|
|
|
|
Work Design
Work design has been researched and applied extensively in
organizations. Recently, organizations have
tended to combine work design with formal structure and
supporting changes in goal setting, reward systems,
work environment, and other performance management practices.
These organizational factors can
help structure and reinforce the kinds of work behaviors
associated with specific work designs
We will examine three approaches to work design. First, the
engineering approach, which focuses on
efficiency and simplification, and results in traditional job
and work group designs. Second approach to
work design rests on motivational theories and attempts to
enrich the work experience. The third and most
recent approach to work design derives from socio-technical
systems methods, and seeks to optimize both
the social and the technical aspects of work systems.
The Engineering Approach:
The oldest and most prevalent approach to designing work is
based on engineering concepts and methods.
It proposes that the most efficient work designs can be
determined by clearly specifying the tasks to be
performed, the work methods to be used, and the work flow among
individuals. The engineering approach
is based on the pioneering work of Frederick Taylor, the father
of scientific management. He developed
methods for analyzing and designing work and laid the foundation
for the professional field of industrial
engineering.
The engineering approach scientifically analyzes workers' tasks
to discover those procedures that produce
the maximum output with the minimum input of energies and
resources. This generally results in work
designs with high levels of specialization and specification.
Such designs have several benefits: they allow
workers to learn tasks rapidly; they permit short work cycles so
performance can take place with little or no
mental effort; and they reduce costs because lower-skilled
people can be hired and trained easily and paid
relatively low wages.
The engineering approach produces two kinds of work design:
traditional jobs and traditional work groups.
When the work can be completed by one person, such as with bank
tellers and telephone operators,
traditional jobs are created. These jobs tend to be simplified,
with routine and repetitive tasks having clear
specifications concerning time and motion. When the work
requires coordination among people, such as
on automobile assembly lines, traditional work groups are
developed. They are composed of members
performing relatively routine yet related tasks. The overall
group task is typically broken into simpler,
discrete parts (often called jobs). The tasks and work methods
are specified for each part, and the parts are
assigned to group members. Each member performs a routine and
repetitive part of the group task.
Members' separate task contributions are coordinated for overall
task achievement through such external
controls as schedules, rigid work flows, and supervisors. In the
1950s and 1960s, this method of work
design was popularized by the assembly lines of American
automobile manufacturers and was an important
reason for the growth of American industry following World War
II.
The engineering approach to job design is less an OD
intervention than a benchmark in history. Critics of
the approach argue that the method ignores workers' social and
psychological needs. They suggest that the
rising educational level of the workforce and the substitution
of automation for menial labor point to the
need for more enriched forms of work in which people have
greater discretion and are more challenged.
Moreover, the current competitive climate requires a more
committed and involved workforce able to
make online decisions and to develop performance innovations.
Work designed with the employee in mind
is more humanly fulfilling and productive than that designed in
traditional ways. However, it is important to
recognize the strengths of the engineering approach. It remains
an important work design intervention
because its immediate cost savings and efficiency can be
measured readily, and because it is well understood
and easily implemented and managed.
The Motivational Approach:
The motivational approach to work design views the effectiveness
of organizational activities primarily as a
function of member needs and satisfaction, and seeks to improve
employee performance and satisfaction
by enriching jobs. The motivational method provides people with
opportunities for autonomy,
responsibility, closure (that is, doing a complete job), and
performance feedback. Enriched jobs are popular
in the United States at such companies as AT&T Universal Card,
TRW, Dayton Hudson, and GTE.
The motivational approach usually is associated with the
research of Herzberg and of Hackman and
Oldham. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation proposed that
certain attributes of work, such as
opportunities for advancement and recognition, which he called
motivators, help increase job satisfaction.
Other attributes that Herzberg called hygiene factors, such as
company policies, working conditions, pay,
and supervision, do not produce satisfaction but rather prevent
dissatisfaction—important contributors
because only satisfied workers are motivated to produce.
Successful job enrichment experiments at AT&T,
Texas Instruments, and Imperial Chemical Industries helped to
popularize job enrichment in the 1960s.
Although Herzberg's motivational factors sound appealing,
increasing doubt has been cast on the
underlying theory. Motivation and hygiene factors are difficult
to put into operation and measure, and that
makes implementation and evaluation of the theory difficult.
Furthermore, important worker characteristics
that can affect whether people will respond favorably to job
enrichment were not included in his theory.
Finally, Herzberg's failure to involve employees in the job
enrichment process itself does not suit most OD
practitioners today. Consequently, a second, well-researched
approach to job enrichment has been favored.
It focuses on the attributes of the work itself and has resulted
in a more scientifically acceptable theory of
job enrichment than Herzberg's model. The research of Hackman
and Oldham represents this more recent
trend in job enrichment.
The Core Dimensions of Jobs:
Considerable research has been devoted to defining and
understanding core job dimensions. Figure 50
summarizes the Hackman and Oldham model of job design. Five core
dimensions of work affect three
critical psychological states, which in turn produce personal
and job outcomes. These outcomes include
high internal work motivation, high-quality work performance,
satisfaction with the work, and low
absenteeism and turnover. The five core job dimensions—skill
variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback from the work itself—are described below
and associated with the critical
psychological states that they create.
Figure 50
Skill Variety, Task Identity, and Task Significance:
These three core job characteristics influence the extent to
which work is perceived as meaningful. Skill
variety refers to the number and types of skills used to perform
a particular task. Employees at Lechmere's,
a retail chain in Florida, can work as warehouse stock clerks,
cashiers, and salespeople. The more tasks an
individual performs, the more meaningful the job becomes. When
skill variety is increased by moving a
person from one job to another, a form of job enrichment called
job rotation is accomplished. However,
simply rotating a person from one boring job to another is not
likely to produce the outcomes associated
with a fully enriched job.
Task identity describes the extent to which an individual
performs a whole piece of work. For example, an
employee who completes an entire wheel assembly for an airplane,
including the tire, chassis, brakes, and
electrical and hydraulic systems has more task identity and will
perceive the work as more meaningful than
someone who only assembles the braking subsystem. Job
enlargement, another form of job enrichment
that combines increases in skill variety with task identity,
blends several narrow jobs into one larger,
expanded job. For example, separate machine set-up, machining,
and inspection jobs might be combined
into one. This method can increase meaningfulness, job
satisfaction, and motivation when employees
comprehend and like the greater task complexity.
Task significance represents the impact that the work has on
others. In jobs with high task significance,
such as nursing, consulting, or manufacturing something like
sensitive parts for the space shuttle, the
importance of successful task completion creates meaningfulness
for the worker.
Experienced meaningfulness is expressed as an average of these
three dimensions. Thus, although it is
advantageous to have high amounts of skill variety, task
identity, and task significance, a strong emphasis
on any one of the three dimensions can, at least partially, make
up for deficiencies in the other two.
Autonomy:
This refers to the amount of independence, freedom, and
discretion that the employee has to schedule and
perform tasks. Salespeople, for example, often have considerable
autonomy in how they contact, develop,
and close new accounts, whereas assembly-line workers often have
to adhere to work specifications clearly
detailed in a policy-and-procedure manual. Employees are more
likely to experience responsibility for their
work outcomes when high amounts of autonomy exist.
Feedback from the Work Itself:
This core dimension represents the information that workers
receive about the effectiveness of their work.
It can derive from the work itself, as when determining whether
an assembled part functions properly or it
can come from such external sources as reports on defects,
budget variances, customer satisfaction, and the
like. Because feedback from the work itself is direct and
generates intrinsic satisfaction, it is considered
preferable to feedback from external sources.
Skill variety, task identity, and task significance jointly
determine jobs meaningfulness.
These three dimensions are treated as one dimension in the
Motivation Potential Score formula, or MPS:
Motivation Potential Score (
MPS
)
=
Job Meaningfulness
x
Autonomy
x
Job Feedback
The first variable in the formula, job meaningfulness, is a
function of skill variety, task identity, and task
significance. Thus the formula can further be refined:
Motivation Potential Score (MPS) = [Skill Variety + Task
identity + Task significance] x
Autonomy x Job Feedback
3
A score of near zero on either the autonomy or job feedback
dimension will produce an MPS of near zero.
Whereas a number near zero on skill variety, task identity or
task significance will reduce the total MPS, but
will not completely undermine the motivational potential of a
job.
We can predict employee’s psychological state from this formula.
High scores in Skill variety, task variety, and task
significance result in the employee’s experiencing
meaningfulness in job, such as believing the work to be
important, valuable, and worthwhile.
A high score in the autonomy dimension leads to the employee’s
feeling personally responsible and
accountable for the results of the work.
A high score in the job feedback dimension is an indication that
the employee has an understanding of how
he or she is performing the job.
Self managed teams (to be discussed later) have high scores on
all the five core job dimensions.
Individual Differences:
Not all people react in similar ways to job enrichment
interventions. Individual differences—among them,
a worker's knowledge and skill levels, growth-need strength, and
satisfaction with contextual factors—
moderate the relationships among core dimensions, psychological
states, and outcomes. "Worker
knowledge and skill" refers to the education and experience
levels characterizing the workforce. If
employees lack the appropriate skills, for example, increasing
skill variety may not improve a job's
meaningfulness. Similarly, if workers lack the intrinsic
motivation to grow and develop personally, attempts
to provide them with increased autonomy may be resisted.
Finally, contextual factors include reward
systems, supervisory style, and co-worker satisfaction. When the
employee is unhappy with the work
context, attempts to enrich the work itself may be unsuccessful.
Application Stages:
The basic steps for job enrichment as described by Hackman and
Oldham include making a thorough
diagnosis of the situation, forming natural work units,
combining tasks, establishing client relationships,
vertical loading, and opening feedback channels.
Making a Thorough Diagnosis:
The most popular method of diagnosing a job is through the use
of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) or one
of its variations. An important output of the JDS is the
motivating potential score, which is a function of
the three psychological states—experienced meaningfulness,
autonomy, and feedback. The survey can be
used to profile one or more jobs, to determine whether
motivation and satisfaction are really problems or
whether the job is low in motivating potential, and to isolate
specific job aspects that are causing
difficulties.
Forming Natural Work Units:
As much as possible, natural work units should be formed.
Although there may be a number of
technological constraints, interrelated task activities should
be grouped together. The basic question in
forming natural work units is "How can one increase 'ownership'
of the task?" Forming such natural units
increases two of the core dimensions—task identity and task
significance—that contribute to the
meaningfulness of work.
Combining Tasks:
Frequently, divided jobs can be put back together to form a new
and larger one. In the Medfield,
Massachusetts, plant of Corning Glass Works, the task of
assembling laboratory hotplates was redesigned
by combining a number of previously separate tasks. After the
change, each hotplate was completely
assembled, inspected, and shipped by one operator, resulting in
increased productivity of 84 percent.
Controllable rejects dropped from 23 percent to less than 1
percent, and absenteeism dropped from 8
percent to less than 1 percent. A later analysis indicated that
the change in productivity was the result of the
intervention. Combining tasks increases task identity and allows
a worker to use a greater variety of skills.
The hotplate assembler can identify with a product finished for
shipment, and self-inspection of his or her
work adds greater task significance, autonomy, and feedback from
the job itself.
Establishing Client Relationships:
When jobs are split up, the typical worker has little or no
contact with, or knowledge of, the ultimate user
of the product or service. Improvements often can be realized
simultaneously on three of the core
dimensions by encouraging and helping workers to establish
direct relationships with the clients of their
work. For example, when a typist in a typing pool is assigned to
a particular department, feedback increases
because of the additional opportunities for praise or criticism
of his or her work. Because of the need to
develop interpersonal skills in maintaining the client
relationship, skill variety may increase. If the worker is
given personal responsibility for deciding how to manage
relationships with clients, autonomy is increased.
Three steps are needed to create client relationships: (1) the
client must be identified; (2) the contact
between the client and the worker needs to be established as
directly as possible; and (3) criteria and
procedures are needed by which the client can judge the quality
of the product or service received and relay
those judgments back to the worker. For example, even
customer-service representatives and data-entry
operations can be set up so that people serve particular
clients. In the hotplate department, personal
nametags can be attached to each instrument. The Indiana Bell
Telephone Company found substantial
improvements in satisfaction and performance when telephone
directory compilers were given accountability
for a specific geographic area.
Vertical Loading:
The intent of vertical loading is to decrease the gap between
doing the job and controlling the job. A
vertically loaded job has responsibilities and controls that
formerly were reserved for management. Vertical
loading may well be the most crucial of the job-design
principles. Autonomy is invariably increased. This
approach should lead to greater feelings of personal
accountability and responsibility for the work
outcomes. For example, at an IBM plant that manufactures circuit
boards for personal computers, assembly
workers were trained to measure the accuracy and speed of
production processes and to test the quality of
finished products. Their work is more ''whole/' they are more
autonomous, and the engineers who used to
measure and test are free to design better products and more
efficient ways to manufacture them.
Loss of vertical loading usually occurs when someone has made a
mistake. Once a supervisor steps in, the
responsibility may be removed indefinitely. For example, many
skilled machinists have to complete forms
to have maintenance people work on a machine. The supervisor
automatically signs the slip rather than allowing
the machinist either to repair the machine or ask directly for
maintenance support.
Opening Feedback Channels:
In almost all jobs, approaches exist to open feedback channels
and help people learn whether their
performance is remaining at a constant level, improving, or
deteriorating. The most advantageous and least
threatening feedback occurs when a worker learns about
performance as the job is performed. In the
hotplate department at Corning Glass Works, assembling the
entire instrument and inspecting it
dramatically increased the quantity and quality of performance
information available to the operators. Data
given to a manager or supervisor often can be given directly to
the employee. Computers and other
automated operations can be used to provide people with data not
currently accessible to them. Many
organizations simply have not realized the motivating impact of
direct, immediate feedback.
Barriers to Job Enrichment:
As the application of job enrichment has spread, a number of
obstacles to significant job restructuring have
been identified. Most of these barriers exist in the
organizational context within which the job design is
executed. Other organizational systems and practices, whether
technical, managerial, or personnel, can
affect both the implementation of job enrichment and the
lifespan of whatever changes are made.
At least four organizational systems can constrain the
implementation of job enrichment:
1. The technical system.
The technology of an organization can limit job
enrichment by constraining the
number of ways jobs can be changed. For example, long-linked
technology like that found on an assembly
line can be highly programmed and standardized, thus limiting
the amount of employee discretion that is
possible. Technology also may set an "enrichment ceiling.” Some
types of work, such as continuousprocess
production systems, may be naturally enriched so there is,
little more that can be gained from a job
enrichment intervention.
2. The personnel system.
Personnel systems can constrain job enrichment by
creating formalized job
descriptions that are rigidly defined and limit flexibility in
changing people's job duties. For example, many
union agreements include such narrowly defined job descriptions
that major renegotiation between management
and the union must occur before jobs can be significantly
enriched.
3. The control system.
Control systems, such as budgets, production
reports, and accounting practices,
can limit the complexity and challenge of jobs within the
system. For example, a company working on a
government contract may have such strict quality control
procedures that employee discretion is effectively
curtailed.
4. The supervisory system.
Supervisors determine to a large extent the
amount of autonomy and
feedback that subordinates can experience. To the extent that
supervisors use autocratic methods and
control work-related feedback, jobs will be difficult, if not
impossible, to enrich.
Once these implementation constraints have been overcome, other
factors determine whether the effects
of job enrichment are strong and lasting. Consistent with the
contingency approach to OD, the staying
power of job enrichment depends largely on how well it fits and
is supported by other organizational
practices, such as those associated with training, compensation,
and supervision. These practices need to be
congruent with and to reinforce jobs having high amounts of
discretion, skill variety, and meaningful
feedback.
The Sociotechnical Systems Approach:
The sociotechnical systems (STS) approach currently is the most
extensive body of scientific and applied
work underlying employee involvement and innovative work
designs. Its techniques and design principles
derive from extensive action research in both public and private
organizations across diverse national
cultures. This section reviews the conceptual foundations of the
STS approach and then describes its most
popular application—self-managed work teams.
Conceptual Background:
Sociotechnical systems theory was developed originally at the
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in
London and has spread to most industrialized nations in a little
more than fifty years. In Europe and
particularly Scandinavia, STS interventions are almost
synonymous with work design and employee
involvement. In Canada and the United States, STS concepts and
methods underlie many of the innovative
work designs and team-based structures that are so prevalent in
contemporary organizations. Intel
Corporation, United Technologies, General Mills, and Procter &
Gamble are among the many
organizations applying the STS approach to transforming how work
is designed and performed.
STS theory is based on two fundamental premises: that an
organization or work unit is a combined, socialplus-
technical system (sociotechnical), and that this system is open
in relation to its environment.
Sociotechnical System:
The first assumption suggests that whenever human beings are
organized to perform tasks, a joint system is
operating—a sociotechnical system. This system consists of two
independent but related parts: a social part
including the people performing the tasks and the relationships
among them, and a technical part
comprising the tools, techniques, and methods for task
performance. These two parts are independent of
each other because each follows a different set of behavioral
laws. The social part operates according to
biological and psychosocial laws, whereas the technical part
functions according to mechanical and physical
laws. Nevertheless, the two parts are related because they must
act together to accomplish tasks. Hence, the
term sociotechnical signifies the joint relationship that must
occur between the social and technical parts,
and the word system communicates that this connection results in
a unified whole.
Because a sociotechnical system is composed of social and
technical parts, it follows that it will produce
two kinds of outcomes: products, such as goods and services; and
social and psychological consequences,
such as job satisfaction and commitment. The key issue is how to
design the relationship between the two
parts so that both outcomes are positive (referred to as joint
optimization). Sociotechnical practitioners
design work and organizations so that the social and technical
parts work well together, producing high
levels of product and human satisfaction. This effort contrasts
with the engineering approach to designing
work, which focuses on the technical component, worries about
fitting people in later, and often leads to
mediocre performance at high social costs. The STS approach also
contrasts with the motivational
approach that views work design in terms of human fulfillment
and can lead to satisfied employees but
inefficient work processes.
Environmental Relationship:
The second major premise underlying STS theory is that such
systems are open to their environments. As
discussed earlier, open systems must interact with their
environments to survive and develop. The
environment provides the STS with necessary inputs of energy,
raw materials, and information, and the
STS provides the environment with products and services. The key
issue here is how to design the interface
between the STS and its environment so that the system has
sufficient freedom to function while
exchanging effectively with the environment. In what is
typically called boundary management, STS
practitioners structure environmental relationships both to
protect the system from external disruptions
and to facilitate the exchange of necessary resources and
information. This enables the STS to adapt to
changing conditions and to influence the environment in
favorable directions.
In summary, STS theory suggests that effective work systems
jointly optimize the relationship between
their social and technical parts. Moreover, such systems
effectively manage the boundary separating and
relating them to the environment. This allows them to exchange
with the environment while protecting
themselves from external disruptions.
Self-Managed Work Teams:
The most prevalent application of the STS approach is
self-managed work teams. Alternatively referred to
as self-directed, self-regulating, or high-performance work
teams, these work designs consist of members
performing interrelated tasks. Self-managed teams typically are
responsible for a complete product or
service, or a major part of a larger production process. They
control members' task behaviors and make
decisions about task assignments and work methods. In many
cases, the team sets its own production goals
within broader organizational limits and may be responsible for
support services, such as maintenance,
purchasing, and quality control. Team members generally are
expected to learn many if not all of the jobs
within the team's control and frequently are paid on the basis
of knowledge and skills rather than seniority.
When pay is based on performance, team rather than individual
performance is the standard.
Figure 51 is a model explaining how self-managed work teams
perform. It summarizes current STS
research and shows how teams can be designed for high
performance. Although the model is based mainly
on experience with teams that perform the daily work of the
organization (work teams), it also has
relevance to other team designs, such as problem-solving teams,
management teams, cross-functional
integrating teams, and employee involvement teams. The model
shows that team performance and member
satisfaction follow directly from how well the team functions:
how well members communicate and
coordinate with each other, resolve conflicts and problems, and
make and implement task-relevant
decisions. Team functioning, in turn, is influenced by three
major inputs: team task design, team process
interventions, and organization support systems. Because these
inputs affect how well teams function and
subsequently perform, they are key intervention targets for
designing and implementing self-managed work
teams.
