- Email: [email protected]
Exploring the diversity of teams
intemationaljournalof
production economics
ELSEVIER
Int. J. Production
Economics
56-57
(1998) 611-619
Exploring the diversity of teams Tiina Tanskanen*, Department
Paul Buhanist, Hanna Kostama
of Industrial Management, Helsinki University of Technology. Otakaari 8. 02150 Espoo, Finland Received 20 June 1996; accepted
6 September
1996
Abstract Teamwork has often been seen as an unambiguous organizational solution. However, there seems to be a gap between the all-powerful team concept presented in the literature and the way teamwork is practiced in most solutions. In this paper the diversity of teams in practice is pointed out by analyzing 115 teams in five companies. There were six different types of realized team solutions: self-managed teams, teams including multiskilled workers, teams including complementary skills, teams as measurement units, teams as temporary problem-solving groups and, finally, teams as spirit enhancing units. We also found mixed and simplistic expectations and visions of teams as well as increased skepticism. Expectations seemed to vary according to different organizational levels and phases of the team projects. c~ 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords:
Team; Vision; Expectation; Illusion; Realized solution
1. Introduction Teamwork has been one of the most popular slogans and goals in organizational change efforts in the past few years. It has often been seen as a self-evident solution to every kind of a problem, both in literature and in practice. Managers and consultants have attempted to introduce a team organization in almost every kind of business, regardless of the nature of work processes, production systems and businesses. Only recently there have been more critical papers on the team concept ~ probably reflecting the many disappointments encountered in practice. At the same time, we have noticed that the team-concept is losing its glamour in industry. *Corresponding author. Tel. + 358-9-451 9-45 1 3665; e-mail:Tiina.Tanskanen.hut.fi. 0925-5273/98/$ ~ see front matter PII: SO925-5273(96)00097-7
0
3678; fax.
+ 358-
There seems to be a gap between the theory of teams and the way these supposed teams operate in practice. In theory, teamwork is often described as an unambiguous solution where maximizing multiskilled workers’ flexibility and self-management will satisfy both organizational and individual needs. Sinclair [l] criticizes that a team application is too often based on a narrow framework that nurtures inappropriate expectations: beliefs about the benefits of teams occupy an unquestioned place in the organizational change. Also numerous success stories present teamwork as a self-evident solution to all kinds of situations. But is the reality at the front line that glamorous? At least in some success stories we know about, changes exist more in organizational charts than in reality. Moreover, unsuccessful cases are not even reported. Furthermore, Sinclair claims that only a few studies diagnose what kind of work practices exist
1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.
612
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J. Production
in groups and when does it actually represent teamwork. Instead, there are several studies about group dynamics, group processes and group characteristics. For example, lists of group characteristics seem to have the following four factors in common [a]: (a) face-to-face interaction and mutual influence, (b) interdependence between team members, (c) perceived membership, and (d) common goals and tasks. Katzenbach’s [3] definition of the team concept uses slightly different phrases: “A team is a small number of people with complementary skills, who are committed to a common purpose, a set of performance goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable”. We doubt whether these lists of successful group characteristics are useful: is there only one type of a team which one should try to aim at and which fits all kinds of surroundings, production lines and businesses? Do the general characteristic lists make justice and prove useful considering the possible variety in group types in different contexts? Cutcher-Gerhenfeld et al. [4] try to explain the diversity of teams by studying cases in different plants and factories. They conclude that the technology applied and the type of production help to explain the diversity of teams. However, the paper lacks descriptions about, e.g., group responsibilities? autonomy and team members’ skills. Many of the characteristics distinguishing the teams studied were minor details, like the use of notice boards and the tidiness of work areas. Much deeper analysis is needed, if we are to understand and explain the diversity of teams. We approach the subject by studying 115 teams in five companies where teamwork as an organizational model was introduced. The companies had an extensive development project, in which one of the main aims was to build a team-based organization. By actively guiding the change process and participating in the development over a period from 1 to 4 yr (practically living on the spot), the researchers got access to the whole process of building teams and teamwork in practice. As a scientific method, the research is based on a case study and action research methodology, which enables both exposure to reality and deep understanding of the subject [S, 61. The team cases were analyzed by interviewing team members and team leaders, ob-
Economics
56-57 (1998) 611-619
serving the teamwork in action and studying team documents like job descriptions, descriptions of salary systems, work flow charts, etc. In this paper we will point out the diversity of teams by describing what kind of teams there were in practice and in what way the teams were different. Our research questions are: What were the visions and expectations about teamwork? How did the management and personnel understand the concept in the beginning of the change project? Both the openly expressed and unexpressed expectations and visions of teamwork are explored. What was the reality of teamwork like after the change project was finished? What was the core idea of the solution? How did the team concept and solution seem to vary in different settings? In this paper we focus only on production groups, operational units or - if one uses Katzenbath’s definition ~ on teams that do things. Namely, Katzenbach [3] divides teams into the following categories: (a) teams that recommend things, e.g., development groups, task forces, project groups, (b) teams that make or do things, e.g., production groups, cells, autonomous work teams and finally; (c) teams that run things, e.g., management teams. In this study we concentrate on “structural” elements of team work, like work processes, employees’ skills, the hierarchical structures inside a team, salary systems and the level of team autonomy. We did not focus on changes in group dynamics or psychological roles inside a team. When generalizing from our cases one has to take into account the fact that all of the projects presented in this paper were managed in cooperation with an academic organization, which emphasizes soft goals like personnel motivation, job enrichment and employee empowerment. We come back to this issue in discussion.
l
l
2. Teamwork cases 2.1. Presentation
of team projects
First, we present our case set. In Table 1 we have listed our 115 teams from five companies that represent process, metal and transportation industries.
