1. 1
Case study research on creating a self-managing team in a
hierarchical company
Roelienda Zevenbergen
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Master of information studies
Business Information Systems
5730201
Roelienda@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This research uses qualitative data to examine the change in the
business and the employees when a team becomes self-managing.
It is based on an extended literature study in combination with a
case study. The research shows that the structure of this team was
in line with the created research model. It can be found that
employees are more motivated and less ill when working in a self-
managing team. Furthermore the research shows that this team
works more efficiently and can respond more quickly to business
demands.
Keywords
Self-management, holacracy, sociocracy, teams, engagement,
leadership, empowerment
1. INTRODUCTION
“Great things in business are never done by one person. They
are done by a team of people” – Steve Jobs
As stated by Steve Jobs, businesses need teams of people to do
great things. In most companies these teams or groups of people
are led by a manager. Another way to work is to give the
employees more authority by creating, for example, self-managing
teams. There are great examples of companies that started from
the beginning with self-managing teams, such as Spotify,
Schuberg Philis and Finex.
The idea of empowering people in the workplace is something
that started during the industrial revolution. Augustus Comte was
the first to use the word sociocracy. The word sociocracy is a
derivation of the Greek and Latin words socius (companion) and
kratein (to govern). It means the rule by the socios, so rule by the
people who have an inner relationship with each other, as opposed
to democracy, the rule by the demos, the mass of the people. But
Augustus Comte was unable to suggest a practical structure for
sociocracy (Buck and Endenburg 2004). In the years since it’s
been discovered that it is important to involve everyone in the
organization with the business strategy.
When trying to give the employees more power and trying to
create self-managing teams in a hierarchical company it is often
the case that teams fail due to low performance. Attempts result in
resistance from both managers and team, according to Wageman
(2001).
This research looks at the process that happens when a team in a
hierarchical company tries to shift towards a self-managing team.
And tries to show that it is possible to make this shift successfully.
The results of this research are stated in this document, and the
setup of this document is in the following order:
First the research design is given. The setup of this research
design is according to the qualitative research design approach of
Maxwell (2012). In this research design the goals, conceptual
framework, research question and sub questions, method of
research and how it’s taken care of that the research is valid is
given. Next it will look at the theory about self-managing teams.
In this paragraph the current research and theories that relate to
the topic of this research will be provided. In the next paragraph
the results of the case study that is conducted at the Rabobank will
be provided. In the analysis part of this document is the case study
compared to the theoretical framework. This document will end
with a discussion, conclusion and possible future work that can be
conducted on this topic.
2. RESEARCH DESIGN.
As stated in the introduction, this research design is set up
according to the qualitative research design approach of Maxwell
(2012). At the end of this paragraph it will be clear why and how
this research is conducted, and which research questions have
been answered.
2.1 Conceptual framework
In the 1980s and 1990s two contrasting tendencies in the
organization and control of work show up. According to Romme
(1998), there is a tendency toward more efficient and flexible
work relationships. To be more efficient and flexible there is a
tendency of downsizing the workforce with use of more authority
structures. The other tendency is the shift to participative and
cooperative governance in the workplace. This is in contradiction
to the more authority structures. Since one side is focusing on
authority and the other side is focusing on empowering of the
employees and giving the employees more control.
A lot of companies are currently struggling with these two
tendencies. They want to downsize the workforce by creating
more work authority. This should result in more flexibility and
more efficiency of the work that should be done. On the other side
they want to have a participative and cooperative governance in
the workspace (Romme 1998).
When looking at work, there are four conditions to be met when
work is performed in a purposive organization (Hackman 1987).
First, the work should be executed by a person or group. Second
the work processes must be monitored by a person or group and
changes should be initiated in pace of procedure if needed.
Thirdly the performing unit and its context must be structured by
a person or group, staffing the unit setting up the task and arrange
organizational resources and support. Fourth the goals and
objectives that are to be accomplished should be specified by a
person or group. In figure 1 is the theory shown in a graphical
way.

2. 2
Figure 1 Theory of Hackman
According to Hackman (1987) in a manager-led work team, only
the first is done by the team, the rest is decided by the manager. It
could be expected that this is different for self-managing teams.
For this research the four basic conditions of Hackman will be
used, to define who is doing which task.
Kovach (1987) conducted research about what motivates
employees to do their job. The research of Kovach has shown that
it is important for workers to have interesting jobs. An interesting
job is even more important than high wages. Harter et al. (2002)
have shown that there is a relationship between satisfaction and
engagement of employees and business outcomes.
In 1965 the Theory of Thuckman is introduced about
development of groups. According to this theory every group goes
through 4 stages before being a functional group. First stage is the
forming stage. This stage is known for its testing and dependence,
the group researched the task. Storming stage is the second stage.
This stage is known for intergroup conflict. This is normally an
emotional response to the task demands. Third stage is the
norming stage. The group develops cohesion. And finally the
performing stage, where the group develops a solution for the
given task and becomes a functional group.
Figure 2 Theory of Thuckman
These three basic theories together will be used further through
the study. As expected by the given theory, a team that shifts from
manager-led towards a self-managing team should be going
through the four stages of the theory of Thuckman. This research
will look at these stages, and in each stage it will be looked at
which condition of work is done by the team and which condition
is done by the manager. Furthermore it will look at each stage and
see what the satisfaction and engagement is of the employees and
what the business outcomes are. It can be, for example, expected
that in the storming phase, the satisfaction and the engagement of
the employees is low.
2.1.1 Self-management vs. Self-organized
Both in theory and in practice, the terms self-managing and self-
organizing teams are often mixed up. For this research it is
important that the correct term is used. In this research the
definition of McMillan (2000) will be used.
A self-managing team is a team that is part of a bigger
organization. There is a strong sense of team commitment. There
is a senior management that is accountable for everything that
happens in the team and this management controls the team
indirectly. Decision-making is a planned process. At least one
member of the team is organizationally focused
A self-organized team is a team that is not directly part of an
organization. The team is spontaneously formed around a
problem, and the goal of the team is to resolve such a problem.
All members roles relates to this task. The team members decide
what will happen and are not managed by a senior manager. Often
these teams are temporary.
Since this research is focusing on teams in a bigger hierarchical
organization, the focus will be on self-managing teams.
2.1.2 Goals
The goal of this research is to show what the results are of a self-
managing team by looking at engagement, overall satisfaction of
the employees, effectiveness and output of the team. Could a self-
managing team be the answer to the struggle of a lot of companies
who want to downsize the company, be more effective but also
want to give the employees more authority?
As Wageman (2001) stated, teams often fail in becoming a self-
managing team. This research wants to look at the change process
towards a self-managing team and what could be the possible
struggles and mistakes in becoming a self-managing team. Besides
the employees, the manager of the team could be a big factor in
the success of the change towards a self-managing team.
According to Katzenbach & Smith (1993) managers often think
they know what teams are, but often they don’t know what is
necessary to make a team function well or they don’t apply it.
When thinking about self-managing teams and leadership or
management, the combination seems a paradox (Manz 1987). In
traditional manager-led teams, the manager often serves as a team
leader. In a self-managed team this role, as the term self-
management states, will be taken over by the team. This raises the
question if a manager would still be necessary. Due to this fact
another goal of the research is to show what the role is of the
manager during and after the shift of becoming a self-managing
team.
The last goal is to look at the flow of information. When looking
at a traditional hierarchical organization, the flow of information
is normally top to bottom. The director or board makes a decision,
and the rest of the organization follows. It is interesting to see,
how the information flow changes when a team in such an
organization changes towards being self-managing.
When thinking about self-managing teams and leading teams,
many factors should be taken into account. Wageman (2001) is
talking about resistance when changing towards self-managing
teams. This resistance could come from the idea that the current
way of working is seen as a problem and the solution could be a

