team leaders.

This would enable one to compare the information on the distribution of team roles, effectiveness of teamwork as identified by the building-blocks questionnaire and the date from the team facilitators.

Table 5.2 Differences between importance and performance in Types of Work

Table 5.2 gives an indication of the importance and actual behavior in terms of the types of work as well as the difference between them. Table 5.2 reflects a statistically significant difference in the means of the importance and performance criteria on advising, organizing, producing, maintaining, external linking and internal linking.

The following is a summary of the most significant problems that South African teams experience according to the facilitators:

• Uncertainty in terms of the role of the leader and team members.
• Lack of support systems.
• Poor interpersonal relationships/lack of understanding behavior/poor listening.
• Little knowledge of team behavior.
• Team members do not understand themselves, the process or the dynamics of teamwork.
• Inability to manage diversity/cultural biases/cultural barriers.
• Individualistic culture of white South Africans.
• Not focused on common goals.
• Focus is on transactional leadership and not transformational leadership.
• Do not know the conditions of the environment in which they need to function - inward focus.
• Do not critically evaluate or benchmark own results or processes.
• Reluctant to shift paradigms and adapt.
• Internal competition.
• Lack of cooperation.
• Lack of business understanding.
• Poor communication.

The following is a summary of the most important strengths of South African teams according to the facilitators:

• Loyal, hardworking - do not ask questions.
• Focusing energy on one or two tasks at hand.
• Commitment to success (white South Africans)/ commitment and drive/goal-orientated.
• Ownership of challenges.
• Wanting to succeed, to realize profits - "we have to".
• Technical skills.
• Innovative skills/creative.
• Problem-solving.
• Willingness to change.
• Supportive.
• Winning spirit.
• Strong cohesion.

The following are the most important challenges for teams and teamwork in South Africa according to the team facilitators:

• Creating self-directed working teams.
• Multi-skilling.
• Reaching goals.
• Managing diversity (race, gender)/bridging cultural gap.
• Higher level of knowledge about team behavior, processes and dynamics of teamwork.
• Understanding and implementing empowerment.
• How to distribute information to team members effectively.
• To understand what they must do to be competitive.
• Understanding their own competencies and capacities.
• Develop leadership within the team to be successful.
• Developing negotiating and mediating skills.
• Developing business understanding.

6. Team Leadership in South African Teams

The following is a summary of the positive characteristics of South African team leaders as identified by teambuilding facilitators:

• Assertive.
• Quick decision-making.
• Task-focused.
• Achievement-orientated.
• Hard-working/enthusiasm.
• Strong on mechanical issues - vision, mission and goals.
• Technical skills.
• Communication skills.
• Supportive.
• Charismatic leaders.
• Strong ethics.

The following is a summary of the weaknesses of South African team leaders as identified by teambuilding facilitators:

• Delegation.
• Feedback.
• Empathy.
• Coaching.
• Working too mechanical - denying dynamics (not trained in it).
• Being subjective/not objective/being seduced by management.
• Do not allow for empowerment - focus on self and own career.
• An inability to motivate: lack of transformational leadership.
• Lack of listening skills.
• Lack of social responsibility.
• Do not allow for shared power and responsibilities.
• Do not utilize or unleash the human potential in teams.
• Rigid.
• Feeling threatened.
• Territorial aggression.

A study was conducted by Amprop International to determine how South African executives compare with international executives and to determine what specific assets South African executives have. The executives surveyed are a highly diverse groups of 115 senior executives working in different sectors of the South African economy. The executives found that South African executives show strengths in the following areas:

• Their ability to create visions and the excellent strategic awareness.
• They are self-confident, independent thinkers.
• Their persuasive skills and assertive style.
• Strong drive to achieve.
• Clear focus on the bottom line.
• Achieving results is one of their most significant strengths.

