Date post: | 14-Oct-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | vitra-singh |
View: | 2,532 times |
Download: | 7 times |
BUAD 6260: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR GROUP COURSEWORK PROJECT
RL WOLFE: IMPLEMENTING SELF-DIRECTED TEAMS
March 19th 2011
Submitted by
Team Symphony
John Borel
Kathleen Fergusson-Stewart
Kevin Snaggs
Neil Jagessar
Samantha Gooden
Satyan Seuraj
Vitra Singh
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. SELF-DIRECTED TEAMS ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. WHAT IS A SELF-DIRECTED TEAM? ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2. KEY ADVANTAGES SELF DIRECTED TEAMS ............................................................................................. 4
2.3. CHALLENGES OF SELF DIRECTED TEAMS ................................................................................................. 5
3. THE CORPUS CHRISTI EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................... 8
3.1. OVERVIEW OF THE CORPUS CHRISTI CASE............................................................................................... 8
3.2. GOAL OF THE SDT AT CORPUS CHRISTI ................................................................................................... 8
3.3. SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING THE SDT APPROACH ................................................... 9
3.3.1. Job Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2. Individual Recognition & Performance evaluation. ......................................................................... 10
3.3.3. Size and Composition of the Teams .................................................................................................. 10
3.3.4. Boundaries of Team Responsibilities................................................................................................ 11
3.3.5. Performance Based Award/Incentive Plan ....................................................................................... 11
3.3.6. Productivity on the Night Shift. ........................................................................................................ 11
3.3.7. Other Morale Indicators ................................................................................................................... 12
3.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 12
3.4.1. Understanding the Journey of the Self-Directed Team ..................................................................... 13
3.4.2. Management Commitment to SDT .................................................................................................... 13
3.4.3. Feedback Gathering ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.4.4. Training ............................................................................................................................................ 14
3.4.5. Employee Empowerment & Motivation ............................................................................................ 14
4. A CASE FOR THE SDT MODEL AT CORPUS CHRISTI ..................................................................... 20
4.1. THE CASE FOR UNIONIZED WORKERS .................................................................................................... 20
4.2. MEETING WITH UNIONS FACE TO FACE - THE “ETHOS. PATHOS. LOGOS.” APPROACH .......................... 20
4.3. MEETING WITH UNIONIZED WORKERS ................................................................................................... 22
4.4. CREATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TIMELINE ................................................................................... 23
5. A CLOSING NOTE ...................................................................................................................................... 24
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 1 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
RL WOLFE: IMPLEMENTING SELF-DIRECTED TEAMS
1. INTRODUCTION
This report discussed the concept of self-directed teams and analyses the application at a RF
Wolfe plastics manufacturing facility in Corpus Christi, Texas. The rest of Section 1 gives an
overview of the layout of the report. Section 2 provides a definition of a self-directed team and
provides a summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of the approach.
The results of the analysis of the application at the Corpus Christi plant is then presented in
Section 3. The analysis starts with a look at the goal which had been defined for the facility,
which is followed by an analysis of the successes and disappointments over the 3 year period.
Based on the findings of the case analysis, Section 3 ends with a series of recommendations for
improvements to better apply SDTs at Corpus Christi in order to boost productivity
The report then looks at the potential for the application of self-directed teams at Wolfe‟s other
two plants, and this proposed strategy is presented in Section 4.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 2 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
2. SELF-DIRECTED TEAMS
2.1. What is a Self-Directed Team?
Self-Directed Teams (SDTs) have become a key concept for today‟s business world.
Automobile giant Chrysler has attributed its success in part to the application of SDTs to create
what they call „smart manufacturing‟ processes. Citing a study conducted jointly in 1990,
Silverman and Propst (1996) define a Self Directed Team as follows:
“A group of employees who have day-to-day responsibility for managing themselves
and the work they do. Members of self-directed teams typically handle job assignments,
plan and schedule work, make production related decisions and take actions on
problems. Members of self-directing teams work with a minimum of direct
supervision.”
SDTs share a few characteristics that set them apart from other groups and teams. They are
typically characterized by greater face to face interaction, with teams working in small clusters.
However, the two key characteristics are that SDTs complete an entire piece of work or are
responsible for producing a definable product, which may require several interdependent tasks
and also have full control and autonomy over the execution of those tasks. Effective leadership
and effective decision making are therefore critical to the success of SDTs.