3. 3
self-managing team. After starting with becoming self-managing,
the storming phase starts and inner conflicts and struggles start to
show. At this point a self-managing team seems not to be working
and the statement could be made that becoming a self-managing
team is not the right solution. In the theory of Johnson (1992) this
problem-solution thinking is stated as polarity management. By
thinking in problem and solutions it gives the idea that current
way of working is wrong and self-management is the big solution.
It gives the idea that the team should never want to go back to
manager-led way of working. It is important to see that there is no
problem or solution. Both ways of working have their good sides
and their bad sides. Sometimes, or for some teams or managers, it
could be necessary that a manager leads the team. While other
times the team works best under its own supervision. Due to this
fact, this study will not provide a value to the given data. So this
research will not give a conclusion if self-managing teams are
better than manager-led teams, it only gives information what
happens with the business outcomes and the employees.
The four given goals for this research are:
 To look if self-managing teams can be the answer to the
struggle of lots of companies who want to downsize and
want to give the people more authority.
 To look at the change process and the struggles of
becoming self-managing.
 To show the role of the manager during and after the
change process
 To show the information stream
2.2 Research (sub)questions
In the previous paragraph the four goals for this research stated.
These goals where to show: the results of a self-managing team,
the change process of becoming a self-managing team, to show
the role of a manager in such a team and the possible change in
the information stream. In combination with the given conceptual
framework, this results in the following research question:
Does it influences the business outcomes and the employees when
changing towards a self-managing team in a hierarchical
company?
2.2.1 Sub questions
This research question can be separated into the following five
different sub-questions.
Q1: What is the structure of a self-managing team?
To be able to answer the research question, it is important to
know what the structure is of a self-managing team. Besides that
Katzenbach & Smith (1993) have shown that managers think that
they know what a team is. The answer to this research question
should make clear what, for this research, is meant when talked
about self-managing teams. And should show what the additional
tasks are for team members, when working in a self-managing
team. Lastly it will show how the information is flowing between
the team and the rest of the organization. To answer this question
the conditions of work according to Hackman (1987) can be used.
Q2: What are the tasks of a manager in a self-managing team?
As shown in the conceptual framework, a manager in a self-
managing team appears to be a paradox. But also Katzenbach &
Smith (1993) shows that managers often don’t know what is
necessary to make a team perform. The answer to this research
question should give a clear view about de role of the manager
during the shift towards self-management, and the tasks of de
manager after the shift.
Q3: What is the process of becoming a self-managing team?
Change processes are always difficult. The theory of Thuckman
(1965) has shown that before a team can perform, there are
different required stages. Wageman (2001) has shown that often
changing towards self-managing teams fails. The answer to this
research question should provide information about what can go
wrong when being in the progress towards self-management and
what the critical phases are in becoming a self-managing team.
Q4: Does a self-managing team have better business outcomes?
As shown in the conceptual framework, companies want to
downsize and work more effectively. The answer to this research
question should show if empowering the employees could result
in better business outcomes. This could mean that the team is
working more effectively with less people.
Q5: What is the effect on employees when becoming a self-
managing team?
Having an interesting job is important for employees (Kovach,
1987). A more satisfied and engaged employee could result in a
better business outcome (Harter et al. 2002). By answering this
question it should be clear if employees are more satisfied and
more engaged when working in a self-managing team.
The goal of many companies is to downsize the company, work
more efficiently and empower the employees. This research shows
if self-managing teams could reach this goal. Sub-questions one
and two provide information about the structure of the team and
the different role’s that members could have. With question three
the goal is to see how to get to this new structure. Research sub
questions four and five give an answer to the results of having a
team in such a structure. Together, the answers to these five sub-
questions should provide a complete answer to the main research
question.
Figure 3 Relations between sub questions
2.3 Method
To answer the main research question qualitative research will be
conducted. This will be done by using two methods. First, an
extended literature review will be conducted. Secondly, a case
study research will be done to discover if changing towards a self-

4. 4
managing teams influences the business outcomes and the
employees.
According to Flyvbjerg (2006) a case study is an examination of a
single example. Case studies produce the type of context-
dependent knowledge, which is necessary for people to go from
rule based beginners to experts. According to human affairs
studies, there only exists context dependent knowledge
(Flyvbjerg, 2001). The study of cases as a research and teachings
method is necessary for context dependent knowledge.
This research will show the case of a self-managing team at the IT
infrastructure department of the Rabobank, one of the big banks
in the Netherlands. To test if this case is a good case that fits with
the theory, the way of working will be tested by comparing it to a
theoretical framework of a self-managing team that will be created
by conducting an extended literature study.
The literature research will be used to build a theory that will be
tested by the case study. The goal of the literature study is to
provide a theory for all the different sub questions. The literature
research provides an answer to all the different sub questions. The
literature that will be used will cover, books, articles and doctoral
thesis’s. The literature is written in both Dutch and English.
With use of the theory of the literature study, the case study
research will be conducted. After conducting the case study both
the results from the literature study and the results of the case
study are compared. By studying the differences and overlap
between the theory and the case, this research will give an answer
to the sub- and main research questions.
Figure 4 Research method
The case study research consists of qualitative research. The goal
of this case study research is to give an answer to all the different
sub questions. With the intent to show if and how the theory
works in practice, to gain context dependent knowledge. This case
study research has been conducted by doing interviews. Using
data from interviews that are conducted by the observed team.
Using MTO’s (employee engagement research) that was
conducted by the Rabobank and using data with the output of the
team that is provided by the team itself. In the appendix only the
conducted interviews are given. The rest of the information cannot
be provided in more depth than is given in this research, due to
company secrecy. In the next three sub-sections these methods
will be explained in more depth, which should provide an
overview of which method is used to answer which research
question.
2.3.1 MTO
Almost each quarter of the year an employee engagement research
is run for the whole infrastructure department, this is called MTO.
The research was not conducted systematically every quarter, due
to reorganizational changes within the company. This means that
some quarters are missing. This engagement research is in line
with the Utrechtse Bevlogenheid Schaal (UBES) (Schaufeli &
Bakker 2004). This employee engagement research will be used
to look at the engagement of the employees and the grade they
give their own work. The goal of studying the results of this
engagement research is to show if the engagement shifts, from
start, when the team was manager-led, to finish, when the team
was a self-managing team. Besides the engagement of the
employees, this research also provides data about the work load
and the work pressure that the employees feel. This means that the
results of this research could provide an answer to sub question
five. What is the effect on employees when becoming a self-
managing team?
2.3.2 Data provided by the team
The team has a lot of data about amount of employees, the rate of
absence due to sickness, worked hours, output of the team etc.
This data will be used to see if the department became more
effective. This should be evidenced by doing more work in less
time or with less employees. This is data about the business
outcomes and will provide information to answer research
question four.
Furthermore, the team wrote their own business plan in 2016. In
this plan they looked back at the past years and it provides a
vision for the following years. It also consists of information
about the current team structure. This information will be used to
answer research question one. The plan itself is build up out of
data and structured interviews (Robson, 2016) with all the team
members. Out of these interviews more information can be found
on the effect of self-management on the employees. So this will
also help to answer research sub question five.
2.3.3 Interview
Multiple interviews were held to provide an answer to all the
different research sub questions. All interviews are semi-
structured interviews (Robson, 2016) and have been conducted in
Dutch. These interviews were held to give more insight about the
different managerial points of view. Each interviewed manager is
on a different place in the hierarchical chain and has another
starting point when facing the shift towards self- management of
the team. This could provide interesting, different points of view.
The first interview that was held is with the current manager of
the team, Patrick Scholte. He was the person that decided in 2011
that the team was going to be self-managed, and was manager
during all the years that the team was transforming. He also has a
strong opinion about the role of the manager in a self-managing
team. This means that this interview will provide information
about the role of the manager, so it will help to answer sub
question two. Furthermore he can provide more information about
the structure of the current team, which will help to answer sub
question one. Since Patrick Scholte started the whole process of
becoming self-managed, and was manager during the whole
transition, this interview can also help with answering sub
question three. And finally he can provide information about the
business outcomes and the effect on employees, which will help
to answer sub questions four and five.
The second interview is an interview with a former team lead of
the team, Marko van Beurden. He became team lead, in the
beginning of 2014, when the team was already started with
transforming towards a self-managing team and did
witness/started a phase where the change of becoming self-

5. 5
managed almost failed, it is probable that this is the storming
phase as described by Tuckman (1965). Currently he works as a
team lead of another team of the IT infrastructure department that
is still manager-led. This interview is focused on the change that
the team has made during his team lead period and can in that way
provide information to answer sub question three. Since he is now
team lead of another team he can give clear information about the
difference between managing a self-managing team and a manager
led team. This will provide information to answer sub question
two.
The third interview is with the manager of the whole IT
infrastructure department, Rob Zwart. He became manager of the
department in the middle of 2013, during a reorganization, and
witnessed the shift in a more objective way, since he was not a
direct team member. This interview will be focused on the
management style that he witnessed by Patrick Scholte and the
way the team and the rest of the business reacted on that. By
looking at the management style, research question two can be
answered. The reaction of the business and the employees will
help to answer sub questions four and five.
Lastly, interviews with different members of the team were
conducted. In the last business plan, structured interviews were
already conducted with all the team members. The results of these
interviews will be used in this research. If the already conducted
interviews didn’t provide enough information to answer the
research questions, semi-structured interviews weree held with
different members of the team. The goal of these interviews is to
know the engagement of the employees and how it is for a team
member to shift from a manager lead team to a self-managing
team. This will provide information to answer sub question five.
But also to discover how the team is currently working, making
decisions and how the information flows within the team and
between team and management. This information is necessary to
answer research question one and two. These interviews can also
provide information about the process of becoming self-managed,
this will be useful to answer research question three. And finally
they can provide information about the business outcomes, which
relates to sub question four.
The interviews will be transcribed by labelling which research
question can be answered by the response of the interviewee.
When the answer can be backed up by data from other sources,
e.g. other interviews, team data or MTO, it will be used to answer
the sub-question. If the interviewee gives an personal opinion
which the interviewee can back up by giving a clear example, it
can also be used to answer the research question. This is
especially necessary to answer sub question five, since it is
expected that the answers result in a lot of personal feelings and
opinions, which can be different for different people and cannot
always be measured in other ways.
In table one a clear overview is provided of which source answers
which sub question. By using multiple sources, the goal is to
make the answer for the main research question more valid.
3. LITERATURE STUDY
In this literature study, answers will be provided for all given sub
questions. With use of this study a research model will be build,
which will be used in the case study. During the analysis the
research model that is created, will be compared to the case study
results. The results of this analysis can be found in the analysis
chapter of this thesis. Each section in this paragraph will focus on
one of the sub questions that should be answered in the research.
First the structure of a self-managing team is given and the role of
the manager. This should provide a framework of what kind of
self-management is talked about. Next is given how to get to such
a team, so what is the process. And lastly the expected outcomes
of such a team are given. The final paragraph provides the
research model.
3.1 The structure of a self-managing team
In this sub section an overview is provided about the literature
and current theories about the structure of a self-managing team.
There will be looked at how a team is structured, what the tasks
are for the team members and how decisions are made.
According to McMillan (2000) self-managing teams should be
part of a bigger organization, have a manager that is indirectly in
control and decision-making is planned. The theory that will be
created by using this information will later on be used to compare
it with the case study. In the research design a definition is given
for self-managing teams.
The study of Alper (1998) has shown that a self-managing team
should not consist of more than 20 team members. When a team
gets bigger decision making can become difficult, and the
effectiveness of the team is lowered. In a self-managing team the
members should be rewarded for skill and knowledge rather than
seniority.
3.1.1 Authority
The theory of Hackman (1978) did already show what is
necessary for a team to perform. In figure 1 this is visualized. For
self-managing teams it is important to know for which part the
team is responsible and for which part the manager is responsible.
Q1:
Structure
Q2:
Task of manager
Q3:
Process
Q4:
Business outcome
Q5:
Effect on employees
Literature X X X X X
MTO X
Team data X X X
Interview MvB X X
Interview PS X X X X X
Interview RZ X X X
Interviews Team X X X X X
Table 1 Sources to answer research questions