Areas of weaknesses include:

• They are conservative risk-takers, and tend to try new ways of doing things only within existing organizational parameters.
• Speed rather than quality seems to be their overriding concern.
• Their followers perceive them as forceful, independent decision-makers and not as participatory.
• They may come across as formal and rigid.
• They tend to focus more on the negative elements of performance.
• They do not communicate objectives clearly, but they do give feedback - especially if things go wrong - which can be confusing to their followers.

The major area of weakness in the South African profile is team playing. Because of their competitiveness and their urge to win at all costs, they may not see that it is counter-productive to win at the cost of team members.

The Amprop research report made the following recommendations:

• South African executives need to shake off the shackles of traditional practices.
• They need to understand that, in a competitive environment, quality is power.
• There is a need to look at employees through new eyes, to try to identify the unique motivations that drive them.
• Success in motivating followers will depend on the leader's ability to relate to followers and develop relationships that are characterized by warmth and sensitivity.
• Managers must work at listening to their employees rather than hearing them. They should commit themselves to adopting participatory practices in the workplace.
• Energy should be invested in developing a culture of teamwork in organizations. They need to move from a hierarchy and bureaucratic approach to interaction, co-dependence and co-accountability.

In a study conducted by Joppie van Graan during 1997, six growth areas were identified for senior managers in South Africa. The six areas will be discussed briefly:

• Leadership identity

  Rightly or wrongly, leaders have had a clearly exclusive perception of who they are, how they lead and how their followers perceive them. On being probed, these leaders know exactly what value they add to the system, how they formulate a vision for their team, how they motivate their subordinates, who their subordinates are and what their strengths and possible weaknesses are, how they make decisions and how they discipline or solve problems.

  Although the group who participated in this research does have some idea of how to lead, there seemed to be vagueness and even gaps. Some of the participants project an image of leadership, but are not really comfortable with integrating these activities with their own behavior. For example, the majority of them stated that their style of management is one of participation. It is, however, clear that they do not understand the full meaning of participation. It is almost as if they have a theoretical notion, but not a practical interpretation in terms of their own situation. They all know that it will be important to formulate a vision and to inspire followers with enthusiasm so that they will be able to realize this vision. On being asked, however, how they are going to achieve this, they found it difficult to transfer their ideas into strategy and practical behavior.

• Business versatility

  Generically speaking all of the participants, through the process of conditioning, exposure and training, became highly effective and specialized managers. They are extremely competent in their own areas of expertise. However, for them to go from this to the next management level, they need to obtain multi-disciplinary management and business experience.

  They are not sensitive towards the macro and micro forces that impact on the broader system. They do understand the different production factors but their mindsets are more isolated than integrated. The impact of this is that, although they know how to manage each of these production factors separately, they could fail to understand how these production factors interact.

  They need to become multi-disciplined and they need to acquire multi-disciplinary exposure.

• Strategic thinking

  One of the generic indicators observed in the group is that the minds are directed more towards short-term end-results, than being process-strategically oriented. This simply means that they do not have a frame of mind or strategic reference against which information can be interpreted. It makes them more reactive than proactive. They find it difficult to assess the full impact and implication of information. They also find it difficult to understand the process of problem solving and their minds focus almost solely on the solution before they understand the full nature and implication of the problem.

  They also find it extremely difficult to depart from the comfort of logic. This has the effect that they find it almost impossible to solve a problem that is based on probabilities and not on clear-cut information and facts. The result of this is that they find it difficult to make decisions. Although they are extremely good in analyzing facts and exploring different alternative solutions, they do not always understand how to bridge the gap between facts and final decisions. They do not have that confidence, especially if bridging the gap means that they have to rely on their own perceptions and even judgement and gut feeling. They need to be encouraged to develop that confidence and to acquire the willingness to deliberately question the basics of their own reasoning. This will enable them to become more innovative and to create new procedures and processes.

• Listening

  This is a true problem for South African managers. They are sensitive to the fact that they are sometimes not attuned to the subtleties of human interaction. They focus on facts and they constantly assess the impact of the facts and information on the viability of projects. On the other hand they are less sensitive towards the process of interpersonal interaction, and could then sometimes be caught off guard.