Rami (2010), citing the work of various organizational behavioural experts suggests that “an
SDT is not created or appointed. It‟s grown. It‟s nurtured and guided until it can start
operating on its own. Over time, the empowerment by the team facilitator switches to the team
members, and the team becomes self-managed. Facilitators begin with a directing / controlling
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 3 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
behaviour, through to coaching, involving and teaching others to lead themselves. Whilst this
process is occurring, the team itself shifts from executing the facilitator‟s instructions, through
to participating, planning and eventually, taking responsibility and control.”
Organizations must understand the process surrounding how teams become self-directed over
time. Zawacki and Norman (1994) suggest that successful self-directed teams evolve through
five stages. These are:
Stage 1: The typical hierarchical structure where the leader provides one-on-one
supervision;
Stage 2: The leader evolves into a group manager whose role is making the transition
into team coordinator/coach;
Stage 3: The group manager becomes the team coordinator and provides a structure for
self-managed team members to receive the necessary training to take on more
leadership tasks;
Stage 4: The team assumes most of the duties previously reserved for the group
manager, who now becomes a boundary interface; and
Stage 5: The group manager (i.e., the team coordinator) is a resource for the team.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 4 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
2.2. Key Advantages Self Directed Teams
A survey of more than 500 organizations offers several reasons why senior line managers chose
to revolutionize their approach to work (Williams 1995), indicating that self-directed work
teams have resulted in:
Improved quality, productivity and service.
Greater flexibility.
Reduced operating costs.
Faster response to technological change.
Fewer, simpler job classifications.
Better response to workers' values.
Increased employee commitment to the organization.
Ability to attract and retain the best people.
Some of the key advantages are discussed further below.
Autonomy: This approach affords a higher level of autonomy allowing employees to respond
more quickly and effectively to client and stakeholder demands and creates a sense of
empowerment, which contributes to increased motivation. Herzberg used the term job
„enrichment‟ to describe how the motivator factors can be used to achieve higher levels of
satisfaction with a job. In his Motivator-Hygiene theory, achievement and recognition as well
as responsibility and advancement are consistently related to employee job satisfaction.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 5 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
The self-directed way represents a revolutionary approach to the way work is organized and
performed. Instead of organizing work based on the traditional Taylor model (reducing a
process to individual steps), the work is organised around whole processes. Interdependence
and joint responsibility for outputs is critical for the success of the SDT. Contrary to the
traditional system, the self-directed approach includes the needs of the people with the work
being done and those closest to the job help design the way the work is done. It has therefore
shown to produce less boredom and the greater involvement of the employees brings better buy
in and therefore more motivation in the work. Companies are redistributing power, authority
and responsibility so that the people closest to the customer and the end product or result have
decision-making capability (Williams 1995)
Increased organizational effectiveness: As the SDT is a cross functional work group,
completing an entire task or creating an entire product, the team as a unit, is able to make better
decisions and produce quality ideas and solutions to generate innovative products or services.
Organisational Democracy: SDTs can help maintain democracy and at the same time keep
employees motivated (Williams, 1995). The greater involvement afforded cultivates a sense of
belonging to the organization and employees feel responsible for the outcome of the operation.
2.3. Challenges of Self Directed Teams
Cultivating an effective SDT is not an easy task, as there are inherent challenges. Team work
can take more time and may also use more resources that individual work. Teams may take
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 6 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
longer with decision making as they need to get past interpersonal barriers and conflicts need to
be managed. Teams require greater communication effort. Time and energy is often expended
towards team development and maintenance rather than the task at hand. The software
industry even coined the term Brooke‟s Law for this concept – „adding more people to a late
software project only makes it later‟.
The move to a self-directed approach is often a paradigm shift for an organization. As teams
move to a high-involvement environment, they need to be developed and management needs to
foster a climate of support. There must be a commitment to instill a culture that will promote
empowerment and autonomy, coupled with a high level of involvement and motivation. The
journey is often a long one, taking between two and five years, and is never-ending from a
learning and renewal perspective.
Intense, continuous and comprehensive training is critical to developing effective SDTs.
Employees are often cross trained, so that new skill sets need to be developed. They also need
to learn to work effectively in teams and develop skills in problem solving and decision
making. Also, as these teams are self-managed, employees also need to learn basic
management skills.