6. 6
In the theory of McMillan it’s already shown that the manager is
accountable for everything that the team does.
In literature there are different opinions about the structure of a
self-managing team and the responsibilities of the team.
According to Wageman (2001) in a self-managing team, the team
has authority and accountability for the first two conditions that
were provided by Hackman (1978). This means that the work
should be done and monitored by the team, while the structure
and the goals of the team are provided by the manager. Alper et
all (1998) stated that a self-managing team has even more
responsibilities. According to this study self-managing teams also
have control over hiring. In another study (Manz 1987) it’s said
that self-managing teams most important behaviours are self-
observation, self-evaluation and self-reinforcement. Self-
management implies a sense of ownership. This means that the
team should be able to monitor what they are doing (self-
observation). Be able to see if they are going in the right direction
or doing the right things (self-evaluation) and be able to get the
right resources and support (self-reinforcement). Members of a
self-managing team define their work roles in relation to the
groups primary task rather to one specific job.
In this research the most extended version of being self-managing
has been chosen, in accordance with the theory of Manz (1987).
This means that a team should be able to self-observe, self-
evaluate and self- reinforce. This means that the team is
responsible for the work and monitoring the work, these are the
first two conditions of Hackman (1987). Besides that the team is
responsible for arranging the right reinforcements, this is the third
condition of Hackman. This all should be done in relation to the
goal of the team, the fourth condition of Hackman.
3.1.2 Decision making
In the introduction of this thesis the idea of sociocracy has already
been mentioned. To look at the decision-making in a team, this
research will look at Sociocratic circle organization (Buck &
Endenburg 2012, Endenburg 1998) or Holacracy (Robertson
2007). As stated in the introduction sociocracy means to rule by
the socios, so rule by the people who have an inner relationship
with each other. In these organizations there are four defining
elements.
1) Element of consent. This principal governs decision-
making. Consent means that there is no argued and
predominant objection against a decision. This differs
from democracy where the majority rules.
2) Election of persons. Persons are elected for functions
and/or tasks after open argumentation with use of the
principle of consent
3) Circle. The organization is structured with semi-
autonomous circles (groups of individuals). Each circle
has its own aim. They make their own policy decisions
by consent. They develop themselves by research,
teaching and learning within its aim. The circle
organizes, three functions, leading, doing and
measuring/feedback.
4) Double linking. A circle is connected to an other/higher
circle with a double link. At least two persons, normally
the circle manager and at least one other member of the
circle, are full members of the next higher circle.
In these circle organizations everyone is equal to each other and
decisions are made by consent. Instead of an hierarchical chain
each circle connects to another (higher) circle by a double linking.
This takes care that there is a bidirectional flow of information.
The members that are member of the higher or lower circle are
appointed by their circle. Each circle governs itself and creates
roles that are needed to reach the aim of the circle, the circle it
selves assigns the members for these roles. This circle and the
work within it, is in line with the given definition for a self-
managing team, that is stated in the previous section. As soon as
the team reaches out side of the circle it is done with use of
elected persons.
3.1.3 Roles in the team
The role of the manager will be explained in the next part of this
research. But as stated earlier the team will take on some
traditional tasks of the manager. In a hierarchical team the
manager has the role of a leader and only the first condition of
Hackman (1987) is done by the team.
In the previous parts of this chapter it’s already shown that a self-
managing team will take care of self-observation, self-evaluation
and self-reinforcement. To do this, team members should be
elected to take this role. This election should be done by open
discussion with use of the element of consent. This should be
done by looking at skill and talents.
In the team, there should also be roles who take care of the double
linking. The manager could be one of the links, but the other
should also be elected by the team.
3.2 Tasks of a manager in a self-managing
team
As shown in the previous chapter self-managing teams take on
tasks of the manager. It is also shown that there could be tasks left
for the manager to do. But if a self-managing team is truly self-
managing, having a manager seems a paradox. So it could be
questionable if a manager is still necessary. In this subsection
answers will be provided for these questions.
According to the research of Manz (1987) it’s one of the most
important roles for the manager to lead others to lead themselves.
The manager should be committed to the philosophy that the team
should take on leadership functions for themselves. The manager
should encourage self-reinforcement, self-observation and
evaluation, self-goal setting and self-criticism. Manz is mainly
focusing on the coaching part of the role of the manager.
In other research it has been shown that the manager will have the
global perspective of the organization. They have the view of the
whole (Keidel 1995). The manager will bring the team the

7. 7
information of the global perspective of the organization and can
test if the direction of the team is the right direction within the
organization.
According to Wageman (2001) managers have three important
roles. First, designer: the manager takes care that the team starts
with the right direction and with the right support for high-quality
performance. Second role is the midwife. In this role the manager
works together with the team to establish appropriate performance
goals. The manager also helps to establish norms about strategic
thinking. Third role is the coach. The manager has the latitude to
unlearn old managerial habits and takes time to learn effective
team coaching skills. The roles will follow each other up.
Both Wageman and Manz focus on the coaching of the manager.
Keidel gives an extra perspective by stating that the manager
should bring the team the global perspective and test if the team is
going in the right direction. This is in line with the sociocratic
circle organization and with the given definition of a self-
managing team. The team has a certain aim within the team can
act and move. The role of the manager is to test if the team stays
in this aim. Besides this, the manager is still accountable of what
happens with the team in relation to the organization. This can
only be done when the manager is the connection between the
organization and the team, and when both manager as team give
each other the right information, the bi-directional flow of
information.
3.3 The process of becoming a self-managing
team.
In the previous chapter the tasks of a manager when a team tries to
become a self-managing team were already mentioned. These
were: the designer, the midwife and the coach. This chapter will
look more in depth what happens according to the literature when
a team is shifting towards self-management and especially what
are the possible struggles.
As shown in the conceptual framework, Thuckman has developed
a theory about group development (1965). When a group is
working to become a functional, it will go through four stages
before being a functional group. The storming phase is the most
crucial part of the progress to become a functional team. In this
phase the things that could go wrong and the internal struggles
come to the foreground, since this phase shows inter group
conflicts.
As shown in the research design, according to Wageman (2001) it
is often the case that becoming a self-managing team fails. There
are many management goals whose goal is to let a team become in
a certain way self-managing. Normally the goal is to be client
focused at a low cost (Land 1999). The problem with these ideas
is that the hierarchical chain doesn’t change. Attempts to create a
self-managing team can fail due to low performance and can result
in resistance from the managers and the employees (Wageman,
2001).
According to Wageman (2001, 1997) the design of a team is more
important than the coaching of the manager. In well-designed
teams the coaching of the manager will have more effect on the
team than a poorly designed team. A well designed team consists
of seven success factors. By doing one or multiple factors wrong a
team can fail in becoming a self-organizing team.
The first factor that is necessary for a good team design is a clear
and engaging direction. The group knows why they exist and what
they want to accomplish. This can go wrong if there is not a clear
direction at all, or the direction explains the how instead of the
why.
A team needs a true team task. The work that the self-managing
team should do, should be done by a team. So the task should
require the team members to work together. This can go wrong if
there is a team in name only, but the members don’t need to work
together. Or the task of the team requires only occasionally a true
team, and during the rest of the time the different members can
work separately.
The team should be rewarded for excellence. Team rewards are
associated with superior self-managing teams. One of the most
common error is giving mixed rewards to the different individuals
of the teams. Rewards that are given 50/50 individual/group are
associated with the lowest team performance.
A team has to have access to basic material resources. Lack of
resources can demoralize the team and can prevent it from
embracing self-management.
The team should have authority to manage their own work. When
decision powers belong officially to the team, but leaders
intervene frequently, it compromises the sense of ownership of
their work. And moreover if these interventions give the wrong
results, the team will blame the leader, instead of feeling
responsible for the wrong results. They will not sense it is as their
ownership, and their own wrong doing. On the other hand shows
Langfred (2004) that too much trust can result in a negative team
performance. The more team members trust each other, the less
they choose to monitor one another. There should be some kind of
monitoring in place. This monitoring should be done by the team
itself, as explained in 3.1 where the structure of a self-managing
team is given.
A team should have goals that have specific descriptions of the
work that should be done and before what timeframe it should be
done. The team members should be able to tell what the team
goals are. The goals should have a clear direction, as stated
before. And should not tell the team how they should do it. This
how should be created by the team itself.
Finally a team should have norms that promotes strategic
thinking. The team should be aware of their environment, should
be able to detect problems and should be accustomed to develop
new ways of working. This way of thinking may not come natural
to teams. Teams need help to learn this way of thinking. This help
could be done by the manager, in the earlier described steps

8. 8
provided by Wageman (2001). When the team is able to think
strategical, the manager should bring the global perspective
(Keidel 1995), as described in the previous chapter.
When management decides that a team should become self-
managing, it is often due to the fact that the current way of
working is seen as a problem. Often the goal is to become more
client focused at a low cost. The theory of Thuckman (1965)
shows that in group development at a certain moment a storming
phase starts. Inner conflicts shows and coaching could be
necessary to overcome this phase. To change and overcome the
storming phase more easy, according to Wageman (2001,1997),
the design of the team is more important than the coaching from
the manager. If the team is designed correctly, coaching according
to the earlier mentioned three phases has more effect. Seven
success factors are mentioned for a good team design to become a
functional self-managing team. These factors are:
 Clear and engaging direction
 Real team task
 Rewarded for excellence
 Access to basic resources
 Authority to manage their work
 Team goal
 Norms that promotes strategic thinking
During the analysis of the case, these seven factors will be taken
into account.
3.4 The business outcomes of a self-managing
team.
As stated in the previous section it is commonly the goal of
transforming a team into a self-managing team to take care that
the team is more client focused at a lower cost. There is
apparently at the moment a problem and self-management should
be the solution. The focus in this section, is to look what effects
does working in a self-managing way has on the business outcome
according to the literature. Could self-management ensure that
teams can do more work with less employees and be more
effective?
To be able to research this it is first important to explain the
difference between effectiveness and efficiency. The two
definitions are correlated to each other’s but have a slight
difference. With effectiveness is meant the degree to which an
goal is successfully reached and the way that problems are solved.
Efficiency is the degree to which a process uses means. These
means could be time, money, people etc. Effectiveness does not
have a relation to cost, in contrast to efficiency. Efficiency can be
explained by the mean “doing the thing right”, while effectiveness
can be described by the mean “doing the right thing”. For this
section both effectiveness as efficiency can be interesting to
research.
Alper et all. (1998) studied the effect on group discussions and
outcome of these discussions, when the discussion is open. In an
open group discussion everyone is equal to each other. In this
research is shown that when employees believe that their goals are
equally to each other, it will result in an open discussion, which
will take care that there is an effective group discussion, which
will result in an effective performance. Even more when
discussions are open, controversies are better discussed which
results in a better decision-making.
So, it could be expected that when a team is self-managed, the
performance of the team gets higher, and better decisions are
made. This means that the team should become more effective,
since the decision making results in doing the right thing.
3.5 The effect in employees of a self-managing
team.
As shown in the research design, Harter et al (2002) has shown
that there is a strong relationship between employee satisfaction
and engagement, and meaningful business outcomes. For this
reason, this section will research the effects on employees when
working in a self-managing team.
According to the research of Kovach (1987) it is important for
workers to have interesting work. Interesting work is even more
important than high wages. In the research of Nohria et all (2008)
is shown the four drives that underlie motivation. First drive is the
drive to acquire. According to this research, in the workplace it
can be done by a good reward system. The reward system should
effectively show a good and a bad performance. Second drive is
the drive to bond. This drive can be acquired by a culture that
promotes teamwork. The bond should both be between fellow
employees as with the management team. Third drive is the drive
to comprehend. In the workplace this means that the job design
should be in such a way that the work is meaningful and
interesting. The last drive for motivation is the drive to defend.
This means that the performance management should be fair,
trustworthy and transparent.
When this is compared with the structure of a self-managing team,
it can be shown that when the team is correctly designed, the
employees will be more motivated. Since there is a good reward
system in place. The job is meaningful, since employees know
why they are doing what they are doing. The employee can defend
their work and how they are doing their job, since discussions are
out in the open and everyone is equal to another. And lastly the
goal of a self-managing team is to work as a team. Which can only
be done if there is a bond between the team-members.
Engagement is a positive cognitive condition of satisfaction, that
is shown by vitality, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli &
Bakker (2001,p. 245)). By vitality is meant that someone has a lot
of energy, is feeling strong and fit, and could work for a long time
without getting tired. Dedications means that someone feels
involved in his job, and the job feels useful, meaningful, inspiring

9. 9
and challenging. This is in line with the drive to comprehend.
Absorption is the way that someone can be joyfully engrossed into
his work. In the study of Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) is shown
that engagement negatively correlates with burn outs.
Out of this definition it could be expected that self-managing
teams have a higher engagement and less absence due to sickness.
But during this literature study no earlier research or theory has
been found that there could be a positive or negative connection
between engagement or sickness, and self-managing teams.
It is not completely clear what could be the effect on employees
when a team becomes self-managing. Out of the provided
definition, it could be expected that employees would be more
motivated to do their work, are highly engaged to their work and
there is less absence due to sickness. The case study should
provide more information on this subject.
3.6 Research model
In this research model al given literature will be taken into
account to build a model. This model will be used to do the case
study, and will later on be compared with the results of the case
study.
According to the literature, companies start with creating self-
managing teams to become more client focused at a low cost. This
should be done, by downsizing the company. And this downsizing
in combination with more client focus, should be done by
empowering the employees and work more efficiently.
A self-managing team consists of not more than 20 employees.
The employees of the team have a sense of ownership towards
their team, and discussions are conducted by being equal to each
other. Decisions are made by consent.
The team is responsible for their own business within their own
aim. The goal of the manager is to be the connection between the
team and the rest of the organization. Both the team as the
manager should keep each other informed.
During the transformation towards becoming a self-managing
team it is important that the seven success factors for being a
functional team, are taken into account. If this is taken into
account and implemented correctly, the coaching of the manager
can have more effect. The coaching of the manager should be
done in three phases.
To take care that the business outcomes are good, it is important
that employees are satisfied and engaged. Besides this, it is
important that every member of the team is equal to each other.
This will take care that discussions are done in the open and
controversy ideas can be discussed. This will result in better
decision making. If the decision making is done correctly, the
expectation is that the team is going to be become more effective,
since the employees do directly the right thing. It can be expected
that the engagement of employees in self-managing teams is high.
In figure 5, the research model is given. The given bullets show
the results of the literature study. These results will be tested in
the case study.
Figure 5 Research model

10. 10
4. CASE STUDY
This case study is conducted at the IT infrastructure department of
the Rabobank. The Rabobank is one of the big banks in the
Netherlands and has 52.000 FTE as a workforce. The IT
infrastructure department consists of 327 employees and manages
the whole IT infrastructure of the Rabobank.
The team that is observed for this research is the team that is
responsible for the applicative connections of the Rabobank. In
2011 the current manager Patrick Scholte started and wanted to
transform the team into a self-managing team. In 2013
reorganizational changes were made. In this period Rob Zwart
became manager of the whole IT infrastructure department. Due
to this reorganization, Marko van Beurden became team lead of
the team in 2014. He was elected by both management as team
members. In 2016 a new reorganization was started. In this
reorganization the goal is to downsize the 52.000 FTE to 40.000
FTE while getting a customer satisfaction of 9+. During this
reorganization the company tries to downsize the company with a
high customer satisfaction, by creating high-preforming teams. By
the end of 2016, due to these reorganizational changes, the
researched team will not exist anymore on paper and the
interviewed managers are, during the writing of this study, not
replaced within the organization. The described case is in line
with the team as it was at the start of 2016. First the proces of
becoming self-managing will be described, to show how the
current structure is developed. Then the structure of the team and
the task of the manager is given. This chapter will end with the
results for both business and the employees.
4.1 The process of becoming a self-managing
team.
In 2011 Patrick Scholte became manager of the Connections
team. He became manager of a team that was seen from the
outside as a difficult team, a “sink hole”. The members of the
team worked very hard, but didn’t receive any honor for their
work, the team was constantly overtaken by events. On top of that
was the former manager of the team convinced that the team was
just a bad team. This resulted in a low self-esteem, for both the
whole team as the individual members of the team.
The management vision of Patrick Scholte is that both team-
member as manager should have a high self-esteem, high trust and
learn capabilities to be able to become a high preforming team.
Due to this management vision he decided that it was important to
get a better preforming team to focus first on the self-esteem of
the team. This was done by doing team sessions where the
members learned about their own competence and those of their
fellow team members. When the self-esteem from both the team
and the individual members started to get higher, more and more
management tasks were given to the team. From 2013 they started
to wright their own year plan. The team gained such a high self-
esteem that at this moment they thought they were a complete
functional self-managing team.
In 2013 the Rabobank started with a reorganization. During this
reorganization the effectiveness and output of the team was taken
into question. Rob Zwart was becoming manager of the
infrastructure department. In that phase his function was called
quartermaster since he was not yet manager. During the interview
he tells that the first problem he was facing as quartermaster for
the infrastructure department was the Connections team.
According to the managers/quartermasters of other
departments/domains the service that the team was providing was
too slow. The other departments where in the opinion that they
could do a better job by themselves. Their advice was to split up
the team and place parts of them in their domains. Both Rob
Zwart as the team were against this idea. After a lot of meetings
the team provided a service model how to solve this problem. Rob
Zwart tells that if the team didn’t provided a solution the team
wouldn’t be split up due to the fact that it wasn’t in the best
interest for the bank. But to find a solution by the management
would have taken a lot more time and effort.
As part of this reorganization Patrick Scholte became manager of
the Cloud Provisioning department. The Connections team was a
team in this department, but needed their own team lead. The idea
was to let this team lead be chosen by the team. This was done in
a speed date kind of way. The three candidates that were chosen
for these speed dates talked with different members of the team
and with Patrick Scholte and Rob Zwart. After the speed dates the
team decided that Marko van Beurden became the team lead. Rob
Zwart tells in his interview that this was not the candidate that he
would have chosen. But he had to let this go.
Figure 6 New management structure in 2014
In the beginning of 2014 Marko van Beurden starts as a team lead
for the Connections department. In his interview he tells that the
team self-esteem towards being self-managing was high. While in
his opinion the team was not self-managing at all. But due to the
fact that the self-esteem was high, the team was closed for all the
advices that outsiders gave them. The members of the team were
not listening to the questions of the team lead, but where
questioning him why he questioned their way of working. It was
the word of one person against 18 employees. The information
that Marko received from other teams about Connections were not
positive. The team had a lot of work to progress but didn’t know
how much work it was. There was not a proper monitoring of
their work in place. Which resulted again that they were overtaken
by events. In this time period the team was not a good example for
self-managing teams, and Marko can imagine why teams quit in
becoming a self-managing team.
In the third quarter of 2014 the connection and communication
between the team lead and the team was at its lowest point. This
can be made visible by figure 7.
This graph shows the grade the team-members of Connections
give to working at the Infrastructure Services department in
compairison with the grade that the whole Infrastructure Services
department give for their work. For the Connections department it
is normally higher but parralell to that of the whole infrastructure

11. 11
department. Only in the third and fourth quarter of 2014 it is
significantly lower.
Figure 7 Grade for working at Infra Services
Marko van Beurden tells in his interview what happened in this
time period with the team. In that time period the team consisted
of 18 teammembers, but looking back to the amount of work there
whas not enough work for these 18 teammembers. This meant that
there was time to complain about less important stuff. To solve
this, two things were done. First Marko van Beurden lost his title
as team lead, and would only do work for the team if he was asked
to do it. Second there were two teammembers removed who didn’t
get replaced. This resulted in the fact, that there was no one to
point the finger at than them selves, and the team members didn’t
had the time anymore to complain. To give the team a littlebit
extra pressure the manager Patrick Scholte told them that this was
the team their last chance. Rob Zwart tells in his interview that the
choice of team lead was difficult for him. Especially because the
chosen team lead wasn’t his first choice. But during this period he
saw that by giving the team the chance to choose the team lead,
the team felt also responsible to make it work. So for Patrick
Scholte it was an easy step to confront the team with this and push
them in the right direction.
With the start of 2015 Marko van Beurden wasn’t the team lead
anymore. He tells that in the beginning nothing happened. But
after a while some teammembers started to think about writing the
year plan and different kinds of reports. And slowely some new
teamroles were introduced. During this year Patrick Scholte gave
the team another extra push by saying that the year plan should
have a positive outcome. This resulted in Octobre in a month of
working over time to take care that everything was finished in
time. This idea came from the team it selves, and the team
members weren’t obligated to work overtime. But still all the
members did all they could to take care that all the goals for that
year were reached. By the end of the year the team was completely
self managing. The goal for 2016 is to ensure that all the lessons
that are learned and roles that are created, maintain in the team.
Or, like Marko van Beurden describes “The team did earn his
drivers licence and now needs to gain experience”.
In figure 8 a timeline is given with the highlights of what
happened with the team between 2011 and 2016.
Figure 8 Timeline
4.2 The structure of the team
This chapter will describe the structure of the team as it is in their
preforming stage. This structure was in place since the end of
2015.
The team consists of 16 team members and one manager. This
manager manages more teams, and in total a group of 48
employees. As shown in the previous chapter, the structure of the
team was developed in 2015, and was developed by the team
itself.
4.2.1 Authority
The team see the department as their own company. Due to this
fact they have written a business plan. In this plan the team looks
back at the past year. By looking back they show in the business
plan what the results of the team where. Another part of the
business plan is the year plan. In the year plan the team looks
forward to the next year. They set goals for their own team. In this
part they try to make a connection between the team goals and the
goals of the company. Last part of the business plan is to look

12. 12
more years in the future. In this way they try to have a vision.
With this vision they know what projects should be started in the
following year to take care that the goals of the team and the
company can be reached. The manager provides the information
about the company goals.
This business plan is the core of the team. Everything that the
team does relates to this business plan. In this way they know if
they stay in line with the team and company goals.
To be able to look back to the past year and to take care that the
team stays in line with the business plan, different tasks and roles
are created by the team. The description of the roles with these
tasks and the goals for the team member who have this role is
defined by the team. In the role is not described how the goal
should be reached. The team members are selected for the role by
the fellow team members. Roles are always in line with the
competences of the team member. A team member with a certain
Role, has goals and is responsible for reaching these goals.
If it seems that there is too much work for the given business plan,
multiple things can be decided. First option is to drop some goals
or move them to next year. If this is not possible, since nothing
can be postponed, the team goes to the manager. If the manager
agrees with the team that nothing can be postponed. The team can
hire more employees. The interviews and the final election of a
new team member is done by the team.
4.2.2 Decision making
Decisions that involves every member of the team, like decisions
about tasks, are made in a meeting that is held every Monday of
the week. Every member of the team will attend this meeting and
the subjects that are discussed in the meeting are provided by the
team members. If everyone commits to a decision, the decision is
made. Committing to a decision means that everyone understands
why this decision is made and that everyone will follow the
decision. This doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with the
decision.
To take care that decisions are made easily, there is a decision
process. When some team member thinks that a decision should
be made, a new case is brought into the meeting. In this phase de
team members take care that the problem is clear and decide how
the solution should be researched, in the whole group or in a
smaller group. Next the orientation phase starts. In this phase the
group collects information about the case. During this phase there
is no discussion, the team members are allowed to ask for extra
explanation. All the given ideas and information during this phase
is collected. If this is done, normally the owner of the case or a
small group, look at all the solutions and look what the best
possible options are to take care that the problem is solved. Next
phase is the discussion phase. The owner of the problem shows in
which direction the orientation phase was going and which
possible solutions are given. The team can now discuss which
solution could be best and test if the solution is going in the right
direction. Last phase is the phase were the decision is made. In the
last phase the best solution is chosen. In this phase the whole team
should commit to the decision. If not everyone can commit, the
orientation phase should be done again, since not all information
was collected.
Beside this meeting on Monday, where all the team decisions are
decided, there are different smaller expert teams. In these teams
decisions are made that doesn’t involve all the work or all the
team members. All the decisions that are made or still in progress
are available for all the team members.
4.2.3 Roles
As mentioned earlier, work of the team is divided in tasks and
roles. These tasks are described by results. So it describes what
should be done, not how it should be done. Each team member
has multiple tasks that are in line with their competence. These
tasks are described by the team members and given to team
members in commitment with the team.
The team has multiple team or management tasks that are given to
the team members. These tasks are the following:
 Chairman: this role is chairman of the meeting on
Monday. The team member with this role takes care that
the agenda for the meeting is in time available for the
team members. The chairman prepares the meeting with
the team members that provided subjects to discuss.
During the meeting the chairman takes care that the
meeting stays structured. After the meeting the
chairman has contact with the manager to keep him
posted with the current decisions.
 HR: This role keeps a close eye on the individual
employee. To take care that everyone is doing the right
job that is in line with their competence. And to take
care that the right things are done.
 “human capital”: This role looks at the current human
capital in the team, and provides a vision for the future.
To take care that the team is not taken over by events
due to sudden leave of team members or sudden rise or
drop of service demands. This role will conduct,
together with at least one other team role, the interviews
with new team candidates.
 Planner: This role takes care that the amount of work
is in line with the available hours. This role receives all
the recourse requests from service requesters. The team
members will discuss with this role when they can take
vacation. By sudden absence, due to for instance
sickness, this role knows which work should be taken
over by the team.
 Coordinator of the year plan: this role takes care that
all the goals for that year are met according to plan. This
role keeps the overall overview. Each year a year plan is
written, this plan is written by the whole team. But the
coordinator is responsible that it is correctly written and
in time. At the end of the year the coordinator is
responsible for the evaluation of the year plan.
 Coordinator: For each goal that should be reached by
the team, there is one coordinator appointed. This
coordinator is responsible for reaching that goal. The
coordinator is in contact with all the above given roles.
These roles have their own responsibility towards the team and
should take care that the team is running smoothly in line with the
goals of both the team and the company. As shown the chairman
has weekly meetings with the manager. Beside these meetings is
the chairman in close contact with all the different roles. In this
way the manager can be often and quickly updated about the
progress of the team. The other team roles have regularly contact