• Communication

  One of the concerns is that the focus of communication is on waiting to be told instead of taking the initiative to find out.

• Culture

  The system has a stronger culture of control and preventing than of growth and developing.

  Guy Charlton studied leadership in South Africa to identify the competencies of South African leaders and to distinguish effective from average performers. The sample consisted of twenty of the most senior people in a large South African organization. The leadership group was then split into two groups of ten excellent and ten average leaders, chosen on the basis of performance-appraisal ratings, subordinate ratings of the leaders and peer-ratings at the same level of the organizational hierarchy. A random sample of forty subordinates was drawn, two per leader to assess the leader. He found that excellent leaders were rated significantly higher (by their followers) on the dimension of attention through vision, meaning through communication, trust and the management of the self. The empowerment of followers also emerged as a distinguishing competence of effective leadership.

7. Self-Directed Teams in South Africa

South Africa, like the rest of the world, is currently undergoing major changes, amongst others in the political, social, technological and economical spheres. Organizations are compelled to improve their competitiveness. To adapt to the demands of change, organizations have to be flexible and ready to innovate. Participation by means of self-directed working teams is therefore provided as a solution to improve the effectiveness of organizations and attempt to ensure survival and growth. At the same time we have a reconstruction and development programme that has been initiated by the government. The RDP is an integrated, coherent socioeconomic policy framework. It seeks to mobilize all our people and our country's resources towards the final eradication of apartheid and the building of a democratic, nonracial and non-sexist future. Two of the five major programmes of the RDP, developing our human resources and democratising the state and society, are further factors in supporting the implementation of participatory programmes within organizations.

To ensure the successful implementation of self-directed working teams, it is necessary to determine the readiness of the employees. It is important to keep in mind that a large percentage of the work force in South Africa is illiterate or semi-illiterate. It is therefore impossible to implement self-directed teams in the same way as in countries such as Australia, the USA or Europe. One of the challenges of South African companies is to improve the literacy level of its employees. At the same time it is important not to view this as an excuse not to implement a form of self-directed teams or a participatory management programme.

Three studies have been conducted concentrating on the readiness of supervisors for the implementation of self-directed working teams. Readiness of supervisors has therefore been determined in terms of the extent to which certain behavioral dimensions were met. From the literature survey, six roles/functions were identified as important for the readiness of supervisors, namely leader, coach/trainer, team developer, barrier buster, facilitator and business analyzer.

The empirical research was conducted in a gold mine, a manufacturing industry and a non-profit utility company. A questionnaire consisting of seventy items was developed to evaluate the six constructs of self-directed team leadership. The respondents had to complete two parts, namely a section where they had to indicate how important the different dimensions or items are, and secondly to indicate the degree to which supervisors execute certain functions and behavior. A 360-degree assessment method was used to gather the information. The questionnaires were completed by managers, the supervisors themselves and by the supervisors' subordinates.

Table 7.1 and 7.2 summarizes as well as shows the difference between the mean responses of managers, supervisors and subordinates. A score of 4 and higher is an indication of preparedness for the implementation of self-directed teams.

The following is a summary of the results of the research in the gold mine (Table 7.2). It appeared from the research that the total supervisors' group as well as the supervisors' group within specific departments regarded the six constructs of team leadership as important. There was also a significant correlation between the supervisors' readiness and their perception of the importance of these constructs. The perception of superiors, supervisors and subordinates was measured in order to determine whether the supervisors were ready for the implementation of self-directed working teams or not. Information from the research indicated that all three groups regarded the supervisors as ready for the implementation of self-directed working teams. Apart from the superiors in the mining department who did not regard supervisors as ready with regard to some constructs (coach/trainer, team developer and facilitator), supervisors were regarded as ready by the other groups in the specific department.