These teams are given a high degree of autonomy. However, there must be some amount of
management intervention. This is a potential area for conflict and management would need to
manage this balance by possibly providing alternative options to the teams and having them
decide which option is the best.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 7 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
The SDT approach often includes some form of performance incentive. Rewards and
recognition programs can potentially influence behavior of teams. Some rewards lose effect
over time. Management must constantly review these incentives to ensure that they remain
suitable and relevant to the teams.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 8 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
3. THE CORPUS CHRISTI EXPERIENCE
3.1. Overview of the Corpus Christi Case
In 2003, John Amasi, the Director of Production and Engineering for RL Wolfe introduced the
concept of Self Directed Teams into their newly acquired plastics manufacturing plant in
Corpus Christi, Texas. This was a major paradigm shift in RL Wolfe‟s manufacturing plants,
which were traditionally unionized.
Amasi had been intrigued by the concept of self- directed teams and the reported 30% to 40%
increase in production and quality in the SDTs run units. With the help of Jay Winslow, the
new plant manager, they set the refurbished plant an aggressive goal of achieving 95% or more
of design capacity. This was much higher than the two other Wolfe plants which were running
at 65% to 75% design capacity.
After four years, the plant at Corpus Christi was running at 80% to 82% of design capacity and
there are signs of absenteeism and low morale and Amasi and Winslow have decided to look at
ways to further improve performance.
3.2. Goal of the SDT at Corpus Christi
Amasi‟s goal was to create a high productivity plant, which would produce in the range of 95%
or more of design capacity. For a plant running on average 67.5% design capacity, an increase
to 95% design capacity would require an improvement of about 40%.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 9 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
3.3. Successes and challenges in implementing the SDT approach
The case was analysed to determine the impact of the SDTs on organizational efficiency,
proficiency, and overall effectiveness. Based on the case, there are a few key issues
contributing to the overall productivity levels at the plant.
3.3.1. Job Definitions
Prior to the implementation of the SDTs, line workers were treated a lower grade than the
maintenance staff. This inequality had fuelled disagreements between the two sets of workers.
With the SDT model, the role of the technician was developed to be a more technical role, with
a distinct focus on technical problem solving. One of the key success factors for SDTs is
having the solutions for issues to come from the members of the team. To have a divide be set
up from the beginning, whereby problem solving is restricted to one job function would clearly
limit the potential for the team.
Over time, the role of the technician has therefore become more elite than the role of the line
operators, almost like a supervisor and line operators are now complaining that the „technicians
are being used like foremen‟. The issue is supported by the Equity theory, which has shown
that worker satisfaction is influenced by employees‟ perceptions about how fairly they are
treated compared with their coworkers. The line operators will make an „upward‟ social
comparison with the technicians, which fuels worker dissatisfaction. Winslow correctly
identified this issue when he said that the „subtle distinctions between roles are creeping back
into our culture‟.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 10 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
This perceived divide would probably be more pronounced in the material handling team as
there are only two technicians in that team (more elite), as opposed to the extrusion team where
almost half of the team are technicians (six out of eight).
3.3.2. Individual Recognition & Performance evaluation.
Winslow reported that when the coordinators post listing of outstanding performers, people on
the listing did not like it, which suggests there might be perceived issues with the way in which
the evaluations are being conducted to generate the listing. Yet Winslow reported success with
group recognition. This suggests there might be issues worth investigating with the perception
of the transparency with the evaluation process. This suggestion is justified by workers
unwillingness to participate in peer evaluations. This is a considerable barrier as peer
evaluations are a key means of evaluating team performance.
3.3.3. Size and Composition of the Teams
Winslow is suggesting that the size of the teams might be too large and is considering reducing
them. Smaller teams tend to be more effective. However, teams need to be large enough to
provide the necessary competencies and perspectives to perform the work, yet small enough to
maintain efficient coordination and meaningful involvement of each member (Mc Shane &
Von Glinow, 2010). Ideal team size therefore is very subjective, both to the task at hand and
the organization. The teams at the plant are small, at thirteen and fourteen. One of the key
characteristics of successful SDTs is that the teams should complete an entire task (Silverman
& Propst, 1996). To break down further would probably result in teams that are not completing
entire tasks.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 11 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
3.3.4. Boundaries of Team Responsibilities
The goal for the Corpus Christi plant was that the teams would take control over their day to
day activities. Winslow reported that 80% of the decisions about the work on the factory floor
are made by the teams, as opposed to 100% being made by the coordinators a few years ago.