13. 13
with the manager to test if the team is still working in line with the
company goals.
Figure 9 Management tasks
4.3 Tasks of the manager.
As shown in the literature, the manager of a self-managing team
has according to the theory a special role. In the previous chapter
is already shown that the team has taken over many management
tasks and are often in contact with the manager, in this section
will be explained what the task is of the manager.
According to Patrick Scholte: the manager should have a high
self-esteem, high trust and learning capabilities. He should know
what happens in the team. A manager should have self-
confidence, power and be a powerful leader. But should also be
able to give space and give others the honor. He should be able to
listen without judging. But also be able to give clearly the
framework in which the team can move. It is not necessary that
the manager has this skillset from the beginning, external
expertise can be hired. From the beginning of the process of
becoming self-managing, Patrick Scholte hired an external coach
that coached both the manager as the team in becoming self-
managing. This coach worked with the team during the whole
process from 2011 till 2016.
According to Rob Zwart: it can be difficult to be a manager of a
self-managing team. Managers are often control freaks by nature.
As a manager you should have a clear vision about self-managing
teams, and a lot of trust that the team will reach this vision, to take
care that it works.
As Patrick Scholte explained the manager should know what
happens in the team, since he is accountable for the team. Marko
van Beurden explains it by telling that the manager is the
ambassador of the team towards the rest of the organization. To be
a good ambassador, the manager should have enough and correct
information. He gets this information from the team and doesn’t
have to get the information by himself. If someone of the other
managers asks for information, the manager can, due to this fact,
give the information. If more information is necessary, he knows
which member of the team can give it. In this case he will direct
the manager towards the correct team member. This can
sometimes be difficult to explain towards employees and
managers of other teams. Since they are not always used to this
way of working.
For the rest of the time, the manager is working on getting his
other teams self-managing. Besides this work he is working on
infrastructure wide tasks, something he didn’t had time for before
the team was self-managing. Due to the fact that the team is
running the department, the manager can run upwards the
infrastructure department.
So the manager is accountable for the team. It is important that the
manager is a powerful leader that can give the team members
space while giving them a clear framework in which they can
work for themselves. Towards the other teams and managers, the
manager is the ambassador of the team. Since the manager doesn’t
have to spent time to keep the team running, he can do work for
the overall infrastructure department, and can create more self-
managing teams.
4.4 The business outcomes
In this section will be looked at the business outcomes of the
team. The goal is to see if by becoming self-managing the team
became more effective and or efficient.
According to the information provided in the business plan 2016
and during the interviews, 2015 was a critical year. By doing
multiple projects and restructuring de key processes a permanent
saving of almost 167.000 euro each year was realized. The
restructure of the key processes took care that the team could
work more efficient. The different project consisted of, for
example: More structured way of having meetings, which shorted
or removed meetings. Re-organize and update documents, to take
care that the right information could be found more easy.
Researching how work could more often be done first time right.
Automating certain activities. But also discovering each other’s
competences, to take care that the right person was doing a certain
task. This all was initiated by the employees themselves.
Besides these permanent saving an extra service was introduced.
According to the project documents 1 to 2 FTE should be
necessary to manage this extra service. But due to the new way of
work this could be handled by the current team.
When Patrick Scholte is asked about the way of work of the team
and their solutions to problems, Patrick explains that he is not
anymore in the lead of such things. The team runs itself. The
information he gets from the team is more informative. While
earlier it was more often a request for help. Due to the fact that the
team runs itself the manager doesn’t have to put in a lot of effort.
With this extra time he can take care that other teams in his
domain can become self-managing and he can do more work on a
higher managerial level, like it is explained in chapter 4.3.
Furthermore the team is more in contact with what is happening in
the organization and understands more how to react on the
changes in the organization. This makes communication a lot
easier. Besides Patrick Scholte also Marko van Beurden talked
about this in the interview. Earlier the team didn’t react or didn’t
react properly to a question or an advice, as explained in
paragraph 4.1. Nowadays the primary reaction is to research the
question or the advice. The team wants to learn from its mistakes
an works to get satisfied stakeholders. Rob Zwart explained in his
interview that there are no escalations anymore from the
stakeholders.
Something that Rob Zwart noticed is that the team has a lot of
meetings. To be able to make decisions, meetings are necessary to
go through the decision process that was earlier described. This
results in a lot more meetings than in other departments.

14. 14
By restructuring the team and their processes the team became
more efficient. A new service was introduced, which could be
handled by the current amount of employees. The team resolves
their own problems without questioning for help from the
manager. The manager gets the information informative, instead
of a request for help. The team understands what is happening in
the rest of the organization, and can more quickly respond to
demands. It is noticeable that the team has a lot more meetings
than non-self-managing teams, to be able to make decisions.
4.5 The effect on the employees
Not a lot of information can be found about the effect on the
employees when changing towards a self-managing team. In this
section will be looked at the effect on the employees of the
Connections team.
Rob Zwart explained in het interview that it seems the case that
there is a very low amount of absence due to sickness. When
looking at the data it is interesting to see that the critical criteria,
that is stated by the Rabobank of 3,7%, was crossed in the start of
2013 for the last time. Since this crossing the absence due to
sickness is lowered, till it is now stable beneath the 2 %.
Each year a MTO is conducted. In this questionnaire, is looked at
the work load, work stress and engagement of employees. For
this research the results of 2012, when the team started with
becoming self-managing, is compared with the results in 2015.
And compared with the results of the whole infrastructure
department.
It can be shown in the results of this questionnaire (Table 2) that
the work load is higher in the connections department than in
Infrastructure Services in both years. The engagement is also
higher in the Connections department than in Infrastructure
Services. And the difference, in each year is equal to each other.
The difference lies in the results of work stress. For the
Infrastructure Services department this stays the same, while at the
connections department nobody feels stress anymore, according to
the questionnaire. During the discussion of the results of the
questionnaire, a team member explained this by telling that there
is still a lot of pressure, which is visible in the results of the work
load, but the employees feel in control. Due to this control they do
not feel work stress even though the work load is still high. In his
interview, Marko van Beurden tells that the engagement was
always there, at least the engagement with their own work and the
team. He thinks even that the engagement is lower than in the
beginning, since the team knows who is doing what, so not
everyone has to be on top of everything.
Furthermore is already explained in section 4.1 process of
becoming self-management, that the team feels responsible for
their own action. Due to this responsibility that they feel, they
work harder to get things done, they are more motivated to reach
the goals. Besides that they feel more joyful when they reach their
goals. During the interviews with the team-members, the
employees explain that this is the way that they always would
want to work.
Figure 10 Case study results
Work load Work stress Engagement
Time period Connections IS Connections IS Connections IS
2012 36% 20% 14% 17% 73% 65%
2015 40% 25% 0% 17% 70% 63%
Table 2 Results MTO

15. 15
Even more they tell that they don’t even know anymore how it is
to work in a hierarchical team, and they don’t know if they ever
want to work again in a hierarchical team.
By becoming self-managing the members of the team where less
absence due to sickness. The MTO score shows that the
engagement of the team hasn’t been significantly changed. Also
the work load wasn’t lowered. It is interesting to see that the work
pressure is down to 0. Further results are that the team feels more
responsible for their work, goals and actions. Due to this fact, the
team members are more motivated to reach the goals of the team.
The team-members explained that they want to stay working in a
self-managing team.
4.6 Case results
In figure 10 the case results are given. In this figure a short
summary of the previously given information is provided.
5. ANALYSIS
In the literature study a research model is provided. This research
model is used to conduct the case study. In this section the
research model is compared to the case study to see where the
research model and the case study are overlapping each other and
were the theory differs from the case. In this way the previously
given goals should be reached and the research question should be
answered.
5.1 Structure
According to the given theories in the literature, a self-managing
team should be part of a bigger organization. The team should
have a manager that is accountable for the team and should be in-
directly in control of the team. Decision-making is a planned
process. The team should not be bigger than 20 team-members.
The case study has been conducted in a team that is part of the
Rabobank organization. The team has a manager that is
accountable for the team. The team consist of 16 members. This
all is in line with the provided theory.
The theory states that the task of the team is to have a sense of
ownership, they should be self-observing, self-evaluating and self-
reinforcing. This means that they are responsible and accountable
for the work that should be done by the team and they are
responsible and accountable for monitoring that the work is
correctly done. They are responsible that the right reinforcement
is arranged. This all should be done in relation to the goal of the
team.
In the provided case, the team sees their department as their own
company within the business. They have written their own
business plan. This business plan is in line with the company
goals. With use of this business plan and created roles, they
observe and evaluate their work in relation to the goals of the
team and the company. So they are responsible for the work and
the monitoring of the work. If they notice that they cannot reach a
goal, they discuss with the manager what to do. So they are
responsible that they have or get the right reinforcement to reach
the goals. The team is not accountable. Only the manager is
accountable.
According to the theory decision-making should be done with use
of four elements. The element of consent, decisions are made
when there are no argued objections. Election of persons, persons
are elected by consent of the whole team. Circle, the organization
is organized by circles with their own aim. Double linking, a
circle is connected to another circle by at least two persons. In this
decision-making it is essential that everyone is equal to each
other.
In the case, decisions are made by commitment. These decisions
are made with use of a certain process. This process takes care
that everyone is involved in the decision and that everyone’s
opinion is heard. In this way the team takes care that everyone is
equal to each other. New team-members are elected by the team.
The team also conducts the interviews. The team also elects team
members for the different roles of the team. The manager provides
the framework in which the team can move, this is in relation to
the circle and their aim. The team does not directly have a double
link with the rest of the organization. The manager is the direct
link and elected team members are in contact with the manager.
Figure 11 Decision making
The structure of the case, seems to be in line with the given
research model. Difference between the research model and the
case is the double linking and the accountability. There are not
two team members in connection, or complete team-member of
another part of the organization. They manage this by having
elected team-members who are in contact with the manager about
certain tasks and goals. The manager is accountable for everything
that happens within the framework, but gives authority to the
team.
5.2 Manager
According to the research model the manager has three main
tasks. The first task is to coach the team towards self-management
and being self-managing. Second task is to provide the team with
a global perspective. Last task is to test if the team stays in the
provided aim and if the team is still in line with the organizational
goals, since the manager stays accountable for the team.
The manager in de case is also accountable for the team. He
provides the framework within the team can move and act. There
are different roles who are responsible for different management
tasks. These roles are in contact with the manager. This results in
that the manager can keep a close eye if the team stays within his
framework and is moving in the right direction. The role of the
manager in this case is to be the ambassador of the department, in
this role he should get enough and the right information of the
team. Since the team can run the department without interference
of the manager, the manager has time left to run the organization
on a higher managerial level. The manager hired and external
coach to help both the team and himself in becoming self-
managing. So the task of coaching is outsourced, but available.