Figure: 51
Team Task Design:
Self-managed work teams are responsible for performing
particular tasks; consequently, how the team is
designed for task performance can have a powerful influence on
how well it functions. Task design
generally follows from the team's mission and goals that define
the major purpose of the team and provide
direction for task achievement. When a team's mission and goals
are closely aligned with corporate strategy
and business objectives, members can see how team performance
contributes to organization success. This
can increase member commitment to team goals.
Team task design links members' behaviors to task requirements
and to each other. It structures member
interactions and performances. Three task design elements are
necessary for creating self-managed work
teams: task differentiation, boundary control, and task control.
Task differentiation involves the extent to
which the team's task is autonomous and forms a relatively
self-completing whole. High levels of task
differentiation provide an identifiable team boundary and a
clearly defined area of team responsibility. At
Johnsonville Sausage, for example, self-managed teams comprise
seven to fourteen members. Each team is
large enough to accomplish a set of interrelated tasks but small
enough to allow face-to-face meetings for
coordination and decision making. In many hospitals,
self-managed nursing teams are formed around
interrelated tasks that together produce a relatively whole
piece of work. Thus, nursing teams may be
responsible for particular groups of patients, such as those in
intensive care or undergoing cancer treatments,
or they may be accountable for specific work processes, such as
those in the laboratory, pharmacy,
or admissions office.
Boundary control involves the extent to which team members can
influence transactions with their task
environment—the types and rates of inputs and outputs. Adequate
boundary control includes a welldefined
work area; group responsibility for boundary-control decisions,
such as quality assurance (which
reduces dependence on external boundary regulators, such as
inspectors); and members sufficiently trained
to perform tasks without relying heavily on external resources.
Boundary control often requires deliberate
cross-training of team members to take on a variety of tasks.
This makes members highly flexible and
adaptable to changing conditions. It also reduces the need for
costly overhead because members can
perform many of the tasks typically assigned to staff experts,
such as those in quality control, planning, and
maintenance.
Task control involves the degree to which team members can
regulate their own behavior to provide
services or to produce finished products. It includes the
freedom to choose work methods, to schedule
activities, and to influence production goals to match both
environmental and task demands. Task control
relies heavily on team members having the power and authority to
manage equipment, materials, and other
resources needed for task performance. This "work authority" is
essential if members are to take
responsibility for getting the work accomplished. Task control
also requires that team members have
accurate and timely information about team performance to allow
them to detect performance problems
and make necessary adjustments.
Task control enables self-managed work teams to observe and
control technical variances as quickly and as
close to their source as possible. Technical variances arise
from the production process and represent
significant deviations from specific goals or standards. In
manufacturing; for example, abnormalities in raw
material, machine operation, and work flow are sources of
variance that can adversely affect the quality and
quantity of the finished product. In service work,
out-of-the-ordinary requests, special favors or treatment,
or unique demands create variances that can place stress on the
process. Technical variances traditionally
are controlled by support staff and managers, but this can take
time and add greatly to costs. Self-managed
work teams, on the other hand, have the freedom, skills, and
information needed to control technical
variances online when they occur. This affords timely responses
to production problems and reduces the
amount of staff overhead needed.
Team Process interventions:
A second key input to team functioning involves team process
interventions. As discussed earlier teams
may develop ineffective social processes that impede functioning
and performance, such as poor
communication among members, dysfunctional roles and norms, and
faulty problem solving and decision
making. Team process interventions, such as process consultation
and team building, can resolve such
problems by helping members address process problems and moving
the team to a more mature stage of
development. Because self-managed work teams need to be
self-reliant, members generally acquire their
own team process skills. They may attend appropriate training
programs and workshops or they may learn
on the job by working with OD practitioners to conduct process
interventions on their own teams.
Although members' process skills generally are sufficient to
resolve most of the team's process problems,
OD experts occasionally may need to supplement the team's skills
and help members address problems
that they are unable to resolve.
Organization Support Systems:
The final input to team functioning is the extent to which the
larger organization is designed to support
self-managed work teams. The success of such teams clearly
depends on support systems that are quite
different from traditional methods of managing. For example, a
bureaucratic, mechanistic organization is
not highly conducive to self-managed teams. An organic
structure, with flexibility among units, relatively
few formal rules and procedures, and decentralized authority, is
much more likely to support and enhance
the development of self-managed work teams. This explains why
such teams are so prevalent in highinvolvement
organizations. Their different features, such as flat, lean
structures, open information systems,
and team-based selection and reward practices, all reinforce
teamwork and responsible self-management.
A particularly important support system for self-managed work
teams is the external leadership. Selfmanaged
teams exist along a spectrum from having only mild influence
over their work to near-autonomy.
In many circumstances, such teams take on a variety of functions
traditionally handled by management.
These can include assigning members to individual tasks,
determining the methods of work, scheduling,
setting production goals, and selecting and rewarding members.
These activities do not make external
supervision obsolete, however. That leadership role usually is
changed to two major functions: working
with and developing team members, and assisting the team in
managing its boundaries.
Working with and developing team members is a difficult process
and requires a different style of managing
than do traditional systems. The team leader (often called a
team facilitator) helps team members organize
themselves in a way that allows them to become more independent
and responsible. She or he must be
familiar with team-building approaches and must assist members
in learning the skills to perform their jobs.
Recent research suggests that the leader needs to provide
expertise in self-management. This may include
encouraging team members to be self-reinforcing about high
performance, to be self-critical of low
performance, to set explicit performance goals, to evaluate goal
achievement, and to rehearse different
performance strategies before trying them.
If team members are to maintain sufficient autonomy to control
variance from goal attainment, the leader
may need to help them manage team boundaries. Where teams have
limited control over their task
environment, the leader may act as a buffer to reduce
environmental uncertainty. This can include
mediating and negotiating with other organizational units, such
as higher management, staff experts, and
related work teams. Research suggests that better managers spend
more time in lateral interfaces.
These new leadership roles require new and different skills,
including knowledge of sociotechnical
principles and group dynamics, understanding of both the task
environment and the team's technology, and
ability to intervene in the team to help members increase their
knowledge and skills. Leaders of selfmanaged
teams also should have the ability to counsel members and to
facilitate communication among
them.
Many managers have experienced problems trying to fulfill the
complex demands of leading self-managed
work teams. The most typical complaints mention ambiguity about
responsibilities and authority, lack of
personal and technical skills and organizational support,
insufficient attention from higher management,
and feelings of frustration in the supervisory job.
Characteristics of Self-managed Work Teams:
Self-managed work teams may be used organization-wide, at a work
site composed of a number of work
teams, or within just a few work teams. But to whatever degree
they are used, there are several
characteristics that are common to all self-managed work team
sites.
The structure of the organization or work site is based on team
concepts.
There are few managerial
levels in the plant or work site structure and few job
descriptions.
There is an egalitarian culture and a noticeable lack of status
symbols.
There are no management
dinning rooms, no assigned parking places, and no special
furniture or décor for manager’s offices. There is
no special dress code; if uniforms are required, everyone,
including the plant superintendent wears the
uniform.
A work team has a physical site.
There are functional boundaries that members can
identify.
The number of people in a team is kept as small as possible.
Typical size range from five to fifteen
members.
Work teams order material and equipment
.
They set goals, profit targets, and also rewards for the team
members. They have a voice in who is hired and fired.
Team members have a sense of vision for their team and their
organization.
A vision provides direction and energizes team behavior to
accomplish goals.
There is strong partnership between team members and management.
If there is a labor union, the union is also a member of the
partnership.
Team members are different enough.
Members learn because of variety of viewpoints,
backgrounds,
cultural experiences and training.
Information of all types is openly shared.
The information system needs to be well developed
and
available to all members. Members are knowledgeable in
accounting and statistical concepts for decision
making.
Team members should be skilled and knowledgeable in their areas.
Team members should have
good interpersonal skills and a desire and ability to work with
others.
Training, and specially cross-training, is a major requirement
of self-managed teams.
The success
of a team depends on its members being skilled and knowledgeable
in a variety of areas, including technical
skills, finance and accounting, competition in the marketplace,
and group process.
Team managers are knowledgeable of customers, competitors, and
suppliers.
The primary emphasis
is to focus on customers. From the team’s standpoint, a customer
is someone within the organization or
external to the organization that uses the team’s
product/service.
|
|
|
|
|