T Tanskanen et aLlInt. Table 1 Team projects
included
J. Production
Economics
56-57 (1998) 611-619
613
in the study
Business
Type of production/ team task
Number of teams
Organizational level included in the team
Size of teams
Official objectives of the team project
Division
Wood processing industr) Wood processing industry
Process productlon Batch production
30
Workers
only
3-6
20
Workers
only
s--20
By phase of the process, by shifts Functional, by shifts
Wood processing industry Metal industry
Process production Batch production Customer Service CASE A Customer service CASE B
11
Workers
only
5~_10
15
Workers
only
4-15
20
Service officers and supervisors Service officers only
Well-being. productivity Lean organization, short delivery times, well-being Better cooperation, multiskilled workers Team organization, short delivery times Self-management
Transportation industq Transportation industq
19
The last two columns need a bit more description. OJiciul objectives of the team project means those objectives written in the project plan and informed at briefings organized for the whole personnel. Division into teams explains those principles by which the organization was divided into team units (product family, functional, crossfunctional, etc.). Next, we present our findings, first, about visions and expectations and, then, about the realized team solutions.
2.2. Goals and expectations
of team projects
There were several different expectations and visions about teams. Table 2 illustrates the variety of these expectations and analyses whether these expectations were mainly official and openly expressed goals or unofficial, unexpressed or even hidden goals. Official and openly expressed goals were seen and heard in papers and speeches, whereas unofficial and unexpressed goals were exposed only in informal and private discussions. In the following, we present our findings concerning teamwork goals and expectations.
9
4-12
Well-being, multiskilled personnel
into teams
By phase of the process, by shifts Functional, by shifts Geographical. cross functional Functional. by shift\
2.2. I
Expressed goals ‘sqfter’ than unexpressed goals First, we found that official, expressed objectives and unexpressed objectives were not always the same (see Table 2). The official objectives, like personnel well-being, motivation and commitment, were usually expressed in an all-embracing way: it was easy for everyone to accept them regardless of the interest group or level of organization. The official goals in all cases were ‘politically correct’ enough to be expressed in launch campaigns by both company top management and union leaders. The unexpressed expectations were put into more functional expressions: flexible use of work force, cost savings and service quality through flexibility. One team building effort was labeled as a wellbeing project. Afterwards the outcomes of the project were measured by the cost savings gained by more effective labor use and downsizing the number of personnel. 2.2.2. Expectutions in d@erent phases qf’theproject The ‘harder’ objectives of the change were not commonly expressed at the beginning of the change. So, there was a tendency that in the beginning of the projects well-being values were loudly
614 Table 2 Goals and expectations
T. Tanskanen et aLlInt. J. Production
Economics
56-57 (1998) 611-619
of teams in the cases
Visions and expectations
Official, openly expressed phrases
Well-being Motivation of personnel Enhanced cooperation and communication Lean organization and self-management Job enrichment Job rotation Better personal relationships Quality improvement Accelerated solution of work place problems Shorter delivery times Better measurability Improving flexibility of production resources Everyone in a work group is equal Everything is done together Keeping spirit up during downsizing Changes in organizational chart only Having group meetings Cost reduction through flexible use of work force Eliminating some of the intermediate functions of supervisors
X X X X X X X X X X X X
expressed, but in the course of the project productivity goals became more important ones - expressed perhaps not so loudly, but being still the real ones making the change happen. It seems that these ‘hard’ goals are of utmost importance in order to motivate middle managers. 2.2.3. Expectations in d@erent organizational levels Top management, unit management, supervisors and workers all had different interests, views and expectations about the anticipated team organization. The lower organizational level, where the actual teams were supposed to be formed, had mixed feelings towards teamwork. Top managers and worker’s representatives tend to use all-embracing phrases like better motivation and well-being. Many first-line supervisors saw it as a threat. Middle managers were best committed to teams, if they saw clear benefits in hard measures like labor costs, delivery times or productivity. As their own work is measured in quantitative and monetary
Unofficial, phrases not expressed openly
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
terms, they seemed to need to reformulate the objectives into numbers before real personal commitment. 2.2.4. Increased skepticism For many managers and workers teamwork was just another slogan. The following examples point out the skepticism about teams: In one of the forest industry cases the workers reacted at first in the following way: “Have we not worked in a team (meaning their shift) for the last 20 years? Have we not self-managed the production process in every night-shift: we have not had a foreman in a shift for ages!” One supervisor reacted spontaneously after hearing about the team organization for the first time: “So this means you do not need us any more!“. One team member put it in this way: “Oh, it is team this time. We have had TQM and quality
615
T. Tanskanen et al. ilnt. J. Production Economics 56-57 (1998) 611-619
circles already. Is this one of those projects too, where they hire a consult, the consult do their tricks, and then they leave the company with no changes in practice”. There was also a tendency that skepticism which typically exists in the beginning of the project faded away in the course of the project after the first concrete changes in practice - even if small ones. A planning meeting was taking place about the team organization in the beginning of the project. A service employee stood up to say: “I have been appointed to represent my colleagues to vote against the change. Now I want some information about what it is that we are against. The same suspicious worker spoke strongly in favor of the team organization at a companywide service personnel only a year after and reported about the very inspiring experience they had when applying job rotation. 2.2.5. Team concept itself ambiguous Furthermore, we found that sometimes the concept of team itself was understood in totally different ways. For some it was something that happened during group meetings or quality circle sessions, for others a team included the whole organization or a unit with something like 200 employees. Also some companies used different concepts meaning the same thing. Some organization uses the term ‘lean organization’ while others prefer ‘team-based organization’. In many presentations and speeches the concepts ‘team’ and ‘work-group’ are seen as two different work forms, usually the word team meaning more mature form of a work organization. In our cases this kind of differences did not exist: the name had nothing to do with the maturity of teamwork in practice. 2.2.6. Simplistic expectations In many of the cases team organization was seen as a self-evident solution and a team as a goal itself. In these cases not enough emphasis was put to the problems needed to be solved nor to the consequences the expected team organization should have. In the most successful cases teamwork was
only seen as means for better only one part of the vision.
performance
or was
In one of the cases it seemed as if the team organization itself was the goal. There was no discussion of why the change was needed and what it really meant to move towards team organization. The project started by renaming the former departments as teams (the new team organization was to be built according to the old functional principles). Then the team members were to meet in a team meeting room once a week in order to develop their work processes. One day a manager, when passing the meeting room, peeked into the room and asked seriously: “how is the teamwork there doing?’ At this time we knew that we could not continue the project without a more clear and concrete vision of teamwork shared with both managers and workers. So. it seems that there may prevail a very simplistic assumption that to put the people in one room is teamwork, and that it can solve various kinds of communication, work-flow and other problems and conflicts. Evidently, it cannot.
