Transcript New Design Plants

LECTURE 8b
New Organizational Forms and SDWTs:
Changes in Workplace Control,
Organizational Structures,
and Leadership
Dave Seibold
Professor of Communication,Division of Social Sciences (L&S)
Co-Director, Graduate Program in Management Practice
Technology Management Program (CoE)
COMM 122: “Micro- and Macro-Organizational Communication”
Lecture 8b November 16, 2009
Preview: Lecture 8b (modification to p. 67)
A. OVERVIEW
B. EMPOWERED ENVIRONMENTS
C. QUALITY CIRCLES
1. HISTORY & FEATURES of QCs
2. FINDINGS re:QCs; PROBLEMS with QCs
D. CHANGES in CONTROL, STRUCTURE, LEADERSHIP
E. NEW DESIGN PLANTS
1. CHARACTERISTICS
2. REASONS FOR/TRENDS TOWARD NEW PLANTS
F. SDWTs
1. History & Trends re:SDWTs
2. Transition to Team-Based Organizations
Overview (p. 68)
Low
High
Worker Autonomy
Managerial Control
High
Low
Ind. Level
Enriched
Environment
Empowered
Environment
Grp Level
Quality Circles
SDWT’s
Org Level
Scanlon Plans
New Plants
Overview (p. 68)
Low
High
Worker Autonomy
Managerial Control
High
Low
Ind. Level
Enriched
Environment
Empowered
Environment
Grp Level
Quality Circles
SDWT’s
Org Level
Scanlon Plans
New Plants
Changing Involvement, Participation,
& Control (p. 69)
Overview (p. 68)
Low
High
Worker Autonomy
Managerial Control
High
Low
Ind. Level
Enriched
Environment
Empowered
Environment
Grp Level
Quality Circles
SDWT’s
Org Level
Scanlon Plans
New Plants
Characteristics of Empowered
Collaborative Environments
1. Power & opportunity widely distributed
2. Full, open, decentralized communication system
3. Integrative problem solving used
4. Negative feedback communicated in environment of
trust
5. Rewarded/recognized in ways that encourage high
performance and self responsibility
6. Personal wisdom/org learning result from org
ambiguity, uncertainty, and paradox
Overview (p. 68)
Low
High
Worker Autonomy
Managerial Control
High
Low
Ind. Level
Enriched
Environment
Empowered
Environment
Grp Level
Quality Circles
SDWT’s
Org Level
Scanlon Plans
New Plants
Quality Circles
History
Post-WWII Japan
Features
Small, intact work groups
Given time to interact & solve work problems
Usually volunteers
Evolved from blue collar to white collar CFTs
Quality Circles
Findings
1. QC members attitudes toward program positive
(due to increased voice)
2. QC members attitudes toward the organization,
and their job satisfaction, not more positive
Quality Circles
Findings
3. 1/2 QC studies show that productivity is enhanced
(cohesion + decision making -> + productivity)
but 1/2 show no increase (yet no erosion either)
4. Mngt has more positive attitudes toward employees who
are members of QCs (knowledge demonstrated ->
increased confidence in employees -> +attitudes)
Quality Circles
Problematic Aspects
1. Volunteerism
2. Creates a parallel structure
3. Group members often lack problem solving &
interpersonal skills
Overview (p. 68)
Low
High
Worker Autonomy
Managerial Control
High
Low
Ind. Level
Enriched
Environment
Empowered
Environment
Grp Level
Quality Circles
SDWT’s
Org Level
Scanlon Plans
New Plants
Changing Organizational Structures
Traditional Workplace
Control by managers
Pyramid design
Vertical, chain-of-command
relationships
“Stovepipe” operations
Rigid bureaucratic procedures
Supervised work groups
Co-present, F-to-F members
National, homogeneous
employees
Changing Workplace
Workers’ participation managing
Lattice design
Lateral, collaborative
relationships
Cross-functional arrangements
Employee empowerment
Semi-autonomous work teams
Distributed, virtual work groups
Global, culturally diverse,
members
New Design Plants as a New Organizational Form
Ex: P&G, Kraft, Saturn, Honeywell, Caterpillar, Boeing
Flattened hierarchies
Layers of mid-management eliminated
Wide spans of control, employees organized in “teams”
Reduction of staff support functions
Absence of assigned authority
New Design Plants as a New Organizational Form
Decision making pushed downward
Reduced reliance on formal communication channels
Empowered employees
Flexible, self-designed role descriptions
Removal of status markers
New Design Plants as a New Organizational Form
Skill-based pay, cross-training
Open access to information
Individual initiative and innovation rewarded
Profit-sharing plans for employees
High levels of business integration
(versus functional divisions)
New Design Plants as a New Organizational Form
Reasons for Popularity of New Design Plants
1. Increase in diversity in the workforce
2. Increase in competition (esp international)
3. Increase in labor costs
4. Increasing education level of workforce
5. Increased legislation re: employee rights
6. Increased support for participative workplace
Changes in Managing Organizations
“Bosses’” Behaviors
in Traditional Firms
“Leaders’” Activities
in Participative Groups
“Leadership” Processes
in Collaborative Teams
Planning Work
Setting Goals
Creating Vision
Staffing with Workers
Involving Members
Building Teams
Directing Employees
Guiding Participants
Inspiring Teamwork
Controlling Work
Rewarding Performance
Enabling Innovativeness
Evaluating Productivity
Assessing Achievement
Monitoring Responses
Changes in Managing
“Bosses’” Behaviors
“Leaders’” Activities
“Leadership” Processes
Staffing
with Workers
Involving
Members
Building
Teams
Recruit
Solicit Input
Create Roles That Are
Desirable/Fulfilling
Select
Motivate Members
Facilitate Norms That
Encourage Effectiveness
Train
Develop Individuals’
Capabilities
Expand Resources
Changes in Managing
“Bosses’” Behaviors
“Leaders’” Activities
“Leadership” Processes
Directing
Employees
Guiding
Participants
Inspiring
Teamwork
Give Orders
Recommend
Share Responsibilities
Assign Work
Rotate Tasks
Facilitate Shared
Commitments
Vertical Reporting
Lateral Linkages
Semi-Autonomous
Teams
SDWTs and Changing Organizational Forms
Self-Directed Work Teams (SDWTs)
1940s European Coal Mines and Factories
1950s Japanese Quality Circles
1960s US Plants introduce SDWTs:
ADM, Cummins Engines, P&G, General Foods
1990s >300 US firms w/SDWTS: Martin Marietta,
GM, Xerox, Motorola
2000s 83% of Fortune 400 Companies plan to introduce
SDWTs or expand use
SDWTs and New Organizational Forms
2001 Study of SDWTs in 7 Countries Revealed
93% = Improved Productivity
86% = Decreased Operating Costs
85% = Increased Quality
Work Teams and New Organizational Forms
Ex: “World Class Manufacturing” Reorganization
To obtain superior business results
To carry out the strategy of IIS and Polystyrene
To align teams with major work processes
To improve response time and gain productivity through
empowered people working in empowered teams
Work Teams and New Organizational Forms
Ex: Previous Organizational Structure at Joliet Plant
Vertical structure organized around traditional
departments like Operations and Maintenance
Traditional vertical structure
– Six levels of authority
– Aligned by function
Work Teams and New Organizational Forms
Ex: New “Ideal State” Organizational Structure
“Teams” as the basic working unit in the plant
Designed from the bottom, up
Aligned by common product/service
– Common focus/goals
– Cross-functional teams
Improved communication
Improved efficiency
Work Teams and New Organizational Forms
Ex: New “Ideal State” Organizational Structure (con’t)
Only three levels of authority
– Plant manager
– Area managers
– Associates
Enabled through
– Empowered teams
– Expanded roles and responsibilities
– Extended skill and training requirements
Work Teams and New Organizational Forms
Work Teams and New Organizational Forms
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Team-Based Organizations
A. Organizational Infrastructure to Support Teams
Predictors of Successful Transitions to Team-Based
Organizations (Lawler, 1999)
• Organizational philosophy
• Top management practices
• Job design/redesign
• Performance appraisal system
• Group-based reward/recognition
• Group skills training
Team-Based Organizations
Characteristics of Formal Work "Groups”
1. Small number of members.
2. Perceive selves as group.
3. Common characteristics.
4. Members are interdependent.
5. Ostensible common goal.
6. Interaction among members.
7. Mutual influence among members.
8. Net positive value associated with membership.
9. Role differentiation and emergent norms.
10. Organizational structure and formal rules.
11. History that provides precedents for decision making.
Team-Based Organizations
Versus Characteristics of Groups/Teams with Teamwork (p. 70)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Members share and can articulate a team vision.
Members have defined, valued, and accepted role expectations.
Members have role-related autonomy.
Members set high standards for themselves and are self-disciplined.
Members develop a structure that is responsive to environmental
demands, yet appropriate for the organization.
6. Decision-making is conducted within the team.
7. Team leader advocates for team, is liaison w/other groups, encourages
team, and works to secure resources that the team needs to excel.
8. Members share information and interpretations freely.
9. Members acknowledge and reinforce others' contributions/ support.
10. Members convey and display mutual respect and trust.
Team-Based Organizations
Criteria for Effective Teams (Hackman, 1990; 2006)
1. Prereqs to function as a “team”( clear task and objectives from mngt)
2. Balance between managerial and team authority (ends/means; changes)
3. Structures that enable success (motivating task,effective composition,
metrics to track performance/alignment work with business indicators)
4. Organizational systems that support teamwork
a. reward system that reinforces collective performance
(team-based evaluation/rewards, not individual)
b. training system that supplements members’ skills on ongoing basis
(as needed by members, not ‘train first’, not one-shot training)
c. information system that provides members access to team-specific
information and open culture w/access to senior management
d. material resources that enable members
to execute tasks (equipment, $, staff, space)
5. Effective leadership that supports teamwork in real time, and at key points
Team-Based Organizations
Which dimension of team effectiveness to address
first in team building? (Seibold, 1995)
Vision?
Roles?
Task Operations/Procedures/Structures/Resources?
Relationships?
Team-Based Organizations
Which dimension of team effectiveness to address
first in team building? (Seibold, 1995)
Task Operations/Procedures/Structures/Resources!
Team-Based Organizations
Steps in Team Building (Seibold, 1995)
Seek to integrate 4 traditional team-building approaches/”designs”:
Problem-solving designs (Structure/Processes/Resources)
Goal-setting designs (Vision)
Designs to re-shape member roles (Roles)
Designs to improve interpersonal relationships (Relationships)
Team-Based Organizations
Steps in Team Building (Seibold, 1995)
1. Create an agenda by categorizing problems facing
the group
(i.e., goals, roles, operations/procedures, and relationships)
Using methods that are both quantitative (e.g., TEP
Instrument)
and qualitative (e.g., members' responses to open-ended
questions
such as "What is preventing this team from accomplishing
all that it is capable of?” . . .
Team-Based Organizations
Steps in Team Building (Seibold, 1995)
2. Use member involvement to improve structure, operations, and
procedures.
What operational/procedural problem can members resolve quickly and on their
own?
Member involvement (e.g., ad hoc task forces) will ensure problems most
important to the members themselves will be addressed, and members
will feel responsible for results.
Increased commitment to the group and the rest of the team building process is
likely, since members will see they are capable of effecting change
concerning matters they face and consider important.
Team-Based Organizations
Steps in Team Building (Seibold, 1995)
3. Revisit goals and help members create a shared
vision
Do members all know where they are headed?
Do they concur?
Are they capable of more than has been asked of them, or
than they have produced (or are those goals
unrealistic)?
Team-Based Organizations
Steps in Team Building (Seibold, 1995)
4. Help members consider role requirements with their vision.
Do they each understand and accept others' expectations re:their role?
How will members’ need for performing outside those role expectations
be dealt with?
What are the implications of these role expectations for creating a
status hierarchy?
How will members deal with that?
Team-Based Organizations
Steps in Team Building (Seibold, 1995)
5. Aid members to improve relationships within the team.
What are the ongoing relational problems in the group?
How can interpersonal communication be improved?
Skill building: listening, communicating non-defensively, and communicating
criticism. Supplemented with coaching.
Team-Based Organizations
Brief Approach to Team Building (“Work Out”)
- Interviews w/each member before off-site retreat
- Compile list of strengths and issues
- Distribute/discuss team strengths
- Personal affirmations and acknowledgments
- Review characteristics of “teamwork”
- Distribute/discuss team issues
- Refine issues list (Worksheet #1)
- Personal actions to improve team (Worksheet #2)
- Others’ actions to improve team (Worksheet #3)
- Summarize, continuing work by team