This was a major improvement. Winslow has indicated that most of the teams have taken
ownership of quality improvements and safety issues and this also an indication of
empowerment. However, the teams also want control over the amount of overtime they work
and when they work and Winslow indicated that he felt that „production goals, pay and benefits
are out of bounds for team decisions‟. Though pay and benefits may be questionable, the
setting of production goals should become part of the team‟s responsibility. It is well
established that employees are highly motivated to perform when specific goals are established
and feedback on progress is offered (Goal-setting theory) and when a team participates in the
setting of their own goals, there will be much more ownership and buy in to the goal.
3.3.5. Performance Based Award/Incentive Plan
When the SDT was first conceptualized, Amasi wanted to pay a premium to the workers, but
this was not sanctioned by the union so no incentive program was implemented. Team
members are now complaining about not being adequately rewarded for their extra effort. This
can result in demotivation in the workforce.
3.3.6. Productivity on the Night Shift.
Winslow reports that the third shift does not make its production targets. Additionally, this
shift also has the highest absenteeism rate. The third shift is the 11 pm to 7 am shift, which
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 12 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
traditionally is a difficult shift to work due to the body‟s natural circadian rhythms. When
compared to the other Wolfe plants, this trend of higher absenteeism appears to be typical. It
would be useful to dialogue more with the night shift workers to dig deeper into the issue.
Workers on the night shift are possible showing signs of de-motivation. It is well established
that working night shifts becomes more difficult as one age and increases the potential for more
errors1. This could further compound the demotivation.
3.3.7. Other Morale Indicators
Selected worker quotes highlighted two positive and two negative comments. The positive
comments related to the „less boring‟ work and the enjoyment of work. However, the two
negative comments spoke to lack of incentive for extra work and the lack of empowerment for
decision making. The lack of morale is also exhibited in the 5% turnover across the facility,
60% participation on teams, and the fact that 7 factory floor workers were actually fired due to
poor performance. The data suggest that SDTs have not totally gelled at the facility and the
teams are not properly developed. 60% participation means that 40% of the workers are not
participating. Motivation therefore is likely to be low.
3.4. Recommendations for Improvements
The main issues identified at the facility relate to three main areas: Employee Empowerment,
Motivation and Work Force Management. Essentially, empowerment and motivation go hand
1 American College of Emergency Physicians. 2001. Circadian Rhythms and Shift Work..
Policy Resource and Education Paper. Available online at
<http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=30560>
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 13 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
in hand in an SDT and the work force must be managed in such a way as to promote these
factors.
3.4.1. Understanding the Journey of the Self-Directed Team
As was described in Section 2.1, the journey to becoming self-directed is not a short one and
Amasi and Winslow must recognize this, recognize where the company is on the journey and
foster the culture that would promote the organisational change towards becoming self-
directed.
3.4.2. Management Commitment to SDT
The management team needs to relook its commitment to the self-directed approach and
commit to the goals and objectives of the SDT concept. Key to the self-directed approach is
empowerment of employees and if this empowerment is compromised in any way, then the
success of the SDT is compromised.
Management must create and foster a culture of motivation and empowerment by allowing the
team to participate in the actual job design, organizational goal setting, performance appraisals
and incentives. Information from other facilities where SDTs have been successfully
implemented could be a key resource. Management should also keep up to date on the studies
and reports out of the industry in the field of organizational behaviour so as to find new ways
of improving employee motivation and empowerment.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 14 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
3.4.3. Feedback Gathering
Information by way of feedback from the coordinators and teammates need to be sought to
understand the problems with the self-directed teams. The issues identified previously should
be discussed with the coordinators first, so that the problem can be conceptualized, then the
issues can be taken to the teams with some possible solutions and let the teams participate in
finding the solutions to the issues raised. These discussions would glean valuable information
on possible solutions. This aspect of feedback should be part of a larger system of open
communication across the organization which is critical for continuous improvement and
ensures adaptability.
3.4.4. Training
There should be continuous training and development for the various line operators and
technicians for them to fulfill the cross functional roles required (technical training), be
effective team members (interpersonal, team development training, conflict management, etc.)
and to allow them to effectively self-manage (administrative, basic management training,
decision making training, etc.). Key also would be the leadership training required for the
coordinators to equip them with the tools and resources required for them to fully evolve from
the directing role through the coaching and supporting roles, towards the ideal delegating role,
which supports the SDT model.
3.4.5. Employee Empowerment & Motivation
Empowerment and motivation are key to the SDT model. Empowerment is about making
people feel valued through involvement throughout the process, giving them the authority to
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 15 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
make decisions, continually providing tool and resources (by way of training and support), and
praising them when they do well. Motivation is a desire to achieve a goal or a certain
performance level, leading to goal-directed behavior. Motivation, ability, and environmental
factors (i.e. having the tools and resources) are the factors that contribute to performance. Both
motivation and empowerment speak to an employee‟s will and personal drive to do a job. It
cannot be forced, it is not truly taught. It is nurtured and grown, like the concept of the SDT.
Management‟s role is to provide the environment and the organizational culture that supports
the motivated and empowered employee. Winslow and Amasi should consider the following
methods of improving both employee motivation and empowerment at the Corpus Christi
plant.
Motivating employees through SMART goal setting
Amasi and Winslow set a goal for 95% design capacity. Based on the average Wolfe plant,
this would be a production increase of around 40%, which is on the upper limit of the reports
Wolfe had seen at other facilities. This is a very aggressive goal and goal-setting theory is one
of the most influential and practical theories of motivation. Goals give direction, tell
employees what to focus on, energize, provides a challenge and urges employees to think
outside the box. Effective goals should be difficult, not easy. People with difficult goals tend to
outperform those with easier goals as easy goals do not provide a challenge. Aggressive goals
require people to work harder or smarter and performance tends to be dramatically higher.
However, while goals should be aggressive and difficult, they should also be realistic. If a goal
is viewed as impossible to reach, it will not have any motivational value and can in fact be
demotivating. The goal of 95% should be therefore be re-assessed. It might be more prudent
to adopt a more realistic shorter term goal which would seem more within the reach of the
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 16 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
workforce and provide the impetus for increased morale. Overtime, this goal can be re-adjusted
as the SDTs evolve. Further to the longer term organizational goals, the teams should be
involved in the setting of the plant short term production goals. This would improve the sense
of ownership in the target as they would be taking part in a critical aspect of the process.
Motivating employees through performance incentives
One of the most widespread ways of putting motivation theories into action is by implementing
an incentive system. One of the most successfully implemented incentive system is the pay for
performance incentive system whereby pay is tied to team performance. Research shows that
companies using pay-for-performance systems actually achieve higher productivity, profits,
and customer service (Bauer & Erdogan, 2009). The studies also report higher levels of pay
satisfaction under these systems. In selecting an appropriate system, management should also
consider the downsides of incentives such as the creation of risk-aversed environment that
diminish creativity (which can happen if employees are rewarded for doing things in a certain
way, and risk taking can have negative impacts on their pay checks) or the need for strong
safety and quality systems and cultures to counteract the potential for short cuts to meet
production goals. However, despite their limitations, financial incentives are powerful
motivators if used properly and if aligned with companywide objectives.
Motivating employees through a performance appraisal system.
When employees have goals, they tend to be more motivated if they also receive feedback
about their progress, they can better meet their goals. The performance appraisal can be
effective in providing constructive feedback to the employee, which can be quite effective in
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 17 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
motivating employees and resolving performance problems. Reinforcement theory, which
indicates that behavior that is rewarded is repeated, supports the use of performance appraisals
being tied to reward decisions. However, performance appraisal ratings need to be accurate.
Research has shown three characteristics that increase the perception that they are fair:
allowing adequate notice (whereby employees understand the system and how it works), fair
hearing (ensuring two way communication during the process), and judgment based on
evidence (documenting performance problems and using factual evidence). Because of the
lack of trust in the appraisal system, communication would be critical in the selection and
implementation of the system. It would be prudent to involve the coordinators and team
members in this process so that all team members fully understand the benefit of the system
and how it can be used to improve their performance.