16. 16
Figure 12 Task manager
5.3 Process
In the theory is shown that every team moves through 4 stages
before being able to perform. These four stages are also visible in
the case study.
Figure 13 Team development
In the first two years, the team was in the forming stage. They
were learning what was expected from them, getting self-
confidence and learning to think strategically by writing year
plans. Next two year (2013-2014) was in line with the storming
stage. Inner conflicts were risen when the team thought to be self-
managing and the new team lead had another opinion. 2015 was
in line with the norming stage, the team started to feel the
responsibilities and started to pick up the work and form new
roles to manage the work. End 2015 and 2016 were the
performing stages, the team was a whole team that works together
towards a given goal.
In the research model, seven success factors are given to become a
self-managing team. If these success factors are implemented the
coaching of the team should have more effect.
In the case study it shows that in the beginning these success
factors were not all in place. The team was convinced that the
team was correctly structured but the team lead thought and saw it
differently. The goal of the team lead was to help the team in
thinking strategically, but this was felt in a different way. By
asking questions the team members felt that their authority to do
their own work was taken into question. When the team lead was
stripped of his role as a team leader, the team felt that they gained
their authority to manage their own work back. The former team
lead was still available to help with thinking strategically, and was
asked more and more for help. When the manager turned up the
pressure by explaining that the team should make it work, the
team received an clear and engaging direction and a team goal. In
the end it seems that the seven success factors were necessary to
make the team self-managing.
Figure 14 Process 2015
5.4 Business outcomes
According to the literature it could be expected that the
performance of the team gets higher and better decisions are
made. Which gives the result that the team becomes more
effective.
The case study has shown that the team became more efficient due
to the process changes they made. They can respond to the
demands of the organization more quickly. Problems can be
solved without questioning for help by the management. To make
decisions by commitment, it is visible that the team needs more
meetings than other teams. It cannot be made visible that the team
works more effective. Furthermore is shown in 2013 that the team
already showed some efficiency, by providing a solution for the
managerial problem of splitting up the team.
5.5 Employees
In the theory it couldn’t be made clear what could be the effect on
employees when a team becomes self-managing. The expectation
was, that employees would be more motivated to do their work,
the engagement should be high and that there was less absence
due to sickness.
In the case study is shown that the absence due to sickness was on
a very low point. The engagement of the team was by the start of
becoming self-managing already very high. After becoming self-
managing this wasn’t changed. The case shows that after
becoming self-managing the team seems to be removed of any
work-pressure, while the team has the opinion that the work load
is higher. Because the team feels responsible for their department
they are more motivated to reach their goals, this results in being
more satisfied when the goals are reached. The team members
explained that this is the way that they want to work, and don’t
want to go back to a hierarchal system, this shows also
satisfaction.

17. 17
6. DISCUSSION
“Change is hard at first, messy in the middle and gorgeous at the
end”-Robin Sharma
In the 2.1.2 four goals were given for this research. In this chapter
will be discussed if and how these goals are reached.
First goal was to look if self-managing teams can be the answer to
the struggle of lots of companies who want to downsize and want
to give the people more authority. In the case study is shown that
the team has been given more authority. This is not done
overnight and it took almost 5 years to have an effective team that
reached the above given goal, of a more effective team with less
employees. Furthermore is explained that to be able to get a team
self-managing, it needs a special kind of manager. The manager
needs certain skills, that can be difficult to obtain. During the
interview with Rob Zwart, he told that, Patrick Scholte was maybe
the only manager in that moment, that has this skillset, and could
be able to get a team to this point. So yes, by making a team self-
managing, it is possible to both downsize the team and to give the
people more authority, but it can take a long time and takes a
special kind of leader to get there.
Second goal was to look at the struggles of becoming self-
managing. Many teams fail in becoming self-managing, so what
could be the struggles when becoming a self-managing team. The
case study has shown that becoming a self-managing team can
take a long time. During that time a lot of conflict can arise.
Marko van Beurden has even explained that there was a point that
he could understand that some teams quit with becoming a self-
managing team. In this case the struggle was the difference
between the vision of the employees and the vision of the team
lead. The team had a high confidence that they were doing the
right thing, while the team lead saw that this vision was incorrect.
It is difficult to get these visions in line if it seems that 18 people
doesn’t want to listen. A strong leader and good coaching was
necessary to get the team back in line and in the right direction.
The research has shown that some of the seven success factors
were also in this case the success factors for becoming self-
managing.
As explained there are seven success factors given, that can be
used to have a good basis for becoming self-managing. These
success factors can be seen as goals to reach. How a team reaches
these goals, will be different for each team, since each team has
different problems to face. In this case the biggest problem was
the self-confidence of the team, that first was too low, and
eventually too high. In another team this problem could be for
example, engagement or the drive to change. Another problem
that not is mentioned in this study is the leave of employees. In
the given case is mentioned that two team members left, without
replacement. It cannot be shown what could have happened if
many more employees left due to the changes in the team.
Third goal was to look at the role of the manager, since having a
manager in a self-managing team seems to be a paradox. Like it is
explained before, it seems that the manager in this case was the
big success factor of getting the team self-managing. By being a
strong leader, with a clear vision, he was able to get the team self-
managing. It is shown in the case that the manager should be the
ambassador, who sells the team towards the rest of the
organization. This is especially necessary when the rest of the
organization is still hierarchical and due to this fact doesn’t totally
understands the way of working of the team.
This case study has shown that it is important for a manager to
have a clear vision, self-confidence and learning capabilities. It
could be the case that these three competence of the manager,
where the critical success factors. When the team where struggling
in the storming phase, the managers could have decided that this
was not the right direction. But in this case the manager trusted in
his own vision and trusted the team that they could get there. It
cannot be shown what could have happened if the manager didn’t
show this trust. But it could be expected that the team would not
have been self-managed by now. Like is shown in the quote of
Robin Sharma. Every change is hard in the beginning, hard to
start and to get on the right direction. During the process it is
difficult to keep the goal in vision, and stay confidence that the
goal is reachable. In this phase when it gets difficult the goal
shouldn’t change, but the way to get there could. But when the
goal is reached it has a gorgeous outcome.
Last goal of this research was to see if the flow of information
within the organization would change. In a traditional hierarchical
organization, the information flows top to bottom. Often is said
that information should go bottom to top. In this research is
shown that the information is going both bottom to top as top to
bottom. It shows that both is necessary to make the right
decisions. It is also interesting to see that due to the fact that the
team runs the department the manager can work more “upwards”.
It could be expected that when more teams become self-managing,
more information will go not only top to bottom but also bottom
to top. And by this also the management teams can start to
become self-managing, with in the end the board becomes self-
managing. So it is possible that not only the information is going
bottom to top, but also the way of working is going bottom to top.
Further looking at this research it is sad to see that the team that is
studied does not exists on paper anymore by the end of 2016. It is
shown that the team was a functional team that knows what their
goals are and how to reach them. Furthermore it is strange to
know that, by the end of 2016, all the interviewed managers, are
due to this reorganizational change, not replaced within the
Rabobank organization. This is strange since the organizations
wants to gain high-preforming teams that are client focused. In
this research is shown that these managers know what it takes to
become self-managing and know what their role should be in
becoming self-managing. While also is shown in other research
that many managers lack this knowledge.
Lastly looking at a research like this, information out of
engagement and work pressure research is interesting and
necessary to be able to see quickly the results of a structure
change in a department. For the company itself, it shouldn’t be
necessary to have this kind of data. The team and the manager
should be in such a contact, that they know and communicate to
each other if the work pressure, work load and engagement are
good and if they are changing.
7. CONCLUSION
With use of qualitative research has been tried to give an answer
to the question if becoming a self-managing team influences the
employees and the business outcomes. This has been done by
conducting an extended literature review. The research model that
was extracted from this theory, has been used to conduct a case
study. After this case study an analysis has been done that
compared the theory with the case study.
The structure of the self-managing team in the case was in line
with the given theory. Out of the literature it was expected that