2.3. Realization
of teamwork
We searched for the core ideas and changes in each realized team solution. The focus was on “structural” elements of team work: work processes, employees’ skills, the hierarchical structures inside a team, the level of team autonomy, salary systems. etc. After analyzing the 115 teams, six different types of teams were found. However, none of the teams represented a pure type of the categories below. 2.3.1. Teams as self-managed units In the batch production cases both in metal and forest industry, self-management was the main focus of the project: new responsibilities, like material ordering, was given to production groups. When making weekly production schedules and work plans as well as organizing resources (e.g. substitutes), teamwork was especially needed. In one of these cases team members could even decide on
616
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J. Production
working hours. In the process production cases, on the other hand, the operators were already used to manage the process without supervisors due to working in shifts. In the service sector, self-management meant giving the responsibility for day-to-day work division to the group. The group had to use their own judgment to decide the priority of tasks and the amount of time and persons needed for each task. Still, in non-routine tasks back-office supervisors tended to interfere, take charge and give orders as they used to do. Also the weekly scheduling of work remained supervisors’ duty. 2.3.2. Teams including multiskilled workers In all of the process production cases in forest industry the emphasis of teamwork was not on self-management, but on multiskilled workers. Job rotation was one of the most important expectations of teamwork. Also in many cases job rotation was the only concrete change. In process production multiskilled workers and teamwork was especially needed during breakdowns. Also, because operating time was a critical factor in the wood processing cases, the flexible replacement of team members was one of the key benefits of teamwork. By job rotation it was expected that it would be easier to replace personnel and thus secure troublefree production. In the forest industry cases, crosstraining and job rotation was also the easiest - and sometimes the only - way to enrich the narrow work entities in units like warehouses, laboratories, cleaning and packing departments, where workers still had to perform monotonous, manual operations. The main focus of case B in customer service sector was the training of employees to master all of the process phases. Cross training was completed in all units, but in practice full job rotation was realized only in two-thirds of the teams. Former division of work by gender was the main obstacle in those teams where job rotation failed. Also age had its effect: elderly men were especially reluctant to take part in ‘feminine’ tasks, where closer customer contact was required. For younger workers cross training meant enhanced identity as a service professional and more interesting work, but for many older ones it was a source of stress. In those teams,
Economics
56-57 (I 998) 61 I-619
where multiskilled workers used their capabilities to the full through job rotation, they were more self-confident and able to solve problem situations without outside consultation. Yet, the level of selfmanagement remained basically the same as it had been before. Surprisingly many of these teams with multiskilled workers had hierarchies inside teams with different wage levels. Only in some teams in metal and service sector cases no visible hierarchy was observed and all the team members were equal in terms of appreciation and wages. In forest industry it was typical to have production groups with the most experienced operators as team leaders. 2.3.3. Teams including complementary skills Case A in customer service sector included teams that consisted of 4-5 service officers, 2 technical service officers and l-2 service supervisors, who acted as team leaders. Each team was assigned to a specific service area. The team depended on each members’ contribution using his/her special skill. Teamwork required negotiation skills as the members had to make plans and decisions of how to divide effort between different operations. They also worked in close cooperation with each other during operation. The supervisors had good contact with the front-line workers and were able to intervene more effectively when necessary. In some of these teams, however, the way of working remained traditional and cross-functional cooperation was at the minimum. For example, the loading workers remained independent in practice, although each one was assigned to the specific customer service area and team. 2.3.4. Teams as measurement units One of the core ideas in these kinds of teams were to decentralize cost and benefit responsibilities. When one pilot team was experimenting the team model in the service case A, some simple control measures were applied and they proved essential when conclusions were made about the anticipated effectiveness level of the team. Still in either of the service sector cases no measurement methods for team efficiency or quality were applied in the final solution. This was mostly due to the suspect that team effectiveness measurement would harm the
T. Tan&men et al. /ht. J. Production Economics 56-57 (1998) 61 I-61 9
team organization spirit. The groups simply started to work in the new efficient way, which was proved by the experiment, but efficiency was not measured any more. In the batch production cases it was easy to find measurements for team outcomes (e.g. a team’s productivity, delivery time, operation time of the machines, the amount of customer complaints). This seemed to be one of the things which enhanced self-management. However, in all of these cases some of these measurements were already applied before the team organization was introduced. In the process industry cases team outcomes were difficult to measure, and no serious efforts were made to build team measures. It is evident that our cases include no pure example of a team as a measurement unit. but measurability of team outcomes was, however. one major element of the successful team concept at least in some point of the team building process. 2.3.5. Teams as temporary problem-solving groups This was a form of traditional group work in the process industry. In our process production cases there were both ad hoc teams for trouble shooting and problem solving, as well as preplanned group work for, e.g., maintenance and prepare work during production standstill. In these situations good neighborly help attitude was essential. In fact, there were many team work elements in these situations, although the team concept was not emphasized in this context. It was more like a natural and selfevident way to organize work. Some of these situations were well managed by the group itself, in some cases supervisors still had a leading role in organizing the work. which sometimes led to byrocratic and complicated work processes. 2.3.6. Teams as spirit enhancing units In many customer service team projects we observed clear spirit improvement. It seemed to be important that team members shared approximately similar work-related values, and that their level of personal effectiveness was alike. In teams where former work division remained inside of the team or where workers did not share common personal interests, spirits were not especially raised by the new organizational model.
611
Best examples of teams as spirit-enhancing units were found in difficult situations like downsizing of organization. In addition to improving efficiency through job rotation, the main idea of the newly formed groups seemed to be to inspire discussion and togetherness among those who remained in the organization. Still, like stated before, most of the teams did not represent pure examples of any of the categories above.
3. Discussion 3.1.
Visions and expectations
In most of the cases there was no clear vision of what teamwork would mean in practice. It can be claimed that, if the development project objectives are expressed only in general phrases like “better well-being of personnel” or “better motivation” and no serious effort is made to make the vision more concrete during the process, the project might end up with teams with no real changes at all. General, unrealistic expectations of team work have to be modified into shop floor reality. We agree with Katzenbach [3] that with no concrete vision of team organization nor clear team tasks, it is very likely to end up with inefficient pseudoteams. It seems obvious, that managers are skeptical about “well-being projects” and are not committed to such a project. Thus, overexpressed, politically correct wellbeing goals tend to lead to less impressive results. Also Sinclair [l] warns about inappropriate expectations about team applications. Contrary to the stated aims, “under the banner to the benefits to all, teams are frequently used to camouflage coercion”. We believe that most advocates of team concept mean good, but good intentions without realism and criticism may lead to widespread anger and skepticism, looking also much like “the road to hell is lined with good intentions”
c71. Nevertheless, in the project launching phase one needs wider. inspiring views, but then, to realize the change one needs more realistic goals - which seems to differ - if we want to form real and wellfunctioning teams.
618
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J Production
3.2. The variety of teams The team solutions in our cases varied depending on the business, production system and work process. Also, we found that teams tend to grow into diverse directions regardless of the goals and expectations in the launching phase. There were basically six different types of operational teams: selfmanaged teams, teams with multiskilled workers, teams with complementary skills, teams as measurement units, teams as temporary problemsolving groups and, finally, teams as spirit enhancing units. Therefore, it can be argued that the team solution does not exist in practice. Moreover, our cases included only teams that “make or do things”, and if we expand our cases to “teams that recommend things” and “teams that run things” - referring to Katzenbach’s [3] categories - the variety of teams is probably much wider. There were two almost opposite solutions in terms of team members’ skills and expertise, namely teams with multiskilled workers and teams with complementary skills. These two types of work arrangements are often mixed up with one another in discussions, and are not clearly distinguished in the literature either. When building multiskilled teams, it is generally assumed that all team members will be equal. Yet, in many realized solutions in our study organizational hierarchies did exist inside many teams and team members were not equal in terms of appreciation and wages. Also gender-based work division existed. Furthermore, we observed that self-management and new challenges as such may not be enough to enhance commitment to team goals. Even the challenging customer demands and even face-to-face contact with customers in the service case may not have been enough: a measurement and reward system might have been needed. It would seem that a team has to face, firstly, outside demands to be forced to actively use the possibilities of self-management to reach the goals and, secondly, that a team has to have some measurement system. Furthermore, it can be argued that batch and assembly production gives more possibilities to increase self-management. In batch and assembly production team organization can be built accord-
Economics
56-57 (1998) 61 I-619
ing to product family or customer, which makes it possible to put the team in charge of the whole business process from order handling to shipment (assuming that the group does not grow too big). Continuous production does not give as many possibilities to increase self-management. There are no possibilities to form small groups by business processes, teams are only built according to the phase of the process, and teams are tightly dependent on one another. The link between the goal of the development project and the type of the realized team solution was unclear. One of the reasons could be the very general goals in the beginning of the project, while it is difficult or premature to make a concrete and exact vision of the team solution beforehand.
3.3. Recommendations To conclude, some recommendations about building teams are made. First, beware of the team concept in general. The team concept itself seems to raise contradictory feelings nowadays. Avoid campaigns with a lot of talk about the all-powerful team. Rather concentrate on the concrete problems which need to be solved and on organizational solutions that fit the particular business, production system and work process. Be critical about what it is that you gain from team organization. Slight changes and everyday improvements will most probably be experienced, but the outcomes of the team projects might be far from the ideal selfmanaged team. Beware of ‘nice’ objectives only, try to find the balance between softer and harder objectives. ‘Think big, start small’, i.e., when starting the project you are allowed to think big and set far reaching goals and visions. Starting small is what counts at the point of committing to action [S]. Introducing teams means hard work with practical small steps, like how to get the team members use the fax in order to handle material orders, etc. When evaluating this study, one has to take into account the consequences of the specific researcher role as a consultant and catalyst. The softer goals might be emphasized more in this study compared to a team project lacking this kind of catalyst.
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J. Production
However, we do believe that team projects always have at least some kind of softer goals, because the team concept itself seem to include elements like better personnel motivation, job enrichment, empowerment, etc. Finally, we are not against teams. On the contrary, by picturing a more realistic and diverse team model, we hope to enhance the real-life team solution. Development based on illusions ends up too often in disillusions.
Economics
f31 J.R. Katzenbach, c41
c51 Ccl
f71 References A. Sinclair, 1992.The tyranny of a team ideology. Organizational Stud. 13(4): 611-626. [2] D. Tjosvold, 1991. Team Organization. An Enduring Competitive Advantage. Wiley. New York.
56-57 (1998) 611-619
[l]
PI
619
D.G. Smith, 1992. The Wisdom of Teams. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, M. Nitta, B. Barrett, N. Belhedi, J. Bullard, C. Coutchie, T. Inaba, I. Ishino, S. Lee, W.-J. Lin. W. Mothersell, S. Rabine. S. Ramanand, M. Strolle, A. Wheaton, 1994. Japanese Team-based work systems in North America: Explaining the diversity, California Mgmt. Rev., 37( 1). E. Gummerson. 1991. Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Sage, Newbury Park. E. Schein, 19Y5. Process consultation. action research and clinical inquiry: Are they the same. J. Managerial Psychol.. lO(6): 14-19. P. Buhanist, 1995. Neglected concepts and unspoken phenomena in organizational change: Issues of power. influence and self-interest of individuals, groups and units. A presentation at EGOS Colloquium, Istanbul. M. Greif, 199 1. The Visual Factory. Building Participation Through Shared Information. Productivity Press. Inc., Portland. Oregon.
production economics
ELSEVIER
Int. J. Production
Economics
56-57
(1998) 611-619
Exploring the diversity of teams Tiina Tanskanen*, Department
Paul Buhanist, Hanna Kostama
of Industrial Management, Helsinki University of Technology. Otakaari 8. 02150 Espoo, Finland Received 20 June 1996; accepted
6 September
1996
Abstract Teamwork has often been seen as an unambiguous organizational solution. However, there seems to be a gap between the all-powerful team concept presented in the literature and the way teamwork is practiced in most solutions. In this paper the diversity of teams in practice is pointed out by analyzing 115 teams in five companies. There were six different types of realized team solutions: self-managed teams, teams including multiskilled workers, teams including complementary skills, teams as measurement units, teams as temporary problem-solving groups and, finally, teams as spirit enhancing units. We also found mixed and simplistic expectations and visions of teams as well as increased skepticism. Expectations seemed to vary according to different organizational levels and phases of the team projects. c~ 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords:
Team; Vision; Expectation; Illusion; Realized solution
1. Introduction Teamwork has been one of the most popular slogans and goals in organizational change efforts in the past few years. It has often been seen as a self-evident solution to every kind of a problem, both in literature and in practice. Managers and consultants have attempted to introduce a team organization in almost every kind of business, regardless of the nature of work processes, production systems and businesses. Only recently there have been more critical papers on the team concept ~ probably reflecting the many disappointments encountered in practice. At the same time, we have noticed that the team-concept is losing its glamour in industry. *Corresponding author. Tel. + 358-9-451 9-45 1 3665; e-mail:Tiina.Tanskanen.hut.fi. 0925-5273/98/$ ~ see front matter PII: SO925-5273(96)00097-7
0
3678; fax.
+ 358-
There seems to be a gap between the theory of teams and the way these supposed teams operate in practice. In theory, teamwork is often described as an unambiguous solution where maximizing multiskilled workers’ flexibility and self-management will satisfy both organizational and individual needs. Sinclair [l] criticizes that a team application is too often based on a narrow framework that nurtures inappropriate expectations: beliefs about the benefits of teams occupy an unquestioned place in the organizational change. Also numerous success stories present teamwork as a self-evident solution to all kinds of situations. But is the reality at the front line that glamorous? At least in some success stories we know about, changes exist more in organizational charts than in reality. Moreover, unsuccessful cases are not even reported. Furthermore, Sinclair claims that only a few studies diagnose what kind of work practices exist
1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.
612
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J. Production
in groups and when does it actually represent teamwork. Instead, there are several studies about group dynamics, group processes and group characteristics. For example, lists of group characteristics seem to have the following four factors in common [a]: (a) face-to-face interaction and mutual influence, (b) interdependence between team members, (c) perceived membership, and (d) common goals and tasks. Katzenbach’s [3] definition of the team concept uses slightly different phrases: “A team is a small number of people with complementary skills, who are committed to a common purpose, a set of performance goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable”. We doubt whether these lists of successful group characteristics are useful: is there only one type of a team which one should try to aim at and which fits all kinds of surroundings, production lines and businesses? Do the general characteristic lists make justice and prove useful considering the possible variety in group types in different contexts? Cutcher-Gerhenfeld et al. [4] try to explain the diversity of teams by studying cases in different plants and factories. They conclude that the technology applied and the type of production help to explain the diversity of teams. However, the paper lacks descriptions about, e.g., group responsibilities? autonomy and team members’ skills. Many of the characteristics distinguishing the teams studied were minor details, like the use of notice boards and the tidiness of work areas. Much deeper analysis is needed, if we are to understand and explain the diversity of teams. We approach the subject by studying 115 teams in five companies where teamwork as an organizational model was introduced. The companies had an extensive development project, in which one of the main aims was to build a team-based organization. By actively guiding the change process and participating in the development over a period from 1 to 4 yr (practically living on the spot), the researchers got access to the whole process of building teams and teamwork in practice. As a scientific method, the research is based on a case study and action research methodology, which enables both exposure to reality and deep understanding of the subject [S, 61. The team cases were analyzed by interviewing team members and team leaders, ob-
Economics
56-57 (1998) 611-619
serving the teamwork in action and studying team documents like job descriptions, descriptions of salary systems, work flow charts, etc. In this paper we will point out the diversity of teams by describing what kind of teams there were in practice and in what way the teams were different. Our research questions are: What were the visions and expectations about teamwork? How did the management and personnel understand the concept in the beginning of the change project? Both the openly expressed and unexpressed expectations and visions of teamwork are explored. What was the reality of teamwork like after the change project was finished? What was the core idea of the solution? How did the team concept and solution seem to vary in different settings? In this paper we focus only on production groups, operational units or - if one uses Katzenbath’s definition ~ on teams that do things. Namely, Katzenbach [3] divides teams into the following categories: (a) teams that recommend things, e.g., development groups, task forces, project groups, (b) teams that make or do things, e.g., production groups, cells, autonomous work teams and finally; (c) teams that run things, e.g., management teams. In this study we concentrate on “structural” elements of team work, like work processes, employees’ skills, the hierarchical structures inside a team, salary systems and the level of team autonomy. We did not focus on changes in group dynamics or psychological roles inside a team. When generalizing from our cases one has to take into account the fact that all of the projects presented in this paper were managed in cooperation with an academic organization, which emphasizes soft goals like personnel motivation, job enrichment and employee empowerment. We come back to this issue in discussion.
l
l
2. Teamwork cases 2.1. Presentation
of team projects
First, we present our case set. In Table 1 we have listed our 115 teams from five companies that represent process, metal and transportation industries.
