Self Directed Work Teams (SDWT)
By: Mark Weber, Ebi Alagoa, Steve Tkalcevich, Mizé Marcelino
Introduction
Economies around the globe are currently experiencing a recession that is forcing many businesses to downsize, delayer, and effectively ‘trim the fat’ in order to remain competitive and survive the recession. This calls for creativity in ensuring productivity is not jeopardized and motivations of people are not affected negatively. A solution many organizations attempted in the late 1970s and early 1980s to increase productivity while motivating employees was “self-directed work teams” (SDWT). It originates in the 1970s and has been used successfully by organization with varying degree of success, some as high as 50% increase in productivity, (Vecchio R, 2006, p. 110).
Self directed work teams are defined as a small number of people with complementary skills, who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach, for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). The need for employees to take ownership of their actions and justify their relevance in the organization they work by adding value and getting the work done much faster than the customary boss-worker relationship with bureaucratic tendencies is being embraced by several successful companies whose focus is on applying the best approach.
What is SDWT?
SDWTs sit on the edge of an organization which aims to accelerate innovation without the restrictions of organizational policies or procedures.
Contrasting SDWT with Skunk Works which are single projects that are under the understanding they will be absorbed by the origination and follow standard procedure if they are successful, SDWT is ongoing comprised of multiple projects that is ongoing with no end date.
Osburn et al (1990) define a SDWT as “…a highly trained group of six to eighteen employees that is fully responsible for creating a specified product.” SDWTs required fewer managers or supervisors in an organization, allowing firms to delayer and, in turn, cut costs overall.
Employees in the SDWT have a shared set of specific but broader responsibilities when compared to a traditional structure of narrowly defined employee roles. All the team members are expected to participate in decision making hence the requirement of information sharing among the team members. The employees are also trained with inter- functional skills (more on the job) to aid support and job rotation (within the team).
The advantages for the members of the team are:
- Increased morale from a more satisfying and effective workplace,
- Authority to do what is necessary and what is right,
- More information and knowledge,
- More involvement in decision making,
- More personal pride in the quality of the product,
- A feeling of commitment and ownership in the company,
- Camaraderie and support of the team,
- Variety and challenge on the work that has to be done. (Bodwell, 1999).
The advantages to the organization for establishing self directed work teams are:
- Increased productivity, quality and customer service.
- Enhanced communication among management and the members of the team.
- Reduced operating costs.
- Improved organizational ability to change.
- Quicker adaptation.
- Enhanced behavioral change.
- Fewer broader job classifications.
- Increased employee satisfaction (Lucas, 1996).
Implementing SDWT
The initial attraction that lured organizations into the SDWT concept was the positive consequences of increased productivity in the pioneer organizations. Research exemplified how increased productivity is achieved. Robbins (2003, p.230) states that considerable evidence exist to suggest that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to conform to the group’s standards. Participation in decision making is also one of the characteristics of SDWT Randolph (2000, p. 95) Participative management is seen as being potent in releasing “energy power within people to achieve astonishing results”. It has also been suggested by motivation theorist that participation in decision making and empowerment are motivational variables. So, adding this to the remuneration incentive as characterized in the SDWT model, does provide clues on how productivity results from using SDWT. However, there exist many consequences and problems with a SDWT structure.
Challenges faced with SDWT
SDWT has numerous challenges that are directly and indirectly related to the team’s success. There is no guarantee of success in a SDWT even though it is not dictated by the organizations policies and procedures. Success in SDWT is an ongoing process that needs nourishment and changes along the way, often failures will come up and management should not be discouraged and seek to remedy the root cause of the problem and continue.
“The major challenges organizations face in changing from a traditional environment to a high-involvement environment include developing the teams and fostering a culture of management support.” Williams, Robin. (1996).
SDWT members must decide how they want to work together, as there is no formal leader management responsibilities lies within the team. Absenteeism actions, for example need to be discussed how they will be dealt with. Often a team may implement a charter to dictate roles and responsibilities. SDWT members must decide how they want to work together. If a problem arises along the way the team works though to find a solution.
Flexibility amongst the team is vital to its success. “Mandatory job rotation is a key element of SDWT’s. By rotating assignments, members gain knowledge of a broader range of tasks and are able to help out other team members who may need assistance.” (Vecchio R, 2006, p. 111). This reduces the extent of risk in the group as well provides versatility as the team becomes interchangeable.
Consequences of SDWT
By applying SDWTs approach, un-necessary procedures and approvals are cut off to gain valuable time for the company and individuals. Since the team comprises of experts which are expected to be multitalented by virtue of trainings, and are required achieve a set out goal, the company gains extensively from the consensus decisions and even diverging views by team members who critically analyze company’s activities which can be improved upon. Brainstorming sessions among team member and high commitment levels actually results in quick solution delivery. As the performance of the team based on their expertise and decisions becomes known and acceptable to the entire company, they will be given more complex and delicate tasks that affect the business.
Another consequence of the SDWT approach is for the company to put in place a budget for robust training programme for team members. Investing in staff by training is usually accompanied by increased pay due the value added to the staff and the additional/delicate responsibilities that lies on the shoulder of the staff. One of the ways of retaining key staff is by remunerating them based on their level of knowledge and competence; which the SDWT embraces. However, an increase in pay should support and reinforce collective productivity by all staff and not only the SDWT.
“For every successful story involving SDWTs, there may be a failed attempt at implementation”. (Vecchio R, 2006, p. 112). These failures need to have management involvement are seek to understand and learn from the failures. Often SDWTs fail at their first attempt and it is an ongoing process that is improved.
Training and investment is another consequence of SDWTs. “some individuals that certain skills…may need to taught in order to have the teams work efficiently”. (Vecchio R, 2006, p. 112). These investments need to be looked at before an undertaking is started with a sizeable contingency fund to be provided when the need arises so the team can overcome the hurdle. Failure to provide this funding or pushback from the organization can seriously harm the undertakings success and operations.
Implementing self-directed work teams to an existing top-down organization can be challenging. Employees are generally more receptive to improving their individual tasks, rather than sharing responsibilities with several other employees. As a result, an employee’s perception of the way an organization should be structured can hinder the success of the model. Vecchio R (2006, p.112) states that behind most success stories of SDWT layouts, the reoccurring problem is failed attempts at implementation that provides a learning opportunity for other organizations. The common initial difficulties businesses run into, with the SDWT model, are evaluating the company’s current layout and questioning whether it is ready to embrace internal, non-competitive work-group environment. In this discussion, we will provide the challenges that businesses face, with particular focus on individual power, minimal opportunities for growth, resistance from management, and employee trust towards management. We do of course recognized that labour union activities and existing labour agreements presents problem but such issues are open to negotiation and creative solution can be found.
Problems of SDWT
Despite the many advantages and positive outcomes of self-directed work teams, they are not right for all organizations. If the work that an organization performs does not require a small group of people with complementary skills, then establishing self directed work teams would not be a conducive method of getting the work done. In addition, if the members of the work team do not hold themselves responsible for the initial work product then there is no functioning team. (Lucas, 1996).
Another disadvantage of self-directed work teams is that the team members are sometimes unwilling to make personal adjustments to comply with the structure of a self-directed work team. As a result, team members might be fearful of change and will have difficulty living up to expectations as a result of the change
Employees who have a critical function and are drafted to SDWTs may spend too much time attending meetings to the detriment of the entire organization.
Some workers are quite shy and are not good at group meetings but are effective when working. Such workers may be judged badly while implementing SDWT. The bottom line is that not every worker is cut out for teamwork.
Pride can easily flourish in the shared-leadership model, especially when a team has been given an approval to take decisions that may affect other staff, such as nominating names of staff for awards.
For a company that had to cut over to SDWT from seniority or job based pay system, it would necessitate a change of its compensation system (Cotton, 1993) either to a team based performance system, a salary plus bonus pay system or a skilled based system. Understanding and contentment by generality of staff would take quite some time.
Individual and team bonuses can be difficult to assess, which might cause competition either within or between work teams.
The salary plus bonus system also has a disadvantage, in that some team members may be uncertain or skeptical about this method of pay and may not show too much interest in it because their basic pay may be small and at such may not translate to a comparable package compared to other team members.
The disadvantage to the skilled-based compensation is that it puts a lot of pressure on management to provide training and opportunities to adopt this compensation system.
The average remuneration would be high. (Cotton, 1993) When a team member has learned all the different jobs within the company while earning and earning maximum pay, he may not find fulfillment by being stagnant which might lead to lack of motivation on the job.
Where roles previously played by managers and supervisors and taken up by SDWT, it can lead to lack of participation, cooperation and interest among the affected managers, resulting in friction among staff for the fear of job losses.
Where rotation of leadership is religiously practiced, a team member who is not the best at leading is made to lead, rather than keeping an acclaimed leader who has track record of delivering targets with support from team members. Where the members of the team wish to choose a designated leader, that person must have the knowledge and the skills that are necessary for leadership position.
Abuse of Power
One problem associated with movement to SDWT is power abuse. According to Clifford & Sohal (1998, p. 78) “Some organizations have experienced that empowered employees start wielding authority with the some kind of disregard for co-operation and teamwork, that empowerment was supposed to eradicate in the first place.” Clifford and Sohal are suggesting that while the aim of SDWT is motivation through empowerment, the employees within the team consider the transfer of power to be individually rather than team granted. Indeed, when individuals assume they have power over the team, interdependency is lost and conflict is certain to arise. Research indicates that “The communication of work-based information within the team environment proved to be a deciding factor in generating members’ involvement in team activities.” (Douglas, Martin & Krapels, 2006, p. 318) In order to counter the problem of power abuse, clear parameters of decision-authority must be clearly communicated between management and team. If this communication is successful, then the SDWT will have a better opportunity to succeed. If not, the wielding of individual power will hamper success.