18. 18
teams should become more effective due to the organizational
change. Furthermore was expected that the engagement became
high, and the employees would become more motivated to go to
work and became less ill.
It is shown that the team became more efficient after changing
towards a self-managing team. The team can respond more
quickly to business demands. On the other hand does the team
need more meetings to make decisions. It cannot be made clear
that the team has become more effective. This should be
researched further.
For the effect on employees is shown that there is less absence
due to sickness. Furthermore does the employees feel more
responsible to reach the goals of the team, which takes care that
the employees are also more motivated to reach them. It cannot be
made clear if the engagement has changed. The engagement of the
team was always higher than that from the rest of the organization,
and this has not been changed during the years.
8. FUTURE WORK
It is shown in the conclusion that the research could not give a
clear answer if the team has become more effective. Furthermore
it cannot be made clear if all the outcome was due to the fact that
the team changed, since in the meantime multiple reorganizational
changes were conducted.
For future work it is interesting to look more into what happens
during and after the change towards a self-managing team with the
employees. Only little research has been conducted on this fact,
and this research has shown that there can be a big effect on
motivation, satisfaction and illness of the employees.
Furthermore should be more research conducted on the
effectiveness of the team and how it changes when becoming self-
managing. Efficiency could be made clear but the research could
not give an answer if the team has become more effective.
More in depth research should be conducted why teams fail in
becoming self-managing. This research hinted towards, not having
a manager with the right skills or vision, or that the team at the
basis is not properly structured. But this all has not been research
into more detail, since the given case was a team that successfully
changed. It is also interesting to see if less teams fail in becoming
self-managing when they first get an actual example of what can
happen during the shift. So to provide more information about the
storming stage and what to expect.
This research shows that when the team runs itself the manager
has time left to do work for the whole department. It could be
interesting to see if the self-management is going to spread in this
way more further in the organization like an oil stain. The
expectation is envisioned in the discussion of this research, but
should be researched more in depth, to give a clear answer to this
question.
As shown in the research the team in the given case will not exists
by the end of 2016. It is interesting to see what happens with the
team members when they become employees in a “normal team”.
It is already shown that they don’t like it to go back into a
hierarchical system. So what will happen if they go back in a
hierarchical way of working. Will the expertise that the team-
member gained by becoming self-managing be helpful for the new
team and the business. And what effect does it have on the
employee who is back in a hierarchical structure.
Lastly it is interesting to look what the cost was of becoming self-
managing. The results has shown that in the end the team had a
structural saving of 176.000 euro each year, but it was not
possible to provide how much money was invested in becoming
self-managing. It is interesting to see how much time is necessary
to earn the investment back, since it did take five years to become
self-managing. This kind of information is necessary to know,
when a company decides to become self-managing.
9. AKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank everyone who helped me with writing and
conducting this study.
First my supervisor, Toon Abcouwer, who helped me with getting
my research in line, and providing the right research structure
Secondly the interviewed managers. Who dedicated some work or
private time to answer my questions, even in the current difficult
times.
Thirdly the rest of the Connections team and the coach of the
team, who always supported me with my study and survived my,
sometimes, less joyful state of mind. Special thanks to Alain
Wouterload, who dedicated an evening to spellcheck this thesis
Last but not least my friends and family, who pushed me to get
this thesis finished and helped me when my state of mind was not
in the right place.
10. REFERENCES
1. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002).
Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied
psychology, 87(2), 268.
2. Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee
motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business
Review, 86(7/8), 78.
3. Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees?
Workers and supervisors give different
answers. Business Horizons, 30(5), 58-65.
4. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing
team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on
coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559-577.
5. Hackman, J. (1987). The Design of Work Teams in J.
Lorcsh (ed.). Handbook of Organizational Behavior:
315-342.
6. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998).
Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: Antecedents to effective self-managing
teams.Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 74(1), 33-52.
7. Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1987). Leading workers
to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-
managing work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 106-129.
8. Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M.
(1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team
effectiveness. Human relations, 49(5), 643-676.
9. Keidel, R. W. (1995). Seeing organizational patterns: A
new theory and language of organizational design.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

19. 19
10. Buck, J. A., & Endenburg, G. (2012). The creative
forces of self-organization.Sociocratic Center,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Tech. Rep.
11. Endenburg, G. (1998). Kennis, macht en overmacht: de
lerende organisatie, in het bijzonder de sociocratische
kringorganisatie.
12. Robertson, B. J. (2007). Organization at the Leading
Edge: Introducing Holacracy™. Integral Leadership
Review, 7(3).
13. Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity management: Identifying
and managing unsolvable problems. Human Resource
Development.
14. Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing?
Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy
in self-managing teams. Academy of management
journal, 47(3), 385-399.
15. Land, R. (1999). Van hiërarchie naar zelfsturing en
partnership. Enschede, University of Twente, the
Netherlands.
16. Romme, G. (1998). Toward the learning organization:
The case of circular re-engineering. Knowledge and
Process Management, 5(3), 158-164.
17. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Werk en
welbevinden: Naar een positieve benadering in de
Arbeids-en Gezondheidspsychologie [Work and well-
being: Towards a positive approach in Occupational
Health Psychology].Gedrag & Organisatie, 14, 229-
253.
18. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in
small groups.Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384.
19. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (2010). Stages of
small-group development Revisited1. Group
Facilitation, (10), 43.
20. Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world
research. Wiley.
21. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about
case-study research.Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
22. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter:
Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.
Cambridge university press.
23. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom
of teams: Creating the high-performance organization.
Harvard Business Press.
24. McMillan, Elizabeth (2000) “Using self organising
principles to create effective project teams as part of an
organisational change intervention: A case study of the
Open University,” in Ian P. McCarthy & Thierry
Rakotobe-Joel (eds), Complexity and Complex Systems
in Industry, Proceedings, University of Warwick, 19–20
September 2000,Warwick, UK: University of Warwick,
179–93.
25. The business plan 2016 Connections, can be requested
by the department. It is not available for open
publication.

20. APPENDIX A
Interview Patrick Scholte
R: Toen je begon bij ons als manager waren wij nog een normaal team. Kan je omschrijven hoe
het team er toen uitzag?
P: Ja daar kan ik terug gaan naar toen jij begon, maar kan ik ook helemaal terug gaan naar 2011.
Toen ik manager werd van de afdeling toen het nog Oracle Eco koppelingen heette. Waarbij ik
eigenlijk een team aantrof wat er eigenlijk in die zin slecht voorstond dat ze er in de externe
beeldvorming slecht voorstonden. Dat werd gezien als eigenlijk een soort afvoerputje. En met
mensen die eigenlijk allemaal heel hard werkten, maar daar eigenlijk waar beperkte eer voor
kregen. En vooral heel hard bezig waren met achter de feiten aan lopen.
R: Was dat dan ook de rede om te starten met zelfsturing, of in ieder geval de mensen meer
betrokken maken met de beslissingen die genomen werden?
P: Nou dat was niet echt de aanleiding. Dat is meer mijn persoonlijke visie. Dat ik denk jongens ik
noem dat altijd de 3 V’s. Dat als jij een team überhaupt wil laten performen zeg maar dan zul je
iets moeten doen aan een stukje Visie en dan zal je moeten werken aan vertrouwen in het team,
zelf vertrouwen en vertrouwen in elkaar en aan de slag gaan met het leervermogen. En dat was
zoals ik er mee begon. Laten we nou maar eerst beginnen met het zelfvertrouwen opbouwen in
die ploeg. Dus zowel als team maar ook de individuen zeg maar. Zij kwamen net terug van een
manager die eigenlijk dat team ook maar een slecht team vond. En heel tevreden was over het
andere team, zeg maar het oracle team. Terwijl ik daarna nog maar een gesprekje heb
aangeknoopt met die andere manager vaan he joh, als ik nu zo kijk is mijn beeld eerder
andersom dan zo dus hoe zit dat nou?
R: Want je bent wel meer gestart bij Koppelingen toen dan bij Oracle. Kwam dat toen omdat
koppelingen er slechter voor stond of omdat het een kleiner team was of …
P: Dat was eigenlijk omdat het zelfvertrouwen er zeg maar slechter voor stond. Dus die had
eigenlijk als eerste aandacht nodig.
R: En als we dan nu naar het team kijken, wat is nu dan het grote verschil?
P: Het is nu een zelfbewust team. Ik denk dat de mensen die er toen al zaten, zich nog maar
moeilijk kunnen voorstellen hoe we toen in de wedstrijd zaten.
R: Dat is misschien wel een goed idee om de mensen die toen en nu in het team zaten te vragen
of ze nog weten hoe het er uit zag. Wat zijn de steekwoorden om het huidige team te
beschrijven?
P: Ik denk vooral zelfbewust en een prettig team om in te werken en misschien wel mee te
werken. Op persoonlijk vlak en team vlak.
R: Als je nu kijkt naar de informatie die je van ons krijgt als team, is dat nou andere informatie
dan die je vroeger kreeg?
P:Je bedoelt dat binnen hetzelfde team. Jazeker.
Opmerking [R.G1]: Start
Q3
Opmerking [R.G2]: Q2
Opmerking [R.G3]: Start Q3
Opmerking [R.G4]: Start Q3
Opmerking [R.G5]: Q4
Opmerking [R.G6]: Q4 Q5
Opmerking [R.G7]: Q4