T Tanskanen et aLlInt. Table 1 Team projects
included
J. Production
Economics
56-57 (1998) 611-619
613
in the study
Business
Type of production/ team task
Number of teams
Organizational level included in the team
Size of teams
Official objectives of the team project
Division
Wood processing industr) Wood processing industry
Process productlon Batch production
30
Workers
only
3-6
20
Workers
only
s--20
By phase of the process, by shifts Functional, by shifts
Wood processing industry Metal industry
Process production Batch production Customer Service CASE A Customer service CASE B
11
Workers
only
5~_10
15
Workers
only
4-15
20
Service officers and supervisors Service officers only
Well-being. productivity Lean organization, short delivery times, well-being Better cooperation, multiskilled workers Team organization, short delivery times Self-management
Transportation industq Transportation industq
19
The last two columns need a bit more description. OJiciul objectives of the team project means those objectives written in the project plan and informed at briefings organized for the whole personnel. Division into teams explains those principles by which the organization was divided into team units (product family, functional, crossfunctional, etc.). Next, we present our findings, first, about visions and expectations and, then, about the realized team solutions.
2.2. Goals and expectations
of team projects
There were several different expectations and visions about teams. Table 2 illustrates the variety of these expectations and analyses whether these expectations were mainly official and openly expressed goals or unofficial, unexpressed or even hidden goals. Official and openly expressed goals were seen and heard in papers and speeches, whereas unofficial and unexpressed goals were exposed only in informal and private discussions. In the following, we present our findings concerning teamwork goals and expectations.
9
4-12
Well-being, multiskilled personnel
into teams
By phase of the process, by shifts Functional, by shifts Geographical. cross functional Functional. by shift\
2.2. I
Expressed goals ‘sqfter’ than unexpressed goals First, we found that official, expressed objectives and unexpressed objectives were not always the same (see Table 2). The official objectives, like personnel well-being, motivation and commitment, were usually expressed in an all-embracing way: it was easy for everyone to accept them regardless of the interest group or level of organization. The official goals in all cases were ‘politically correct’ enough to be expressed in launch campaigns by both company top management and union leaders. The unexpressed expectations were put into more functional expressions: flexible use of work force, cost savings and service quality through flexibility. One team building effort was labeled as a wellbeing project. Afterwards the outcomes of the project were measured by the cost savings gained by more effective labor use and downsizing the number of personnel. 2.2.2. Expectutions in d@erent phases qf’theproject The ‘harder’ objectives of the change were not commonly expressed at the beginning of the change. So, there was a tendency that in the beginning of the projects well-being values were loudly
614 Table 2 Goals and expectations
T. Tanskanen et aLlInt. J. Production
Economics
56-57 (1998) 611-619
of teams in the cases
Visions and expectations
Official, openly expressed phrases
Well-being Motivation of personnel Enhanced cooperation and communication Lean organization and self-management Job enrichment Job rotation Better personal relationships Quality improvement Accelerated solution of work place problems Shorter delivery times Better measurability Improving flexibility of production resources Everyone in a work group is equal Everything is done together Keeping spirit up during downsizing Changes in organizational chart only Having group meetings Cost reduction through flexible use of work force Eliminating some of the intermediate functions of supervisors
X X X X X X X X X X X X
expressed, but in the course of the project productivity goals became more important ones - expressed perhaps not so loudly, but being still the real ones making the change happen. It seems that these ‘hard’ goals are of utmost importance in order to motivate middle managers. 2.2.3. Expectations in d@erent organizational levels Top management, unit management, supervisors and workers all had different interests, views and expectations about the anticipated team organization. The lower organizational level, where the actual teams were supposed to be formed, had mixed feelings towards teamwork. Top managers and worker’s representatives tend to use all-embracing phrases like better motivation and well-being. Many first-line supervisors saw it as a threat. Middle managers were best committed to teams, if they saw clear benefits in hard measures like labor costs, delivery times or productivity. As their own work is measured in quantitative and monetary
Unofficial, phrases not expressed openly
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
terms, they seemed to need to reformulate the objectives into numbers before real personal commitment. 2.2.4. Increased skepticism For many managers and workers teamwork was just another slogan. The following examples point out the skepticism about teams: In one of the forest industry cases the workers reacted at first in the following way: “Have we not worked in a team (meaning their shift) for the last 20 years? Have we not self-managed the production process in every night-shift: we have not had a foreman in a shift for ages!” One supervisor reacted spontaneously after hearing about the team organization for the first time: “So this means you do not need us any more!“. One team member put it in this way: “Oh, it is team this time. We have had TQM and quality
615
T. Tanskanen et al. ilnt. J. Production Economics 56-57 (1998) 611-619
circles already. Is this one of those projects too, where they hire a consult, the consult do their tricks, and then they leave the company with no changes in practice”. There was also a tendency that skepticism which typically exists in the beginning of the project faded away in the course of the project after the first concrete changes in practice - even if small ones. A planning meeting was taking place about the team organization in the beginning of the project. A service employee stood up to say: “I have been appointed to represent my colleagues to vote against the change. Now I want some information about what it is that we are against. The same suspicious worker spoke strongly in favor of the team organization at a companywide service personnel only a year after and reported about the very inspiring experience they had when applying job rotation. 2.2.5. Team concept itself ambiguous Furthermore, we found that sometimes the concept of team itself was understood in totally different ways. For some it was something that happened during group meetings or quality circle sessions, for others a team included the whole organization or a unit with something like 200 employees. Also some companies used different concepts meaning the same thing. Some organization uses the term ‘lean organization’ while others prefer ‘team-based organization’. In many presentations and speeches the concepts ‘team’ and ‘work-group’ are seen as two different work forms, usually the word team meaning more mature form of a work organization. In our cases this kind of differences did not exist: the name had nothing to do with the maturity of teamwork in practice. 2.2.6. Simplistic expectations In many of the cases team organization was seen as a self-evident solution and a team as a goal itself. In these cases not enough emphasis was put to the problems needed to be solved nor to the consequences the expected team organization should have. In the most successful cases teamwork was
only seen as means for better only one part of the vision.
performance
or was
In one of the cases it seemed as if the team organization itself was the goal. There was no discussion of why the change was needed and what it really meant to move towards team organization. The project started by renaming the former departments as teams (the new team organization was to be built according to the old functional principles). Then the team members were to meet in a team meeting room once a week in order to develop their work processes. One day a manager, when passing the meeting room, peeked into the room and asked seriously: “how is the teamwork there doing?’ At this time we knew that we could not continue the project without a more clear and concrete vision of teamwork shared with both managers and workers. So. it seems that there may prevail a very simplistic assumption that to put the people in one room is teamwork, and that it can solve various kinds of communication, work-flow and other problems and conflicts. Evidently, it cannot.
2.3. Realization
of teamwork
We searched for the core ideas and changes in each realized team solution. The focus was on “structural” elements of team work: work processes, employees’ skills, the hierarchical structures inside a team, the level of team autonomy, salary systems. etc. After analyzing the 115 teams, six different types of teams were found. However, none of the teams represented a pure type of the categories below. 2.3.1. Teams as self-managed units In the batch production cases both in metal and forest industry, self-management was the main focus of the project: new responsibilities, like material ordering, was given to production groups. When making weekly production schedules and work plans as well as organizing resources (e.g. substitutes), teamwork was especially needed. In one of these cases team members could even decide on
616
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J. Production
working hours. In the process production cases, on the other hand, the operators were already used to manage the process without supervisors due to working in shifts. In the service sector, self-management meant giving the responsibility for day-to-day work division to the group. The group had to use their own judgment to decide the priority of tasks and the amount of time and persons needed for each task. Still, in non-routine tasks back-office supervisors tended to interfere, take charge and give orders as they used to do. Also the weekly scheduling of work remained supervisors’ duty. 2.3.2. Teams including multiskilled workers In all of the process production cases in forest industry the emphasis of teamwork was not on self-management, but on multiskilled workers. Job rotation was one of the most important expectations of teamwork. Also in many cases job rotation was the only concrete change. In process production multiskilled workers and teamwork was especially needed during breakdowns. Also, because operating time was a critical factor in the wood processing cases, the flexible replacement of team members was one of the key benefits of teamwork. By job rotation it was expected that it would be easier to replace personnel and thus secure troublefree production. In the forest industry cases, crosstraining and job rotation was also the easiest - and sometimes the only - way to enrich the narrow work entities in units like warehouses, laboratories, cleaning and packing departments, where workers still had to perform monotonous, manual operations. The main focus of case B in customer service sector was the training of employees to master all of the process phases. Cross training was completed in all units, but in practice full job rotation was realized only in two-thirds of the teams. Former division of work by gender was the main obstacle in those teams where job rotation failed. Also age had its effect: elderly men were especially reluctant to take part in ‘feminine’ tasks, where closer customer contact was required. For younger workers cross training meant enhanced identity as a service professional and more interesting work, but for many older ones it was a source of stress. In those teams,
Economics
56-57 (I 998) 61 I-619
where multiskilled workers used their capabilities to the full through job rotation, they were more self-confident and able to solve problem situations without outside consultation. Yet, the level of selfmanagement remained basically the same as it had been before. Surprisingly many of these teams with multiskilled workers had hierarchies inside teams with different wage levels. Only in some teams in metal and service sector cases no visible hierarchy was observed and all the team members were equal in terms of appreciation and wages. In forest industry it was typical to have production groups with the most experienced operators as team leaders. 2.3.3. Teams including complementary skills Case A in customer service sector included teams that consisted of 4-5 service officers, 2 technical service officers and l-2 service supervisors, who acted as team leaders. Each team was assigned to a specific service area. The team depended on each members’ contribution using his/her special skill. Teamwork required negotiation skills as the members had to make plans and decisions of how to divide effort between different operations. They also worked in close cooperation with each other during operation. The supervisors had good contact with the front-line workers and were able to intervene more effectively when necessary. In some of these teams, however, the way of working remained traditional and cross-functional cooperation was at the minimum. For example, the loading workers remained independent in practice, although each one was assigned to the specific customer service area and team. 2.3.4. Teams as measurement units One of the core ideas in these kinds of teams were to decentralize cost and benefit responsibilities. When one pilot team was experimenting the team model in the service case A, some simple control measures were applied and they proved essential when conclusions were made about the anticipated effectiveness level of the team. Still in either of the service sector cases no measurement methods for team efficiency or quality were applied in the final solution. This was mostly due to the suspect that team effectiveness measurement would harm the
T. Tan&men et al. /ht. J. Production Economics 56-57 (1998) 61 I-61 9
team organization spirit. The groups simply started to work in the new efficient way, which was proved by the experiment, but efficiency was not measured any more. In the batch production cases it was easy to find measurements for team outcomes (e.g. a team’s productivity, delivery time, operation time of the machines, the amount of customer complaints). This seemed to be one of the things which enhanced self-management. However, in all of these cases some of these measurements were already applied before the team organization was introduced. In the process industry cases team outcomes were difficult to measure, and no serious efforts were made to build team measures. It is evident that our cases include no pure example of a team as a measurement unit. but measurability of team outcomes was, however. one major element of the successful team concept at least in some point of the team building process. 2.3.5. Teams as temporary problem-solving groups This was a form of traditional group work in the process industry. In our process production cases there were both ad hoc teams for trouble shooting and problem solving, as well as preplanned group work for, e.g., maintenance and prepare work during production standstill. In these situations good neighborly help attitude was essential. In fact, there were many team work elements in these situations, although the team concept was not emphasized in this context. It was more like a natural and selfevident way to organize work. Some of these situations were well managed by the group itself, in some cases supervisors still had a leading role in organizing the work. which sometimes led to byrocratic and complicated work processes. 2.3.6. Teams as spirit enhancing units In many customer service team projects we observed clear spirit improvement. It seemed to be important that team members shared approximately similar work-related values, and that their level of personal effectiveness was alike. In teams where former work division remained inside of the team or where workers did not share common personal interests, spirits were not especially raised by the new organizational model.
611
Best examples of teams as spirit-enhancing units were found in difficult situations like downsizing of organization. In addition to improving efficiency through job rotation, the main idea of the newly formed groups seemed to be to inspire discussion and togetherness among those who remained in the organization. Still, like stated before, most of the teams did not represent pure examples of any of the categories above.