Other recommendations for increasing motivation, empowerment, teamwork, camaraderie and
pride in the company
Consideration should be given to the payment of a shift differential for the night shift,
in light of the inherent challenges of night work.
Implement a programme to solicit new ideas out of the teammates and encourage
teammates to be champions of their ideas so as to create ownership from the conceptual
phase through to completion. Successfully implemented projects should then be
routinely highlighted via a monthly newsletter circulated to all teammates so that all
everyone can see their teammates‟ ideas come to fruition.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 18 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
Increase awareness of all employees (production and administrative) of production rates
and targets via team meetings, reports, information boards, emails etc., so that
teammates know on a shift basis what the production rates are. If teammates are
constantly aware of the rate the plant is producing, they would be aware when the rates
do not meet the targets which would create an increased sense of urgency to bring the
plant back to targeted rates.
Provide a mechanism for receiving feedback from employees on recommendations for
improvements in any area of the company. This does not have to be production related
and should be anonymous. Make a commitment to action on at least one of the
recommendations on a routine basis and let the suggestions for the action on the issue
come from other team members.
Schedule team building exercises for the teams as well as the entire facility to increase
team work across the facility.
Implement a safety poster programme across the site using photographs of employees
and their families. This puts a familiar face on a safety message and has the combined
effect of communicating the safety message together with making the working
experience more personal.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 19 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
Sponsor a community outreach programmes and ask for volunteers to aid in the effort.
These types of activities tend to build the pride an employee has in the organization and
also fosters team work and camaraderie.
Schedule a family day for team members to meet each other‟s families so as to build
camaraderie among the teammates.
These ideas should be developed and then put to the teams so that they can determine the best
implementation strategy.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 20 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
4. A CASE FOR THE SDT MODEL AT CORPUS CHRISTI
4.1. The Case for Unionized Workers
Although it has been proven that SDTs increase performance it has also been shown that such
an improvement is predicated on the culture of the organization implementing the SDT model.
This observation is the foundation of the persuasive case we recommend that Amasi makes to
the unionized workers at other Wolfe plants. The following are the steps we recommended he
takes:
1. Meet with Unions Face to Face.
2. Meet with the Unionized workers in conjunction with the appeased Union
representative.
3. Create implementation plan.
4.2. Meeting with Unions Face to Face - The “Ethos. Pathos. Logos.” Approach
Since the Union is the advocate of the workers at the other Wolfe plants, Amasi should first
take a page from Aristotle and make a face to face appeal to the Unions before approaching the
workers directly. In these meetings he should share the successes at the Corpus Christi plant
with direct correlation to increased productivity (Logos), make an emotional appeal to the
Unions based on the team based awards systems that SDTs implement (Pathos) and use the
credibility he brings to the table as instrumental coach of the Corpus Christi plant of the last 3
years. Amasi‟s appeal should be aimed at value congruence between the existing union
empowerment versus the proposed team member empowerment and play on the fact that it will
ultimately make the Union‟s job easier.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 21 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
Amasi should focus on the following advantages of SDTs and use example from Corpus Christ
as evidence:
Organizational effectiveness
An organization is able to achieve its vision and mission more effectively with SDTs
depending on the job complexity assigned to the team. In the Corpus Christi plant it has proven
invaluable. “A self- directed team is also a cross- functional work group, consisting of
employees from various departments of the organization. As each of them has their own area of
expertise, the team is able to make better decisions and, produce quality ideas and solutions to
generate innovative products or services” (Roper & Phillips 2007; McShane, Olekalns and
Travaglione 2010).
Employee Decision Making
At the Corpus Christi plant, up to 80% of the decisions were made by SDTs, this vertical shift
in power would allow unionized workers to become responsible for a part of the organizational
success they would feel a greater sense of belonging and motivation. “Self- directed teams can
help maintain democracy in organizations and at the same time keep employees motivated”
(Robbins, Millet & Waters-Marsh 2004).
Employee Motivation through Empowerment
The empowerment SDTs foster causes manufacturing outputs to improve while performance is
optimized as also evidenced at Corpus Christi. McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione (2010)
mention that „autonomy allows employees to respond more quickly and effectively to client and
stakeholder demands”.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 22 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
Increased Reward Systems
Since SDTs rewards systems will vary from plant to plant the Unions could be employed to
monitor incentives given to teams and gauge the effectiveness of implementation. It can be
mentioned that this was one of the areas of weakness observed at Corpus Christi as such,
employing the unions in this way could address incentive issues before they arise namely, the
incentives for extra work and rewards that correlate with good decision making. Once Amasi
has achieved success at this level he should meet with the unionized workers in conjunction
with the appeased Union as a sign of solidarity.