Minimal Opportunities for Growth
Within a SDWT setting, employees who reach the maximum shift of their job rotation become stagnate in their pay, as well as their movement in the organization. In regards to upward mobility or promotion, it is very difficult because there is no distinct difference between that individual and his or her counterparts. All team members’ level of expertise and experience are in alignment, as their entire job functions are equal based on their performance or contribution to the organization.
Employees are not given a chance to exceed expectations on an individual level, to achieve sole recognition for their personalized efforts. Morse & Wee (2007) state “If team members only focus on the things they have in common (or on what they can all do well) instead of the things that make them individuals, they are seriously limiting themselves” (pp.38). Consequently, the greatest challenge in the SDWT model is that employees are not able to develop themselves or expand their abilities outside of the team functional roles. This limitation presents problems for high achievers, past management or senior staff as their ranks have been integrated with average personnel, which leaves no incentive to improve or develop their personal talents. Vecchio (2006, p. 113) states, “for employees who have topped-out… there are no new mountains to climb and the (incentive) that came from relatively pay boosts is no longer on the horizon”. As a result, there is little room for growth based on the premise of dedication (seniority) and hard work (superior performance). In turn, this level of compliancy will eliminate the organization’s most important resource, its human capital and the personal attributes they contain.
Resistance from Management
One of the key negative consequences other than possible failures at a first attempt is organizational resistance. The resistance occurs partly because the introduction of SDWT usually means less number of supervisory staff requirement and perhaps also managers because of the broad and encompassing responsibilities which includes work planning activities like priority setting, assignment of responsibilities and work site organization which are traditional supervisory tasks. The direct implication of this is loss of jobs in the supervisory/lower managerial roles.
Aside this, there is significant reduction in the status of supervisors upon introduction and after implementation. This occurs because of erosion of responsibilities and the other organizational changes that come with it. Vecchio R (2006, p. 112) states that the resulting progress of the company that successfully implement the system is usually flatter and has fewer job titles. He said further that title that results connotes a lower level job leading to fewer differences among employees. This would especially be expected given the fact that the supervisors themselves are also humans and “erosion of responsibilities” is a de-motivational variable.
Conclusion
It is a continuous battle for productivity and business success of which understanding employees behaviour is a key variable given the role “the people element” plays in the process. Creativity to create distinctive capability and competences is the key. While SDWT has been largely successful and it is capable and available to be deployed in the future, we have to wait to see the new creativity that would be unveiled in the quest for improving productivity through people.
SDWTs are introduced as a broader shift to improve quality and enhance output. The settings for SDWTs are likely to spread to a larger variety of organizations – nonprofit and small businesses. With the benefits it is very likely that SDWTs are going to be more accepted and visible in organizations while replacing quality circles which have been seen as transformational in many organizations.
By backing a SDWT with effective training for employees and management a high involvement work culture that promotes empowerment and customer focused can strive to reward performance and enable continuous improvement.
References:
Howell, Robert (2001). ‘Fostering Self-Directed Team Members’, pg.1-3, [Online]. Available from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Winter-Spring-2001/pdf/howell.pdf (Accessed: 17 April 2009)
Williams, Ron (1995). ‘Self-Directed Work Teams: A Competitive Advantage’, [Online]. Available from: http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov95/html/self-dir.html (Accessed: 17 April 2009)
Vecchio, R.P. (2006) Organizational behaviour: Core concepts.(6th edition). Thomson-South-Western
http://www.free-termpapers.com/tp/9/bmu344.shtml (Accessed 18 April 2009)
Bodwell, Donald J. (1999). Employee Involvement, Methods for Improving Performances and Work Attitudes. Sage Publications Inc.
Lucas, Richard J. (1996). CMA-The Management Accounting Magazine, v71, n3, P.31. 6.
Cotton, John L. (1993). The Medical Laboratory Observer, v30, i11, 16-17. 3.
Katzenbach, JR Smith DK. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. New York, NY: Harper Business Press
Clifford, G P & Sohal, A S (1998) ‘Developing self-directed work teams’ Management Decision 36.2 [Online]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?contentType=Article&;Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0010360203.pdf (Accessed: 17 April 2009)
Douglas, C, Martin, J S & Krapels, R H (2006) ‘Communication in the Transition to Self- Directed Work Teams’ The Journal of business communication 43.4:295 [Online]. Available from: http://job.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/cgi/reprint/43/4/295(Accessed: 17 April 2009)
Morse, O. & Wee, J. (2007). ‘Juggling People: Secrets for Successful People’, Cost Engineering, 49 (8), pp.38-39, Business Source Premier [Online]. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&;;db=buh&AN=26492598&site=bsi-live (Accessed: 17 April 2009)
Randolph, W.A. (2000) “Rethinking empowerment: Why is it so hard to achieve?”. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2): 94-107.Cited in Frazier Allen (2009), Seminar lecture notes on Managing People Module of University of Liverpool online MBA course.
Robbins, S.P. (2003) Organizational behaviour. 10th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cited in Frazier Allen (2009), Seminar lecture notes on Managing People Module of University of Liverpool online MBA course.