3. Discussion 3.1.
Visions and expectations
In most of the cases there was no clear vision of what teamwork would mean in practice. It can be claimed that, if the development project objectives are expressed only in general phrases like “better well-being of personnel” or “better motivation” and no serious effort is made to make the vision more concrete during the process, the project might end up with teams with no real changes at all. General, unrealistic expectations of team work have to be modified into shop floor reality. We agree with Katzenbach [3] that with no concrete vision of team organization nor clear team tasks, it is very likely to end up with inefficient pseudoteams. It seems obvious, that managers are skeptical about “well-being projects” and are not committed to such a project. Thus, overexpressed, politically correct wellbeing goals tend to lead to less impressive results. Also Sinclair [l] warns about inappropriate expectations about team applications. Contrary to the stated aims, “under the banner to the benefits to all, teams are frequently used to camouflage coercion”. We believe that most advocates of team concept mean good, but good intentions without realism and criticism may lead to widespread anger and skepticism, looking also much like “the road to hell is lined with good intentions”
c71. Nevertheless, in the project launching phase one needs wider. inspiring views, but then, to realize the change one needs more realistic goals - which seems to differ - if we want to form real and wellfunctioning teams.
618
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J Production
3.2. The variety of teams The team solutions in our cases varied depending on the business, production system and work process. Also, we found that teams tend to grow into diverse directions regardless of the goals and expectations in the launching phase. There were basically six different types of operational teams: selfmanaged teams, teams with multiskilled workers, teams with complementary skills, teams as measurement units, teams as temporary problemsolving groups and, finally, teams as spirit enhancing units. Therefore, it can be argued that the team solution does not exist in practice. Moreover, our cases included only teams that “make or do things”, and if we expand our cases to “teams that recommend things” and “teams that run things” - referring to Katzenbach’s [3] categories - the variety of teams is probably much wider. There were two almost opposite solutions in terms of team members’ skills and expertise, namely teams with multiskilled workers and teams with complementary skills. These two types of work arrangements are often mixed up with one another in discussions, and are not clearly distinguished in the literature either. When building multiskilled teams, it is generally assumed that all team members will be equal. Yet, in many realized solutions in our study organizational hierarchies did exist inside many teams and team members were not equal in terms of appreciation and wages. Also gender-based work division existed. Furthermore, we observed that self-management and new challenges as such may not be enough to enhance commitment to team goals. Even the challenging customer demands and even face-to-face contact with customers in the service case may not have been enough: a measurement and reward system might have been needed. It would seem that a team has to face, firstly, outside demands to be forced to actively use the possibilities of self-management to reach the goals and, secondly, that a team has to have some measurement system. Furthermore, it can be argued that batch and assembly production gives more possibilities to increase self-management. In batch and assembly production team organization can be built accord-
Economics
56-57 (1998) 61 I-619
ing to product family or customer, which makes it possible to put the team in charge of the whole business process from order handling to shipment (assuming that the group does not grow too big). Continuous production does not give as many possibilities to increase self-management. There are no possibilities to form small groups by business processes, teams are only built according to the phase of the process, and teams are tightly dependent on one another. The link between the goal of the development project and the type of the realized team solution was unclear. One of the reasons could be the very general goals in the beginning of the project, while it is difficult or premature to make a concrete and exact vision of the team solution beforehand.
3.3. Recommendations To conclude, some recommendations about building teams are made. First, beware of the team concept in general. The team concept itself seems to raise contradictory feelings nowadays. Avoid campaigns with a lot of talk about the all-powerful team. Rather concentrate on the concrete problems which need to be solved and on organizational solutions that fit the particular business, production system and work process. Be critical about what it is that you gain from team organization. Slight changes and everyday improvements will most probably be experienced, but the outcomes of the team projects might be far from the ideal selfmanaged team. Beware of ‘nice’ objectives only, try to find the balance between softer and harder objectives. ‘Think big, start small’, i.e., when starting the project you are allowed to think big and set far reaching goals and visions. Starting small is what counts at the point of committing to action [S]. Introducing teams means hard work with practical small steps, like how to get the team members use the fax in order to handle material orders, etc. When evaluating this study, one has to take into account the consequences of the specific researcher role as a consultant and catalyst. The softer goals might be emphasized more in this study compared to a team project lacking this kind of catalyst.
T. Tanskanen et al. /ht.
J. Production
However, we do believe that team projects always have at least some kind of softer goals, because the team concept itself seem to include elements like better personnel motivation, job enrichment, empowerment, etc. Finally, we are not against teams. On the contrary, by picturing a more realistic and diverse team model, we hope to enhance the real-life team solution. Development based on illusions ends up too often in disillusions.
Economics
f31 J.R. Katzenbach, c41
c51 Ccl
f71 References A. Sinclair, 1992.The tyranny of a team ideology. Organizational Stud. 13(4): 611-626. [2] D. Tjosvold, 1991. Team Organization. An Enduring Competitive Advantage. Wiley. New York.
56-57 (1998) 611-619
[l]
PI
619
D.G. Smith, 1992. The Wisdom of Teams. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, M. Nitta, B. Barrett, N. Belhedi, J. Bullard, C. Coutchie, T. Inaba, I. Ishino, S. Lee, W.-J. Lin. W. Mothersell, S. Rabine. S. Ramanand, M. Strolle, A. Wheaton, 1994. Japanese Team-based work systems in North America: Explaining the diversity, California Mgmt. Rev., 37( 1). E. Gummerson. 1991. Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Sage, Newbury Park. E. Schein, 19Y5. Process consultation. action research and clinical inquiry: Are they the same. J. Managerial Psychol.. lO(6): 14-19. P. Buhanist, 1995. Neglected concepts and unspoken phenomena in organizational change: Issues of power. influence and self-interest of individuals, groups and units. A presentation at EGOS Colloquium, Istanbul. M. Greif, 199 1. The Visual Factory. Building Participation Through Shared Information. Productivity Press. Inc., Portland. Oregon.