4.3. Meeting with Unionized Workers
The meeting with the unionized workers at the other plants would benefit the objectives of the
implementation of SDTs in these external areas. Immediately after the meeting with the unions,
a series of meetings with the workers would help to reinforce the initiatives agreed upon. This
would allow for a smooth transition into SDTs if they understand that the union is supportive of
the move.
In addition, it would also offer management the opportunity to explain the benefits of SDTs to
the other units in a bid to get deeper buy-in in a shorter time. A strong impact would also be
made if coordinators and strong opinion leaders from Corpus Christi participated in these
meetings and assisted in conducting training in establishing the new teams.. This would offer
the avenue for employees at the other Wolfe plants to relate directly with other employees from
Corpus Christi who have gone through the same process successfully.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 23 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
4.4. Create Implementation Plan and Timeline
Implementing the SDT process would require a staggered process over five years with an
agreed evaluation process with the Union.
Action Time line
Establish SDT teams and coordinators 6 months
Define team work strategy using the SDT model, to address the
following:
Individual, team, and organizational goals
Short-term and long-term objectives for all
Alignment and commitment of all employees
Timeline and accountability for deliverables.
Methods for evaluations, compensation, and rewards
Celebration of achieving milestones.
Flow of feedback
Training
Creating a positive, comfortable environment in which to
perform.
To implement within
the first year
Conduct quarterly meetings with Union to review progress in first year
then every six months thereafter
Every 3 months
Celebrate achievement and profit sharing /incentive agreements
annually
Annually
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 24 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
5. A CLOSING NOTE
While SDTs have proven to be an effective tool for improving productivity and staff morale,
there are several areas that need to be assessed at Corpus Christi, prior to the implementation of
such a structure at the two other facilities. While productivity has increased at Corpus Christi,
there remain some areas that require attention in order to achieve the high objectives set by the
RL Wolfe management. The refining process would require time, dedication and full
management commitment to SDTs. This refining process usually takes more time than the
initial process of setting up such teams.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 25 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
REFERENCES
Bauer & Erdogan. 2009. Organizational Behavior. Motivating Employees Through
Performance Incentives. Available online at
http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/node/28844#web-28848
Garosi,Kim. 2006. Increased Productivity through Self-Managed Work Groups. Rising Sun
Consultants. Available at <
http://www.risingsunconsultants.com/images/white_papers/PDFs/SelfManagedWorkGr
oups.pdf>
Mc Shane & Vol Glinow. 2010. Organizational Behaviour. Emerging Knowledge and Practice
for the Real World. Mc. Graw-Hill. 5th
Edition.
McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione. 2010. Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim. 3rd
Edition. Mc Graw Hill. (2010, p. 321)
Rami, Cosmic. 2010. Internet Blog entitled, Defining Effective Leadership & Effective
Decision Making to Build Successful Self-Managed Teams. Available online at
http://www.innerwestlive.com.au/blog/2010/10/11/defining-effective-leadership-
effective-decision-making-to-build-successful-self-managed-teams/
Robbins, Millet & Waters-Marsh. 2004. Organisational Behaviour. Pearson Education.
RL Wolfe – Implementing Self-Directed Teams 26 | Page
Symphony Team Project – March 19, 2011
Roper & Phillips. 2007. Integrated Self-Managed Work Teams Into Project Management.
Journal of Facilities Management. Vol 5. Iss 1. Pg 22-36.
Silverman, L & A. Propst. 1996. Ensuring Success: A Model For Self-Managed Teams.
Available online at
http://www.partnersforprogress.com/Articles/Self_ManagedTeams.pdf
Williams, Ron. 1995. Self-Directed Work Teams: A Competitive Advantage. Available at
<http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov95/html/self-dir.html>
Zawacki, R. A. and C. A. Norman. 1994. Successful Self-Directed Teams and Planned Change:
A Lot in Common. OD Practitioner, Spring, 1994, pp. 33-38.