Autonomous work teams: an examination of cultural and structural constraints

Jasmine Tata

The author Jasmine Tata is in the Department of Management, Loyola University, Chicago, USA. Keywords Teams, Organizational structure, Organizational culture, Autonomous work groups Abstract The paper presents a model of the relationships between organizational culture, organizational structure, and the level of team autonomy. The model suggests that teams with high levels of autonomy are likely to be most effective in companies with flexibility-oriented cultures and organic structures. The model is useful to researchers in examining further connections between contextual variables and team autonomy and to practitioners in helping identify the types of teams that would be most effective in their organizations. The paper also presents a four-step proactive approach to implementing team-based working. Electronic access The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com

The complexity and turbulence of the global business environment have resulted in a move toward team-based organizations. The use of teams, especially autonomous work teams, has become a popular strategy for many US organizations (e.g. Motorola, Xerox, Proctor & Gamble, AT&T, Federal Express, Levi Strauss, and General Electric). Surveys indicate that 68 to 70 per cent of Fortune 1000 firms are using teams, and that such use is on the increase (Dumaine, 1994; Lawler et al., 1995; Schilder, 1992). Numerous benefits of team-based working have been reported, including increased performance, higher quality of products, less absenteeism, and reduced turnover (Harris, 1992). Despite the popularity of team systems, not all attempts to implement autonomous work teams have been successful. An American Quality Foundation best practices survey of 580 companies reported that autonomous work teams had a negative impact in certain organizations (Ashley, 1992). This lack of significant success is often not a failure of the team concept, but a result of insufficient attention being paid to the organizational context of team systems. Since teams involve changing the way people interact and work in organizations, the implementation of teams is context-dependent, its success dependent to a large extent on organizational culture and structure. As the following quote suggests, it is not easy to implement autonomous work teams in an organizational culture that emphasizes retaining power in managerial hands:
Representatives of one industrial company that asked for my help bragged that they had totally eliminated supervisors and had implemented F F F self-managed work teams. Management was concerned because the workers had been complaining. F F F I conducted interviews, made observations, and [found that] F F F workers had no power to make any real decisions. F F F Though they had no direct supervisors, the managers on the plant management team told them weekly what they were supposed to do (Romig, 1996, pp. 246-7).

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . pp. 187193 # MCB University Press . ISSN 0043-8022

This paper explores the connections between the level of team autonomy, and the underlying organizational culture and organizational structure. Examining these connections is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. On the theoretical side, there is a scarcity of research on the cultural and structural context of teams, and any resulting model can help bridge this gap in the 187

Autonomous work teams

Jasmine Tata

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . 187193

literature. On the practical side, an effective model can help managers assess the level of team autonomy appropriate to their companies, the probable success of implementing teams, the type of teams to implement, and the breadth of organizational change required for successful teams. Thus, the intention is that companies can use the model to make better decisions about the investment of time, money, and personnel required for moving toward autonomous work teams.

Cultural and structural constraints on implementing teams

Work teams do not exist in a vacuum, but are part of a larger organizational system with distinct cultural and structural characteristics. Companies have employed a wide range of structural and cultural options in dealing with the increased complexity, uncertainty, and interdependence that accompany team-based systems. Understanding the relationship between a company's culture and the design choices its managers make can provide one with greater insight into the effective implementation of teams. The critical issue examined in this paper is not whether a company should implement teams, but the level of team autonomy appropriate to the firm. This section first describes the levels of team autonomy, and then examines the connection of this autonomy to organizational culture and structure. Levels of team autonomy Self-management is the team-level equivalent of autonomy at the individual level; it can increase team effectiveness by increasing team members' sense of responsibility and ownership of their work. The notion of selfmanagement is not new; it has been known under various guises (e.g. participative management in the 1970s and early 1980s, and employee involvement in the late 1980s and early 1990s). In team-based organizations, the responsibilities traditionally reserved for individuals are delegated to teams, often resulting in a significant increase in productivity, quality, employee morale, and creativity, and a reduction in costs, absenteeism, and turnover (Manz and Sims, 1993).

Work teams can be categorized in terms of levels of team autonomy, with teams at one end having only a basic level of autonomy (such as the authority to make decisions about scheduling breaks), and teams at higher levels having the autonomy to make crucial decisions about hiring and firing team members (LaFollette et al., 1996; Romig, 1996). Problem-solving teams and work groups have lower levels of autonomy, matrix teams and semi-autonomous teams have moderate levels of autonomy, and selfdirected teams and self-designing teams have higher levels of autonomy (see Figure 1). Each type of team is described in greater detail below. Problem-solving teams are temporary teams formed to find solutions to specific problems, with individuals generally assigned by departments to work on time-bound tasks. Several companies (e.g. Harris Corporation, Westinghouse) have implemented problemsolving teams for process improvement and quality control. These teams have lower levels of autonomy since management approves solutions, provides direction, and maintains control over work-related issues. Team members identify primarily with their individual work and secondarily with the team; they are given separate assignments and recognized for individual contributions. Matrix teams, also referred to as coordination teams or cross-functional teams, consist of people representing various parts of the formal organization who come together for specific assignments that address broad issues (LaFollette et al., 1996). Team assignments are generally secondary to the
Figure 1 Levels of team autonomy

188

Autonomous work teams

Jasmine Tata

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . 187193

employees' primary work. Matrix teams have more autonomy than problem-solving teams and work groups, although management still retains control over system maintenance, team member selection, and reward allocation. Semi-autonomous teams are supervisor-led teams consisting of members assigned to the team for a long period of time. Such teams are provided with a moderate level of autonomy, and team members take over certain supervisory tasks (e.g. setting and measuring daily goals, solving problems, and scheduling work). For example, semi-autonomous teams at Wilson Sporting Goods Company set their own production schedules and vacation schedules (Wellins et al., 1994). The main difference between semiautonomous and self-directed teams is the presence of a team facilitator (also known by various titles such as team leader, coordinator, or even supervisor) whose primary role is to provide an interface between the team, upper management, and other groups (Romig, 1996). The facilitator spends less than 10 per cent of time on dayto-day supervisory activities, but acts as a conduit of information and resources between the team, management, suppliers, and customers (Romig, 1996). The team facilitator also takes on the role of coach, and makes decisions about selection, discipline, rewards, and recognition of team performance. Self-directed teams, also known as selfmanaging teams and employee involvement teams, have a higher level of autonomy and decision-making responsibility. Team members manage themselves (plan, organize, motivate, and control), design and schedule work (set goals, pace of work), make productrelated decisions (inventory, quality control), and select new team members. For example, self-directed teams at Whole Foods supermarkets have the power to approve new hires; candidates can become full-time employees only if two-thirds of the team votes to approve the employment. Similarly, selfdirected teams at Miller Brewing Company and Texas Instruments Defense Systems and Electronics Group make decisions about new member selection and team discipline (Wellins et al., 1994). Self-directed teams elect their own leaders, and the role of management is limited to empowering the team, assigning rewards, and

helping the team develop toward selfmanagement. Many manufacturing organizations use the ``star model'' for such teams, under which the roles generally performed by supervisors (e.g. training, safety, human resources) are considered points on a star. These roles are assigned to team members who are referred to as coordinators (e.g. training coordinator, safety coordinator, human resources coordinator) (Romig, 1996). Because of these additional roles and responsibilities, members of such teams need a broader base of skills and knowledge than those working on individual assignments, work groups, problem-solving teams, or matrix teams. Self-designing teams are self-directed teams that also have authority over their definitions as work units and their integration into the larger system within and outside the organization. These teams coordinate and synchronize their work processes with managers and peers, have direct contact with suppliers, and are responsible for satisfying customers. For example, self-designing teams at Colgate-Palmolive Company and Eastman Kodak are responsible for meeting the needs of suppliers and customers; teams at Kodak also provide input in the general business direction of the firm (Wellins et al., 1994). Decision-making is shared between teams in the company, and there is a conscious effort to collaborate with other teams to accomplish organizational goals (McIntosh-Fletcher, 1996). The teams described above do not represent all possible types of teams; rather, they are meant to indicate points along the autonomy continuum. Self-designing and self-directed teams have the highest levels of autonomy, and problem-solving teams and work groups have the lowest levels. Organizational culture and structure Organizational culture is composed of the shared values and beliefs of its members, and is manifested in the ends sought by the organization and the means used to achieve them (Hofstede, 1994). One such ``means'' is the organizational structure which reflects the value-based choices made by the company (Quinn, 1988; Zammuto and O'Connor, 1992). Quinn's (1988) competing values model shows how different value orientations of organizational culture influence structure.

189

Autonomous work teams

Jasmine Tata

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . 187193

One dimension of value systems that is related to structure is the control-flexibility dimension (Quinn, 1988; Zammuto and O'Connor, 1992). Control-oriented value systems try to consolidate management authority by centralizing decision-making in managerial hands and decreasing employee discretion. Often, external control stemming from factors such as unionization and government ownership can result in centralized decision-making. This results in a highly mechanistic structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961). In such companies, coordination and problem-resolution occur at higher levels of the hierarchy. Teams are unlikely to recognize problems as they occur due to their limited understanding of the overall process. Even when team members identify problems, they do not have the authority to correct them without management approval. This type of firm is more likely to effectively implement teams with lower levels of autonomy (e.g. problemsolving teams) in which managers follow the traditional roles of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling teams, and most decision-making authority is centralized in managerial hands. The quote at the beginning of this paper illustrates an unsuccessful attempt to implement high autonomy teams in a control-oriented, mechanistic firm. In contrast to companies with controloriented cultures, firms with flexibilityoriented value systems attempt to decentralize decision-making. Problems are resolved at the point at which they occur. This results in a highly organic structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Employees in such companies are multi-skilled because of the variety of tasks performed and the complexity of their jobs. Decision-making authority is delegated to teams in diagnosing problems and implementing solutions. Integrating mechanisms across sub-units such as task forces and cross-functional teams decrease reliance on vertical control mechanisms, and increase the flexibility and speed of coordination in the company (Dean and Susman, 1989). This type of firm is more likely to effectively implement teams with higher levels of autonomy (e.g. self-directed teams) in which managers empower team members and delegate authority, rather than direct and control team decisions. The example of Whole Foods illustrates the

successful implementation of high autonomy teams in a flexibility-oriented, organic firm.

Discussion and implementation

Figure 2 shows how variations in organizational culture and structure influence the success of team-based organizations. The first continuum in the figure represents organizational cultures and structures ranging from control-oriented, mechanistic companies at one end to flexibility-oriented, organic companies at the other. The second continuum indicates the levels of team autonomy, with low-autonomy teams at one end and high-autonomy teams at the other. Companies at different points on the continuum are likely to be effective with different levels of team autonomy. For example, Company ``C'' has a controloriented culture and mechanistic structure. Such a company is more likely to effectively implement teams with lower levels of autonomy (e.g. problem-solving teams and work groups). Company ``A'', in contrast, has a flexibility-oriented culture and organic structure. In this company, teams with higher levels of autonomy (e.g. self-directed teams and self-designing teams) are more likely to be effective. Company ``B'' is an intermediate example in which the combination of controland flexibility-oriented values is manifested in a structure with both mechanistic and organic characteristics. Such a company is more likely to effectively implement teams with moderate levels of autonomy (e.g. matrix teams and semi-autonomous teams). In practice, this means that teams with higher levels of autonomy will be easier, less expensive, and less time-consuming to implement for a company at point ``A'' than for a company at point ``C'', since developing a culture and structure to support such teams is more difficult than implementing them in an already receptive environment. Company ``A'' has an existing culture and structure that should make it easier to implement highautonomy teams, whereas Company ``C'' has to first resocialize employees and management to the values and beliefs of a flexible culture, and train the workforce in the knowledge and skills essential for the new decentralized structure.

190

Autonomous work teams

Jasmine Tata

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . 187193

Figure 2 A model of relationships between organizational culture and structure, and levels of team autonomy

Managerial implications The model presented in Figure 2 suggests the following four-step proactive approach to effectively implementing teams in organizations. Step 1. Conduct a culture and structure diagnosis First, the company needs to examine its existing values and beliefs as manifested in the structure. Questions that arise during this step are: What are the shared values among employees? To what extent is decisionmaking centralized? To what extent are employees empowered to make their own decisions? To what extent are employees multi-skilled? Is the company ready for autonomous work teams? Companies can also survey employees through diagnostic instruments (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991) to identify whether it is at point ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' on the continuum. Step 2. Determine fit between culture, structure, and level of team autonomy Figure 2 can be used to determine the position of the company in terms of the control-flexibility cultural continuum and the mechanistic-organic structural continuum. Based on its position in Figure 2, the company can determine the likelihood of

effectively implementing a particular level of team autonomy, along with the associated time and costs. Questions raised during this step are: Is the climate of the company supportive of a particular level of team autonomy? If not, can the structure and culture be changed? What costs are involved with such a change? What is a realistic timespan for the change? Do the expected benefits outweigh the costs? Step 3. Design content of change If the company decides to go ahead with implementing a particular type of team system, it must design a plan for implementation, which should include what needs to be changed and how the change should be executed. The extent of the change depends on the precise match between the level of team autonomy and the organizational culture and structure; the company may need to plan changes in both the structure (e.g. reorganizing departments, merging departments, transferring employees) and the culture (e.g. resocializing and retraining employees). Training programs will have to be designed to help socialize employees to new values, to signal the company's desire for greater employee

191

Autonomous work teams

Jasmine Tata

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . 187193

involvement, and to help employees cope with the skills required for teaming. For higher levels of team autonomy, employees would need training in new technical skills, administrative/supervisory skills (goal setting), and interpersonal skills (team dynamics); supervisors and managers need training in new roles and styles of leadership. In addition, personnel policies dealing with selection, recruitment, promotion, performance appraisal, and reward allocation might have to be redesigned. Step 4. Decide how to implement the change Implementing teams may disrupt existing power networks and result in resistance, which can be expensive and time-consuming to overcome. The company should identify people who will help in implementing teams and those who might hinder or resist the change. One source of resistance can be supervisors who perceive autonomous work teams as an erosion of their authority and status, especially in control-oriented mechanistic companies; several case studies (Letize and Donovan, 1990) have identified supervisor unwillingness to relinquish power to the team as a potential cause of the failure of teams with high levels of autonomy. In addition, employees may fear that the gains in productivity achieved by teams can make their jobs obsolete, and may resist the change. Resistance can be managed by clearly identifying possible change agents, that is, key people at all levels of the company who will help the change, act as team leaders or facilitators, and educate others about the value of teams. Managing resistance to autonomous work teams can also be accomplished by starting with small initiatives such as voluntary steering committees and modest retraining programs; small successes can then be used to get support for major changes. For example, Miller Brewing Company first initiated a pilot program on self-directed teams, and then slowly but successfully moved toward high autonomy teams (Wellins et al., 1994). Finally, companies should also remember that top management commitment is crucial for successful implementation of autonomous work teams. The steps described above can also be used by companies that have already implemented teams, but are having problems with the team system. Instead of hurriedly declaring the

team-based organization to be a failure, such firms can diagnose their culture and structure and identify the level of team autonomy likely to be most effective. Once the appropriate level of team autonomy is assessed, companies can then develop a plan to modify the existing culture and structure. Finally, it is possible for a company to have distinct cultures in different departments or divisions. Such companies should conduct a more finetuned analysis by applying the four steps independently to each department or division.

Conclusion
Autonomous work teams are not the panacea to all organizational problems. As this paper indicates, such teams may not be appropriate for all organizations, work situations, and employees. To be effective, the level of autonomy of a team system should be aligned with the:
philosophy or culture of the organization; that is, the extent to which there is an explicit concern for employee development and welfare which is seen as integral to, rather than subordinate to, a concern with profit maximization and the bottom line (Rothwell, 1987; p. 65).

References
Ashley, S. (1992), ``US quality improves but Japan still leads (Study by Ernst & Young and American Quality Foundation)'', Mechanical Engineering CIME, Vol. 24, pp. 114-26. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Social Science Paperbacks, London. Dean, J.W. and Susman, G.I. (1989), ``Organizing for manufacturing design'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, pp. 28-36. Dumaine, B. (1994), ``The trouble with teams'', Fortune, Vol. 5, September, pp. 86-92. Harris, T.E. (1992), ``Toward effective employee involvement: an analysis of parallel and selfmanaging teams'', Journal of Allied Business Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 25-33. Hofstede, G. (1994), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London. LaFollette, W., Hornsby, J.S., Smith, B.N. and Novak, W.I. (1996), ``The use of work teams in organizations'', Mid-American Journal of Business, Vol. 11, pp. 55-61. Lawler III, E.E., Ledford, G.E. and Mohrman, S.A. (1995), Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Letize, L. and Donovan, M. (1990), ``The supervisor's changing role in high involvement organizations'',

192

Autonomous work teams

Jasmine Tata

Work Study Volume 49 . Number 5 . 2000 . 187193

Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 2, March, pp. 62-5. Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1993), Business without Bosses: How Self-managing Teams are Building High-performance Companies, Wiley, New York, NY. McIntosh-Fletcher, D. (1996), Teaming by Design. Real Teams for Real People, Irwin, Chicago, IL. Quinn, R.E. (1988), Beyond Rational Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Romig, D.A. (1996), Breakthrough Teamwork. Outstanding Results Using Structured Teamwork, Irwin, Chicago, IL. Rothwell, S. (1987), ``Selection and training for advanced manufacturing technology'', in Wall, T.D., Clegg, C.W. and Kemp, N.J. (Eds), The Human Side of

Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 61-82. Schilder, J. (1992), ``Self-directed work teams yield longterm benefits'', Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 9-12. Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Dixon, G.R. (1994), Inside Teams. How 20 World-class Organizations are Winning Through Teamwork, DDI, Pittsburgh, PA. Zammuto, R.F. and Krakower, J.Y. (1991), ``Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture'', Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, pp. 83-114. Zammuto, R.F. and O'Connor, E.J. (1992), "Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies' benefits: the roles of organizational design and culture'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 701-28.

193