Overview
Organizational systems and designs that once made American businesses prosper now appear to be threatening their ability to compete. Fragmenting and simplifying work processes, along with functional division of labor and autocratic management, no longer provide organizations with the flexibility and speed they need to survive in today's (and tomorrow's) global economy.
The demand to improve productivity and cut costs has led many organizations to explore potential panaceas such as Reengineering, Total Quality Management, empowered work teams, downsizing and automating. Since many of these interventions are trendy, they are accompanied by a plethora of books and articles that unfortunately offer a bewildering array of suggestions.
While productivity improvement and cost savings are typically the most common impetuses for change (followed closely by 'change-for-change sake'), there is no single best or correct change process that will be equally effective in all organizations. In this article, we focus on a fundamental issue that cuts across all intervention options: Are your processes or services best provided by a traditional one-person-one-job or hybrid team environment?
Just What Is A Hybrid Team Environment?
Since "teams" are trendy, the term is often loosely used to describe a wide variety of work environments. For example, a manager who talks about the criticality of teams may really be referring to teamwork among individual contributors. Therefore, it is important to point out how hybrid teams represent more than just good teamwork, and how team environments differ from enriched jobs and traditional supervisor/subordinates work groups. A quick review of the research on teams reveals core characteristics that normally separate them from other types of work environments:
Let's quickly discuss each defining characteristic:
Hybrid teams are responsible for a complete or whole task. To be effective teams must be responsible for a product or service that has clear (measurable) inputs and outputs, and identifiable customers (internal or external). The product could be a single 'whole' component (such as a complete lawn mower engine) or a complete system (such as an entire lawn mower).
Hybrid team members share equal responsibility for the work. Unlike traditional work environments where individuals are accountable for completing compartmentalized work tasks, team members share mutual accountability for completion of the team's product or service. While productivity in both environments may be enhanced through "teamwork," the major difference between enriched jobs, work groups, and hybrid teams is individual vs. group accountability.
Hybrid team members have multiple skills. Central to hybrid teams is the fact that team members are cross-trained to perform many (if not all) of the technical tasks that are necessary to complete the team's product or service. In addition to technical skills training, team members should also receive interpersonal and administrative skills training.
Hybrid teams have increased decision-making authority. For teams to take 'ownership' in their work, they must be given authority to control their work. In addition, many teams also control what are traditionally considered managerial and/or administrative decisions (i.e., manage inventory, set work standards, scheduling, set pay raises, etc.). This level of responsibility can vary greatly depending on the type of team and the degree of team maturity. Beware, one of the most common causes of team failure results from giving teams too much authority too quickly.
Several of the defining characteristics are not unique to hybrid teams. For example, job enrichment also requires new skill training; individuals in work groups can be cross-trained; and reward systems like gain sharing and skill-based pay can be implemented to support both. However, only when an organization commits to all of the defining characteristics can hybrid teams exist, continue to grow, and be empowered.
To Team or not to Team? That is the Question
Having described the defining characteristics of hybrid teams, we can now discuss the major factors that determine the fit between individuals' and the organization's readiness for hybrid teams and other types of work change efforts.
Characteristics of Job Tasks and Work Processes. For existing organizations, an objective examination of workflow will reveal the degree to which individual jobs and/or work processes are interrelated. The best situations for hybrid teams are environments where individual employees (can) share a common work area, work schedule, and require a variety of skills using similar technology. Conversely, poorer circumstances for setting up hybrid teams are environments where work is either automated, performed independently, or requires little skill variety.
Characteristics of Individuals Social and Growth Needs. Even if work processes are highly interrelated, and therefore conducive to hybrid teams, that alone is not enough to ensure a successful team implementation. Besides 'work' fit, there must also be a match with 'individual' fit. Since effective hybrid teams require individuals to work and bond as the members of the team, cross-train, learn and perform broader job duties, and spend lots of time in meetings, they require individuals with high social and growth needs. Hybrid teams do not work well with individuals who enjoy high independence or place minimum value on social rewards. Similarly, teams do not work well with individuals who prefer to perform limited and/or repetitive tasks.
Characteristics of the Organization's Culture. The third factor focuses on management's willingness and ability to give 'decision-making' control to work teams. Since most organizational environments are based on command-and control (autocratic) management practices, many supervisors and managers are reluctant to give-up decision making authority. Comments like, 'Workers aren't capable of those decisions,' or 'Teams are just another way to challenge the authority of my job" are common from supervisors who feel threatened or who have survived previous restructuring efforts. While it is possible that fewer supervisors and managers will be necessary in a hybrid team structure, this is not the objective of work teams.
One of the most difficult challenges facing organizations considering hybrid teams is getting supervisors and management to support the process without feeling threatened. Individuals in these positions are typically representative of highly skilled and experienced employees who have been promoted into positions of greater authority. Without management's buy-in, the likelihood of a successful hybrid team implementation is significantly compromised. Even with management's crucial support, it is critical to develop a comprehensive transitional process for supervisors and managers.
Unions and Work Teams, Can They Coexist?
The path to hybrid teams presents many challenges for the organization contemplating their implementation, not the least of which are labor unions. As with some managers, union leaders may see hybrid teams as a threat to their jobs. This is especially true when self directed teams will ultimately impact decisions regarding areas normally covered by a collective bargaining agreement, such as work schedules, pay raises, performance standards, and hiring/firing.
An example of one possible point of union concern has to do with changes that a hybrid team's environment will bring to the organization's job classification system. As mentioned, through horizontal and vertical expansion, teams necessitate a reduction in the total number of job titles (since each member's responsibilities are greatly broadened). Further, turf issues are sure to arise when individuals working in the 'pre-team' job structure are represented by several unions.
Without support from the union(s), a team implementation is doomed. This may even occur m organizations that are not unionized to begin with. Court cases have been brought by labor unions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) against non-unionized organizations for implementing work teams. They charge that some work teams violate Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA which is broadly intended to maintain independence between labor and the employer.
Are Hybrid Teams Worth It?
There are numerous and impressive success stories attributed to team environments. Improvements in morale, reductions in turn-over, absenteeism, cycle (or process) times, along with increases in flexibility, productivity, profitability and quality. As with every other intervention, the true value and impact will be dependent on what and how your organization "does what it does" along with management's commitment.
How Do You Know If Hybrid Team Are Right For You?
Your own audit of your organization should provide you with answers to the following pre-implementation questions:
|
Are work processes interrelated? Do employees have high social & growth needs? Is the culture supportive of teams? Do unions understand and support teams? |
If the answer is yes to all of these questions, then the likelihood of a successful team implementation is greatly enhanced, but not guaranteed. Transitioning to teams brings a fundamental shift in organizational culture. Teams rather than individual jobs become the building blocks of the organization. This, perhaps, is the greatest challenge to organizations that have been built on (and continue to reward) individual accomplishments.
What if your audit turns up "no" to one or more of the above questions? Does this mean that teams should not be implemented? Depending on the amount and type of resistance encountered, the answer is probably, "Not right away-"
As discussed, productivity improvements can best be achieved when there is a simultaneous match between work, individual, and organizational factors. In order for an organization to move from traditional jobs to the highest level of autonomous or self-directed teams, all three factors must be addressed. If the three factors are not in alignment, then gradual movement toward teams will be more effective than a head-on implementation. Some times other redesign efforts such as job enrichment or work groups may be more appropriate (at least until other team implementation factors can be brought into alignment).
Team Implementation is Only the Beginning
Since hybrid teams can take up to six months to function effectively as a unit, and up to a few years to reach full maturity (i.e., full competency in technical, interpersonal, and administrative skills), the initial diagnosis and decision to implement are only the beginning. Ongoing and regular assessment and development of team and team leader skills are critical to a successful team process.
Summary
In essence, teams generally fail to reach their potential because of organizational barriers combined with limiting team member abilities and interpersonal styles. Proper identification, assessment and response to these issues can led to an enduring improvement to the organization work environment.
We Welcome Feedback on Our Site