Table 7.1 Comparing the perceptions of managers, subordinates and sueprvisors in terms of supervisors' readiness to implement of self-directed teams in a manufacturing industry

Table 7.2 Comparing the perceptions of managers, subordinates and sueprvisors in terms of supervisors' readiness to implement of self-directed teams in a goldmine

The results of the research in the gold mine are opposite to that in the manufacturing industry (Table 7.1). The study in the manufacturing industry indicates that in general supervisors are not regarded as prepared for self-directed working teams. Whereas superiors regarded supervisors as not being ready, the supervisors viewed themselves as being ready, while the perception of subordinates is that supervisors do not possesses readiness. The perception of the total population of supervisors is that the functions required of them in self-directed working teams are not important. Within the different business units only supervisors of one business unit regard the functions as important.

A possible reason for the discrepancy between the results of the mine and the manufacturing industry could be that the mine had already spent a lot of time and effort, money and energy on developing people towards a more participatory approach.

In the case of the nonprofit utility company where a questionnaire has been developed to determine the organization's preparedness for participatory management processes with reference to self-directed working teams, the following is a summary of the results. The subjects had to evaluate the importance of the items for themselves on the one hand, and on the other hand how often these occurred in the company. The instrument was primarily used to determine whether perceptions of what was happening in the organization differed from what was of actual importance to the employees. The results of the survey indicated factors such as communication, leadership, needs, values, and teamwork as being more important to them than they occurred in the organization. With regard to factors such as empowerment and maturity, there was a perception that they occurred more than was important to them. In general the results indicate that the organization is not yet ready for participatory management practices.

8. Conclusion

The rainbow nation still has a long journey to travel before South African rainbow teams are fundamentally established. Teams need to be re-engineereed in order to succeed In the process the obtaining and distributing of information is vital. Regular performance review and continuous learning from their mistakes and successes also play a significant role. Leaders should concentrate on improving their understanding of teamwork dynamics. The TMPQ can play an important role in transforming teams and team leaders.

9. Bibliography

• AMPROP INTERNATIONAL. 1995. South African executives: face to face with the world.
• ANC. 1994. The reconstruction and development programme. Johannesburg:Umanyano Publications.
• CENTRAL STATISTICAL SERVICES. 1997 South African statistics. Pretoria:State library.
• CHARLTON, G. 1993. Leadership: the human race. Kenwyn:UTA.
• DE WAAL, J.J.P. 1997. Preparedness of supervisors in the gold mine industry for the implementation of self-directed working teams (translated from Afrikaans). Masters dissertation.
• TMS. 1994. TMS Research Update No. 2. York:TMS (UK) Ltd.
• JORDAAN, M. 1994. Determining the level of preparedness of a non-profit utility company for the implementation of self-directed teams (translated from Afrikaans). Masters dissertation.
• KOTZE, D.N. 1996. Preparedness of supervisors for self-directed teams in a manufacturing industry. (translated from Afrikaans). Masters dissertation.
• MARGERISON, C. AND McCann, D. 1991. The personal development manual. Second edition. York:TMS (UK) Ltd.
• SOUTH AFRICA YEARBOOK. 1997. South African communication services:Pretoria.
• TMS. 1990. Accreditation handbook. York:TMS (UK) Ltd.
• WOODCOCK, M. 1997. Team development manual. Farnborough:Gower press.

Copyright © Marius Stander. All rights reserved.

Marius Stander
STAFFGRO Pty Ltd
Postnet suite 35
Private Bag X1
Northcliff 2115
South Africa
mstander@indgro.co.za

Marius has obtained a BCom. Industrial Psychology, BCom. Hons (cum laude) and MCom. (cum laude) at the Potchefstroom University. He is currently a part-time lecturer and study leader for Masters students and the Managing Director at Staffgro, a division of Indgro Holdings. Indgro Holdings deliver a comprehensive suite of outsourcing services (cleaning, payroll, HR, staffing and warehousing) on a national basis. Staffgro provide the following staffing solutions of Temporary Employment Services, Permanent Placements and Customized Outsourcing.

E-mail this article to a friend or colleague Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service. If you are not sure what the words are, either enter your best guess or click the reload button () next to the distorted words. Their e-mail:     Your e-mail:     Comments/Message: