beyond design- implementing effective production work teams
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
1/15
www.asq .org 29
Beyond Design: ImplementingEffective Production Work Teams
JOY M. FIELD , BOSTON COLLEGE 2001, ASQ
Achieving sustainable quality performance gains follow-ing production work team introduction requires that the
wo rk tea m impl em en tat ion pr oc es s be ca re ful ly
designed and managed. The design of the work team as
an insti tutionalized form of substantive participation
creates the conditions for sustainable quality gains by
faci li ta ting th e generati on and implementa tion of
process and product improvements that accumulate
over time. The actual quality performance trajectory for
each work team is also influenced by specific character-
istics of the team and its production environment. At the
least , this can inform managerial expectations about
quality performance outcomes of work teams. However,
many of these characteristics can be influenced through
proactive management of the implementation process to
achieve better and faster results. A longitudinal empiri-
cal study of production work teams demonstrates the
benefits of design and implementation decisions aimed
at sustainable performance gains.
Key words: institutionalization, long-term performance
gains, substantive participation, sustainability
Recent years have seen the widespread introduction of
production work teams in manufacturing plants. While
each plant may have its own rationale for introducing
work teams, two themes repeatedly emerge. First, pro-
duction workers are increasingly recognized as valu-
able and underutilized sources of process and product
improvement ideas, and work teams provide a means
to channel worker participation. Second, current man-ufacturing environments are often characterized by
functional and process interdependencies, requiring
team, rather than individual, approaches to operations
(Boyett and Conn 1991).
Implementing production work teams to channel
worker partic ipation and deal with functional and
process interdependencies suggests a commitment to
their long-term use. Viewed over time, the measure of
work teams success includes not only their short-term
performance impact but also thesustainability of per-
formance gains. However, despite the popularity of workteams based on the belief that they favorably impact
performanc e especiall y qua li ty per for mance
much of the previous research has failed to find a
strong relationship between work teams and either
short-term or long-term performance (Locke and
Schweiger 1979; Miller and Monge 1986; Wagner 1994).
What can explain this? The results reported in many
of these studies are based on an aggregation of work
teams that vary in terms of design and implementation
decisions. However, these decisions are often the key
determinants of whether a work team is successfullyintroduced and its performance gains sustained
(Cotton et al. 1988; Leana, Locke, and Schweiger 1990;
Banker et al. 1996). In addition, the performance
impact over time is influenced by the characteristics of
the team and its production environment. With all
these issues to consider, understanding the impact of
production work teams on quality performance clearly
requires looking beyond superficial similarities to the
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
2/15
30 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
specific characteristics associated with performance
improvements sustained over time. These characteris-
tics can then be leveraged to manage the work team
implementation process for enhanced results.
The different forms of production work teams alsovary in te rms of thei r em phas is on perf orma nc e
improvement. For example, some are chartered to
exclusively address performance issues, while others
such as self-managing teamsare also responsible
for managing processes on a day-to-day basis . This
research specifically focuses on the longitudinal out-
comes of the work teams performance improvement
efforts, and is based on data from performance
improvement work teams.
Following a discussion of previous research on the
perf ormance impacts of product ion work teams focusing on design and implementation decisions asso-
ciated with sustainable performance gainsa longi-
tudinal study of production work teams is described.
This is one of the few longitudinal studies of work
teams with sufficient data and qualitative depth to
empirically examine the sustainability of quality per-
formance gains and the associated work team design
and implementation decisions.
SUSTAINABILITY OFQUALITY PERFORMANCEGAINS FOLLOWING WORKTEAM IMPLEMENTATION
A work team is defined as a small number of people
with complementary skil ls who are committed to a
common purpose, set of performance goals, and
approach for which they hold themselves mutually
accountable (Katzenbach and Smith 1993, 45).
Unfortunately, this definition does not provide muchinsight into the specific work team characteristics asso-
ciated with sustainable performance improvement. The
definition is entirely too broad. It allows for a myriad of
design and implementation decisions many of
which would not result in sustainable quality gains.
Quality circlesone of the earlier forms of pro-
duction work teamsare a case in point. Although
quality circles generally show initial gains in
performance, after some time in the range of 18
months to 3 yearstheir quality performance begins
to erode to levels near or even below their original per-
formance (Griffin 1988; Mohrman and Novelli 1985).
The explanation for this is that quality circles lack twokey design characteristics associated with sustainable
performance gains substantive participation and
institutionalization.
Drawing on study results from several academic dis-
ciplines, researchers have found that participation is
more likely to have a positive impact on performance
when it involves substantive rather than consultative
arrangements (Levine and Tyson 1990, 183243).
That is, work teams can make and implement deci-
sions (substantive participation) rather than being
limited to idea generation (consultative participation).A pure ly consul ta ti ve ro le li mi ts thei r long-term
impact, particularly if a means for implementing ideas
is perceived as nonexistent or arbitrary. Substantive
participation requires establishing a link between idea
generation and implementation and that everyone
involved perceives the link as fair and effective.
Additionally, to be viable and effective over the long-
term, team participation should be institutionalized
and considered a way of life. Work teams organized as
a parallel structure or auxiliary program separate and
distinct from an organizations ongoing activities com-pete for resources with other required activities, often
less successfully as the initial enthusiasm wanes
(Lawler and Mohrman 1987). Institutionalization is
promoted through the following:
Mandatory membership, which affirms the status of
the work team as a job responsibility
Management involvement and support, which entail
setting a clear direction and creating a supportive
organizational context (Gladstein 1984)
Decision-making authority, where work team
members find continued participation in the team
meaningful as their efforts produce results
The importance of substantive participation and
institutionalization is evident in a comparison of
American and Japanese quality circles. Even though
American quality circles were modeled after those in
Japan, Japanese qual ity circ les have generally been
more successful than their American counterparts.
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
3/15
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
4/15
32 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
WORK TEAM IMPLEMENTATIONPROCESSPrevious research is divided into two perspectives on the
question of what process work teams follow to achieveperformance ga ins (Mohrman and Nove ll i 1985;
Wagner 1994). In the first perspective, work teams gen-
erate ideas for process and product improvements, and
it is the implementation of these ideas that results in
performance gains. In the second perspective, partici-
pation in work teams increases job satisfaction, moti-
vation, and task performance, which indirectly lead to
improved performance. However, studies indicate that
sustainableperformance gains follow from the first,
and not the second, process (Gaetner and Nollen 1989;
Latham and Steele 1983). Substantive participation
and institutionalization provide the conditions for work
teams to realize sustainable performance gains
through the generation and implementation of
improvement ideas that become part of the production
process.
One explanation for the lack of sustainable perfor-
mance gains with the second process is that the benefits
of participation accrue primarily to the members of the
work team, and the performance gains are only sustain-
able to the extent that job satisfaction and motivation
remain high. In fact, simply putting a spotlight on any
performance improvement initiative often results in ini-
tial performance gains (Cole 1998). However, introduc-
ing work teams as a strictly motivational program with-
out any real authority can become demotivating if few
of the ideas are ever implemented. These dynamics are
consistent with research on quality circles in the United
States, showing initial performance gains that erode
over time to levels at or below starting performance.
Propositions 2a and P2b address the mediating role
of the quality improvement process in the relationship
between work team design decisions and the sustain-
ability of quality performance gains.
P2a: The design of a work team as an institution-
alized form of substantive participation is necessary
for work teams to realize sustainable performance
gains through a process of generating and imple-
menting improvement ideas.
P2b : The generation and implementat ion of
improvement ideas that accrue to the production
process result in sustainable quality performance
gains.
But how does this process unfold over time? In otherwords, what is the nature of the quality performance
trajectory for a production work team designed as an
institutionalized form of substantive participation?
Some insights from research on technology manage-
ment help answer this question.
Two main characteristics define a technology. First,
technology is manifested in an artifact, such as tools,
machines, or work procedures. Second, technology
manipulates or transforms inputs to outputs. As an
institutionalized form of substantive participation (that
is, artifact) that generates ideas and implementschanges (that is, transforms inputs into outputs), a
work team shares these characteristics. Just as improve-
ments in the technology transformation process lead to
better performance, work teams contribute to better
performance by generating ideas and implementing
changes that improve the manufacturing process and
product.
The technology implementation process follows a
typical trajectory with performance improving slowly at
first , followed by more rapid gains (Leonard-Barton
1988). In the early technology implementation phase,efforts are focused on developing a better understand-
ing of the technology and bringing operational prob-
lems under control. This results in a relatively flat ini-
tial performance trajectory. Similarly, the early work
team implementation phase involves developing a team
orientation and addressing difficulties such as conflict
and resistance to teams. As early implementation issues
are resolved, efforts shift to improving the process and
product, resulting in more rapid performance gains.
Further, because the improvements are cumulatively
embedded in the manufacturing process or productitself, the performance gains are sustainable.
The similarities between work teams and technology
cannot completely capture the dynamics of the work
team implementation process. In particular, work
teams are comprised of people and not conventional
artifacts such as tools, machines, or work procedures.
Thus, variations in the trajectory that account for the
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
5/15
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
human aspect of the technology must be considered
as well.
The accumulation of process and product improve-
ments implies that performance always increases over
time. However, decreases in performance often arisefrom difficulties in implementation because of initial
characteristics of the work team. One common difficul-
ty in work team implementation is conflict among
team members. Conflict has multiple dimensions,
including relationship, task, and process conflict.
Relationship conflict involves difficulties with interper-
sonal relationships. Task conflict focuses on the content
and the goals of the work, and process conflict focuses
on how tasks are to be accomplished. Relationship con-
flict, rather than moderate levels of task or process con-
flict, leads to degradation in performance (Amason1996; Jehn 1997). In fact, task and process conflict,
properly channeled, can be beneficial to performance.
Another source of difficulty in implementation stems
from resistance to work teams. The effect of resistance
is greater on smaller teams, as it is more likely that an
individuals resistance will have a negative effect on the
teams performance (Kirkman and Shapiro 1997).
Bringing these difficulties under control enables the
work team to concentrate on the performance improve-
ment task.
The dynamics that give rise to the relatively slowrate of initial performance gains are informed by a
number of sequential and iterative team development
frameworks, the most well-known being Tuckmans
sequential framework with forming, storming, norm-
ing, and performing phases (Tuckman 1965; Weingart
1997). The forming, storming, and norming phases, in
which a team orientation is developed, precede the per-
forming phase, during which substantial performance
gains are made. Similarly, in Garvins organizational
learning framework, cognitive and behavioral changes
that promote organizational learning are antecedentsto performance gains (Garvin 1993). However, team
members may have developed a team orientation
and/or made the necessary cognitive and behavioral
changes prior to work team introduction through pre-
existing relationships with each other, other workers in
the plant, and management, resulting in earlier perfor-
mance gains. Such would be the case if individuals on
a production line with an informal culture of collabo-
ration were subsequently formed into a work team.
Another initial characteristic of the work team envi-
ronment is the room for improvement, which refers to
the number of possible improvement ideas, how easilyidentifiable they are, and their potential impact. It has
components that are both external and internal to the
team. Externally, it represents the gap between current
performance and potential performance, with prior
performance improvement efforts affecting the size of the
gap. Internally, it reflects the team members knowledge
of improvement opportunities and how the search for
ideas is framed (Nutt 1998). Additionally, the teams abil-
ity to identify and implement improvement opportunities
is related to its technical and problem-solving skills.
Environments with considerable room for improve-mentin both the external and internal sense
provide favorable conditions for improving quality.
A listing and hypothesized effects of these init ial
characteristics on the timing and magnitude of the
quality performance trajectory can be found in Table 1.
They are summarized in proposition P3.
P3: The initial characteristics of the work team at
the time of its formation affect the timing and magni-
tude of quality performance gains and moderate the
relationship between the quality improvement process
and sustainability of quality performance gains.Researchers have also studied the effect of certain
organizational practices, such as the reward system,
job security, and unionization, on work team success.
Somewhat surprisingly, studies have shown that the
effect of these practices on work team success is mini-
mal. From an implementation standpoint, this is
good news because it suggests that work teams can be
successfully implemented in diverse organizational
contexts. Specifically,
The argument for team-based compensation is that
it aligns rewards with the task (Wageman and Baker1997; Pfeffer 1998a). However, work teams have
been found to function effectively under a variety of
reward systems (Symons and Jacobs 1995).
Job security is often touted as a characteristic feature
of successful participatory firms because workers are
unlikely to cooperate in increasing performance if
they fear losing their jobs as a result (Levine and
www.asq.org 33
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
6/15
34 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
Tyson 1990, 183243; Pfeffer 1998b). Other studies
have found no relationship between provision of
work force securi ty and employee involvement
(McLachlin 1997). Similarly, in the case of Rohm
and Haas Kentucky, a plant that had experienced
significant layoffs and had no formal job security,
work teams were successfully implemented. A likely
explanation is that the credible threat of a plantwideshutdown convinced workers that changes, such as
work teams, were necessary to improve plant perfor-
mance (Gupta and Ash 1994; Repenning 2000).
Studies indicate that the implementation and suc-
cess of work teams does not depend on the presence
or absence of a union (Osterman 1994). However,
cooperative relationships between the unions and
management tend to ease the transition to work
teams (Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford 1992).
DESIGN AND MANAGEMENTOF THE WORK TEAMIMPLEMENTATION PROCESSHow can work teams be designed and managed for sus-
tainable quality performance gains? Design decisions
create the conditions for a successful work team imple-
mentation. However, the ongoing management of the
work team implementation process is critical for pre-
venting or resolving early implementation difficulties
and maintaining the momentum of performance gains.
Design DecisionsDesign decisions follow from the need for substantive
participation and institutionalization. Decision-mak-
ing authority promotes both substantive participation
and institutionalization by linking idea generation and
implementation in order to translate ideas into action.
The link can take various forms, including direct
implementation authority by the work team, access to
standard procedures for making changes such as the
capital budgeting process, or the creation of new proce-dures such as a review committee. Regardless of the
specific form of the link, the work team should have
significant input into, and influence over, the imple-
mentation decision. Further, the effectiveness of the
decision-making and implementation processes is
increased if team members have the appropriate tech-
nical and problem-solving skills for identifying and
evaluating process and product improvement ideas.
What other issues should be considered when deter-
mining the composition of a production work team?
Membership of the team includes the production work-ers involved in the manufacturing process in order to
capitalize on their collective experience and ideas. Even
if all members do not participate equally, inclusive
membership provides opportunities for input by each
member, and this increases support or, at least, accep-
tance of decisions and their implementation. Mandatory
and inclusive membership clearly defines performance
Table 1 Effect of key initial characteristicsand implementation decisions onthe timing and magnitude of QualityPerformance Gains.
Timing Magnitude
Initial characteristics:
Relationship conflict (if not resolved)
Resistance to teams (if not resolved)
Preexisting relationships/team orientation +
Technical/ + +problem-solving skills
Room for improvement +
Implementation decisions:
Conflict management training +
Information sharing + +
Promoting positive team + +processes focused on theperformance task
Development of a +team orientation
Problem-solving training + +20
01,ASQ
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
7/15
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
improvement as a job responsibility and helps to insti-
tutionalize work teams as the method for achieving it.
However, a drawback of inclusive membership is that it
imposes constraints on the size and composition of the
work team that can be detrimental to problem-solvingand decision-making processes if the team becomes too
large. Splitting the manufacturing process into multiple
smaller processes helps manage the size of the team
while maintaining inclusiveness.
In addition to the production workers, the team
may include members such as a facilitator and other
professionals. A facilitator can play a key role in the
functioning of the work team, especially during the
early implementation period, by developing problem-
solving and decision-making skills and acting as a
conduit between the work team and management forobtaining resources and information. Without a facili-
tator, many work teams falter, not because of a lack of
ideas, but because effective team processes are never
established. Teams often benefit from including other
professionals, such as production engineers, with expe-
rience in implementation and access to resources that
ease direct implementation. Including supervisors or
other managers has the same effect, but role conflict
can adversely affect team functioning.
Design decisions also include the level and type of
management involvement and support. Visible man-agement involvement and support are especially
important in the start-up period for institutionalization
to take hold, with less direct intervention needed over
time (Katzenbach and Smith 1993). However, the level
of management involvement should convey an ongo-
ing commitment to work teams, but the degree of
involvement can vary from actual participation on a
consistent or occasional basis to a periodic review of the
teams activities or project presentations. Management
support includes articulating a clear purpose and goals
and providing tangible resources such as relevantinformation, meeting times, a facilitator, and financial
support. In particular, sufficient resources should be
targeted to achieving early successes to help build con-
fidence in and commitment to work teams.
The decision to introduce work teams frequently
triggers a reevaluation of the compensation system.
Proponents of team-based compensation systems argue
that it is essential for promoting a team orientation to the
performance improvement task. However, compensation
decisions are highly constrained in many production
environments, especially those with unions, thus limiting
options. At a minimum, the compensation system shouldnot provide a disincentive to teamwork even if it is not
explicitly team-based.
Managing theImplementation ProcessUnderstanding how the characteristics of the work team
and production environment impact the performance
trajectory helps to guide management expectations and
suggests approaches to improving performance out-comes. Expectations of immediate performance results
are inconsistent with the way teams develop over time
and often result in premature decisions to abolish
promising teams. In addition, many of these character-
istics can be influenced through proactive management
of the implementation process.
Roles on a production work team differ from those
in a traditional production environment, with differ-
ences in both the task and skills needed. For example,
competence in a production task does not necessarily
translate to competence in team problem solving; thesame is true for high performance as an individual ver-
sus high performance as a team member. The change
in roles during the implementation of work teams cre-
ates the potential for conflict and resistance to teams
that detract from improvement efforts and limit the
performance impact.
Managing the work team implementation process
for sustainable performance gains involves focusing
the team on the performance improvement task by:
addressing conflict and resistance to teams; promoting
positive team processes; and continuously improvingteam effectiveness.
Relationship conflict is detrimental to team perfor-
mance, but task and process conflict can actually serve
a useful purpose. Thus, the source of the conflict deter-
mines the appropriate response. Addressing relation-
ship conflict includes efforts to first reduce the degree of
conflict and then deal with remaining conflict in a way
www.asq.org 35
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
8/15
36 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
that doesnt detract from the functioning of the work
team (Lau and Murnighan 1998). Teams benefit from
training in conflict management to reduce the level of
relationship conflict. In addition, relationship conflict
can be managed by setting and enforcing guidelinesfor team interactions that focus discussions on improv-
ing performance. Moderate levels of task and process
conflict are beneficial to team functioning, but will
degenerate into relationship conflict if not properly
managed. Channeling task and process conflict
involves shifting the emphasis from the conflict itself to
incorporating the heterogeneity of perspectives into the
problem-solving and decision-making processes.
Resistance to work teams arises from both natural
uneasiness with organizational change and in response
to associating the introduction of work teams withother failed management initiatives. As with other
organizational changes, information about the change
and involvement in its implementation lowers resis-
tance. A more insidious problem is the association of
work teams with other failed management initiatives
and the perception of work teams as just another fad.
Clear and consistent management support helps dispel
these suspicions, and as teams become institutionalized
over time, these sources of resistance diminish.
Focusing the team on the performance improve-
ment task also involves developing a team orientationthat is often at odds with the individual orientation in
many traditional production environments. A team ori-
entation requires shared goals, a common approach,
and skills such as team decision making. Reducing
relationship conflict is helpful, but personal relation-
ships among the team members are not necessary for
developing a team orientation. Rather, a team orienta-
tion suggests the ability to function as a team, instead
of as a group of individuals, and concentrate on the
team task.
Once the work team is focused on the performanceimprovement task, the implementation process can be
managed to continuously improve team effectiveness
and increase the performance impact. This is done by
increasing the quantity and quality of improvement
ideas and expanding the room for improvement.
Production workers are an important but underuti-
lized source of process and product improvement ideas,
and the introduction of work teams provides an outlet
for worker participation. However, teams need help
channeling worker participation to increase the quan-
tity and quality of improvement ideas. Team problem-
solving training provides the skills to systematicallyidentify, evaluate, and implement process and product
improvement ideas. More and better ideas aid the deci-
sion-making process and increase the potential perfor-
mance impact.
The room for improvement reflects fundamental
differences in products, processes, and skills of the work
team members. The rate of performance improvement
for labor-intensive operations is often greater than for
capital-intensive operations (Yelle 1979). However, this
gap closes when workers on capital-intensive production
lines understand the technology itself and are better ableto contribute to process and product improvements
(Baloff 1966). A match between workers technical and
problem-solving skills and the production environment
expands the room for improvement, because the number
of possible improvement ideas and how easy they are to
identify is partially dependent on the ability of the team
members to recognize improvement opportunities (Roth
and Jackson 1995; Nutt 1998).
The relationship between the workers skills and the
technology is driven by the process design and the tech-
nical skills needed to operate the equipment. In fact,often the more sophisticated, automated machines
require operators to perform relatively unskilled tasks,
such as supplying parts to the machine. In this case,
workers are likely to be lacking in the technical skills
necessary for significant performance gains.
Management of the work team implementation process
involves recognizing and addressing such initial con-
straints on performance gains through appropriate
training or adding team members to include the neces-
sary technical skills.
Much can be done to manage the work team imple-mentation process to achieve improved results. Yet dif-
ferences among work teams in terms of the levels of
conflict and resistance, capital intensity, skills, and so
on, suggest varying strategies for focusing the team on
the performance improvement task and improving
team effectiveness. Understanding how work team
characteristics affect the quality performance trajectory
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
9/15
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
also helps to temper expectations of immediate perfor-
mance gains and provides guidelines for evaluating the
rate of improvement over time. Further, if management
is unwilling or unable to take steps to proactively man-
age the implementation process, expectations of perfor-mance gains after work team implementation should
be set accordingly.
Table 1 includes the hypothesized effects of these
implementation decisions on the timing and magni-
tude of the quality performance trajectory. They are
summarized in proposition P4.
P4: Work team implementation decisions affect
the timing and magnitude of quality performance
gains and moderate the relationship between the
quality improvement process and sustainability of
quality performance gains.
PRODUCTION WORK TEAMS ATA MOTOR MANUFACTURER
A longitudinal study of four production work teams in
a unionized plant demonstrates how management of
the work team implementation process and differences
among the teams affect quality performance outcomes.
This study was conducted as part of a larger collabora-
tive effort between the plant and a team of university
researchers (professors and graduate students).
Management was interested in better understanding
the drivers of plant performance and asked the
researchers to assess the impact of certain initiatives
undertaken in the plant. Among the initiatives was the
introduction of work teams in a production area that
manufactures a series of small motors used in industri-
al and residential applications. This initiative became
the focus of the in-depth longitudinal study described
here. In addition to quantitative data, the research
team collected qualitative data (for example, inter-
views) on the work teams and the production environ-
ment to better understand the context in which theteams operate and to aid interpretation of quantitative
analyses. Personnel at all levels of the plant were inter-
viewed in order to provide differing perspectives on the
introduction and outcomes of work teams. The teams
were followed over a suffic iently long period, nearly
three years with a follow-up one year later, to observe
their long-term impact.
Each work team includes workers from one produc-
tion line, as well as the production engineer assigned to
the line, the production planner, the plant manager,
and a facilitator. The teams correspond to the threemajor components of the motorthe submotor, gear
train, and printed circuit boardas well as the final
assembly line. The teams meet for approximately one
hour each week to discuss and follow up on proposed
operational improvements, in particular, quality
improvements.
The teams were designed with certain characteris-
tics that promote both institutionalization and sub-
stantive participation. Management assigns high prior-
ity to team meetings, with team membership andattendance mandatory. The work teams are authorized
to directly implement improvements within a certain
dollar limit that, in fact, covers a significant number of
ideas for operational improvements. Expenditures
above the limit continue to be handled by the plants
usual operating procedures, such as the capital budget-
ing process, that can be initiated by the team.
www.asq.org 37
Table 2 Production line characteristics.Produc t divers ity Cap ital/labor intens ity Labor ski lls to technology match
Submotor line Low Medium/medium Medium
Gear train line Medium High/medium High
Printed circuit board line High High/low Low
Final assembly line High Low/high Medium2001,ASQ
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
10/15
38 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
With respect to the production environment, the
characteristics of the production lines varied, especially
in terms of products, capital and labor intensity, and
labor skills. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics by
line. The submotor line has the lowest product diversitywith a mix ture of highly automated proc esses and
manual processing. The gear train line consists of two
areas, machining and assembly, with trained machin-
ists in the machining area and a few other workers in
the automated assembly area. The printed circuit board
line is the most capital-intensive production line in the
plant. The workers are primarily involved in inspecting
the completed boards. The final assembly line is the
most labor-intensive in the plant. Product diversity on
this line is high, because the end product is assembled
from various combinations of the more standard inputsfrom the three subassembly lines.
According to the facilitator, the four months follow-
ing the introduction of work teams involved establish-
ing trust between production workers and management.
Quality performance improvement initiatives were
limited and primarily addressed concerns most relevant
to individual workers, such as the need for new chairs
and tools for a particular workstation. The responsibility
for resolving these issues was usually given to a produc-
tion engineer or the plant manager. This reflected the
workers skepticism of yet another program and man-agements actual commitment to work teams. However,
the facilitator viewed the limited initiatives as an oppor-
tunity to elicit managerial support at a low cost,
increase visibility of the work teams, and help establish
trust between the production workers and management.
From the perspective of the production workers, imple-
mentation of the early ideas indicated a commitment to
work teams by management. In addition, the facilitator
actively touted the accomplishments of the work teams,
resulting in further management support.
Another issue that surfaced soon after the introduc-tion of work teams was conflict within the teams. The
amount of conflict varied by team. The facilitator cited
the submotor team, in particular, as one that had a
high level of initial conflict, mostly related to personal-
ity clashes, some of which persisted throughout the
study period. On the other hand, in keeping with the
pre-team character of the working group on the gear
train line, relations among the team members were
congenial. Conflict levels of the other two teams fell
between these extremes.
After the first few months devoted primarily to trust
building and conflict resolution, the facilitator made aconcerted effort to get the work teams focused on solving
problems. For six months, all members of the four teams
went through a 10-module toolkit training specifically
aimed at improving team functioning through discus-
sions, exercises, and role-playing. The modules are listed
in Table 3. As new workers later joined the team, they
were trained in the toolkit modules.
Once the team decided to pursue a particular quality
improvement idea, it was entered into an action log
listing the date the item was submitted, the problem
and/or plan of action, the person(s) submitting theitem, the person(s) responsible for addressing the item,
the target date for resolution, the current status, and
the completion date. After finishing the 10-module
toolkit training, the orientation of the issues in the
action log began to shift from individual (local) con-
cerns to team level (systemic) issues. Table 4 includes
representative examples of action log entries both
before and after training. After the training, some items
Table 3 Team training modules.
1. Vision of a competitive factory with a future, andvalues rel ated to people, customer, quali ty, safety ,and competitiveness
2. Mutual goals, interdependent working relationships,and commitment to the group effort
3. Organizing effective meetings
4. Defining team goals and purpose
5. Understanding self and others
6. Providing constructive feedback
7. Reviewing team processes
8. Providing constructive feedback
9. Benefits of having conflicts and techniques forconflict resolution
10. The process of problem solving2001,ASQ
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
11/15
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
were still assigned to the production engineer or plant
manager, but an increasing number of items were
assigned to individual workers or the team as a whole.
The design of the work teams as an institutionalized
form of substantive participation enabled the teams to
both generate and ensure the implementation of
improvement ideas. The items, such as those in Table4, were permanent changes in the production process,
resulting in sustainable quality performance improve-
ment. However, the narrowly focused pre-training items
had a much smaller effect on quality improvement
than the more systemic post-training items. This is
reflected in observed differences in the rate of improve-
ment between the pre- and post-training trajectories
the post-training trajectories being much steeper than
the pre-team trajectories.
Study ResultsThe researchers collected quantitative data by team
over a period of nearly three years from the plants pro-
duction, quality, personnel, and accounting records.
The data included information on work team introduc-
tion, quality performance outcomes, and other control
factors likely to affect these outcomes. This was supple-
mented with qualitative data from direct observation
and interviews with the plant manager, team facilitator,
quality and production engineers, and production
workers. From a research perspective, it was fortunate
that the only major initiative undertaken during this
period was the introduction of work teams. Thus, iso-
lating the effect of work teams on quality performancewas straightforward. Once the data were collected, it
was analyzed using an econometric model that reflects
the process flows.
In order to assess the effect of work teams on quality
performance, any preexisting performance trends must
be taken into account. For example, if quality was
improving prior to work team introduction at the same
rate as after team introduction, then the improvement
cannot be attributed to the efforts of the work team.
However, for the five months prior to work team intro-
duction, all of the quality performance trajectories wereeither flat or slightly worsening. Over a period of 28
months following work team introduction, three of the
four teams achieved substantial quality improvements,
and the quality level stabilized and slightly improved
on the printed circuit board line. These results provide
strong evidence that the work teams were responsible
for the quality gains. Table 5 is a comparison of pre-
www.asq.org 39
Table 4 Representative action log entries.
Before team training After team training
Individual workstation adjustments Revising the parts ordering system
Tool repair/replacement Increased training on specialized equipment to reduce defects
Housekeeping items Layout changes to improve process flow2001,ASQ
Table 5 Estimated pre- and post-team quality performance trajectories.
Submotor Gear train Printed circuit Finalline line board line assembly line
Pre -team qua li ty per formance t rend S ligh t No change S ligh t No change(5 months prior to team implementation) worsening worsening
Post-team quality performance improvement 57% 58% Slight 70%(28 months after team implementation) improvement improvement improvement* improvement
* The overall improvement was relatively small and not statistically significant.2001,AS
Q
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
12/15
40 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
and post-team quality performance by team, with qual-
ity performance measured as the defect rate. A discus-
sion of the specific team trajectories follows.
As predicted, based on the design and implementa-
tion of work teams as an institutionalized form of sub-stantive participation, all four teams exhibited eventual
quality gains that were sustained over the study period
and continued to be sustained a year after the end of
the study. From an analysis of the action logs, most of
the quality performance gains occurred after the com-
pletion of the toolkit training and as systemic (rather
than local) process improvement ideas were being
implemented. The timing of the quality performance
gains as well as the sustainability of the gains on all
four production lines support the proposit ions (P1,
P2a, and P2b) that the work team design and theimplementation of systemic improvement ideas lead to
sustainable quality improvement.
The individual trajectories of performance improve-
ment reflect the differences in the work teams and their
production environments. For example, the early rate
of performance improvement for the submotor team
was negligible, consistent with the facilitators observa-
tion that this team had a high level of initial conflict
that adversely affected its performance. Eventually, the
team shifted its focus to the improvement task and
realized sizeable performance gains. This supports thehypothesis (Table 1) that initial relationship conflict
slows the timing of quality performance gains.
In another example, while both the gear train and
printed circuit board lines are highly capital-intensive,
only the gear train line showed significant quality
gains after the introduction of work teams. This can be
explained by the difference in workers technical skills
between the two lines. The team members from the
gear train line are trained machinists who are knowl-
edgeable about the equipment. On the other hand, the
printed circuit board workers are minimally involvedwith the operation of the equipment. Consistent with
this, the focus of the printed circuit board action log
items was more on immediate problem resolution than
actual process improvements. This supports the
hypotheses (Table 1) that technical and problem-
solving skills accelerate the timing and increase the
magnitude of quality performance gains. The failure of
the printed circuit board team to achieve significant
quality gains also reinforces the importance of a
process (systemic) focus when implementing quality
improvement ideasas suggested in proposition 2b.
The outcomes in Table 5 were shaped not only bythe design and initial characteristics of the teams, but
also by the management of the work team implemen-
tation process. In general, the facilitator viewed her role
as one of removing obstacles and focusing the team on
generating and implementing process and product
improvements. Certain initial characteristics, such as
the level of conflict and resistance to teams, were
addressed. In retrospect, the facilitator indicated that
she would have started the toolkit training sooner to
alleviate some of the early implementation problems.
With regard to the high level of relationship conflict onthe submotor team, she believed that early conflict
management training would have reduced conflict
sooner, but warned against prematurely moving
beyond conflict resolution efforts at the risk of having
the conflict reemerge later. Another example of remov-
ing obstacles was creating a process for handling nui-
sance items, such as broken chairs and tools, which
occupied the efforts of the teams early on. The team
instituted an off-line process for addressing these prob-
lems, thereby increasing the opportunities for dis-
cussing more substantial improvement ideas duringthe meetings. These actions lend support to the
hypotheses (Table 1) that promoting positive team
processes focused on the performance task accelerates
the timing and increases the magnitude of quality
performance gains.
Other initial conditions were either desirable or dif-
ficult to change. For example, the workers on the gear
train line had an informal culture of collaboration and
a strong team orientation prior to the work team intro-
duction. Also, the production engineer and workers on
the final assembly line were able to maintain theirgood pre-team working relationship, which involved
working together to resolve immediate problems. Thus,
both teams realized early quality performance gains
supporting the positive effect of preexisting relation-
ships/team orientation on the timing of the gains
(Table 1). On the other hand, the skill level of the
workers on the printed circuit board line reflected the
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
13/15
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
requirements of the process and equipment, which did
not require workers highly skilled with respect to the
technology. As a result, few process improvements were
implemented following work team implementation.
This reflects the lack of internal room for improve-ment that decreases the magnitude of quality perfor-
mance gains (Table 1). In all three cases, recognizing
these initial characteristics informed expectations of
the quality trajectories.
CONCLUSIONManufacturers are introducing production work teams
to advance worker participation and realize quality
performa nce ga ins th rough the genera tion and
implementation of process and product improvementideas. The connection between worker participation and
performance is formed through the design and manage-
ment of the work team implementation process.
Moreover, the success of a work team is measured not
only by initial quality performance gains, but also by the
sustainability of these gains over time. Specifically,
sustainability requires that benefits accrue to the process
or product and are cumulative over time.
The two key design features that promote sustain-
ability of quality performance improvements are
1. Substantive participation. Substantive, rather thanconsultative, participation ensures that improve-
ment ideas are implemented and accrue to the
pr oc es s or pr od uc t. Su bs ta nt iv e pa rt ic ip at io n
requires a means, such as direct implementation
authority by the work team, access to standard pro-
cedures for making changes, or the creation of new
procedures, to translate improvement ideas into
action.
2. Institutionalization of work teams. Institutional-
ization promotes continuity of the work team and
an increase in performance gains over time.Mandatory team membership and management
involvement and support advance institutionaliza-
tion by securing the role of work teams in operations
and providing the resources for teams to succeed.
Visible management involvement and support is
especially important during the start-up period for
institutionalization to take hold. However, recogniz-
ing that institutionalization occurs over time, man-
agement involvement and support is also necessary
on an ongoing basis.
Design decisions create the conditions for sustain-
able quality gains, but the work team implementationproces s mus t be managed to reinforce substantive
participation and aid institu tionalization of teams.
Efforts to reduce conflict and resistance to teams and
promote posit ive team processes enables substantive
participation by focusing the team on the performance
improvement task. Once the team is focused on the
performance improvement ta sk, improving te am
effectiveness further strengthens substantive participa-
tion and institutionalization. Although the discussion of
focusing the team on the performance improvement
task and continuously improving team effectiveness waspresented as a sequential process, in reality, the process
is often iterative, with refocusing efforts, such as
additional training, needed over time.
The actual quality performance trajectory for each
team is affected by the particular characteristics of the
team and its production environment. These character-
istics can often be influenced by the design and man-
agement of the work team implementation process,
and addressed to improve performance outcomes. For
example, training in team problem solving provided
skills in identifying and implementing improvementideas for greater performance gains.
At the least, understanding how the characteristics
of a work team and its production environment can
either promote or inhibit sustainable performance
gains helps to manage expectations about quality per-
formance outcomes following work team implementa-
tion. But by taking a proactive approach, much can be
done to design and manage the work team implemen-
tation process to obtain the potential benefits of worker
participation and achieve better and faster results.
Although the insights presented here are based onlongitudinal research on production work teams with a
performance improvement mandate, they are likely to
be applicable to a wider range of work teams. For
example, other production work teamssuch as self-
managing teamsare primarily responsible for day-
to-day process management. However, self-managing
teams also engage in performance improvement activi-
www.asq.org 41
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
14/15
42 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
ties. One direction for future research is to examine the
sustainability of quality performance gains and the
timing and magnitude of the quality trajectories for
production work teams with a lesser emphasis on per-
formance improvements. Related research questionsare: Does the lesser emphasis on performance improve-
ments result in slower and/or fewer quality gains? Or
do their primary activities actually support and
enhance performance improvement efforts? What is the
effect on sustainability? Another area for future
research is to extend the research beyond manufactur-
ing to service environments: Are the effects of design
and implementation decisions and initial characteris-
tics similar to those in manufacturing environments?
Finally, larger scale studies of production work teams
with dif ferent des ign , ini tia l, and imp lementat ioncharacteristics are needed to better understand the
direct and interaction effects on quality gains. Clearly,
the pervasiveness of work teams in manufacturing and
service industries necessitates a better understanding of
how to make all work teams as effective as possible.
REFERENCES
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the eff ects of functional anddysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving aparadox for top management teams. Academy of Management
Journal (February): 123148.
Baloff, N. 1966. The learning curveSome controversial issues.Journal of Indust rial Economics (July): 275282.
Banker, R. D., J. M. Field, R. G. Schroeder, and K. K. Sinha.1996. Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: Alongitudinal field study. Ac ademy of Management Journa l(August): 867 890.
Boyett, J. H., and H. P. Conn. 1991. Workplace 2000: The revo-lution reshaping American business. New York: Penguin Books.
Cole, R. E. 1998. Learning from the quality movement: What didand didnt happen and why? California Management Review(fall): 43 73.
Cool, K. O., and C. A. Lengnick-Hall. 1985. Second thoughts onthe transferabi l i ty of the Japanese management s tyle .Organization Studies (January): 1 22.
Cotton, J. L., D. A. Vollrath, K. L. Froggatt, M. L. Lengnick-Hall,and K. R. Jennings. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse formsand different outcomes. Ac adem y of Mana geme nt Re vi ew(January): 8 22.
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. M., M. Nitta, B. Barrett, N. Belhedi, J.Bullard, C. Coutchie, T. Inaba, I. Ishino, S. Lee, W. Lin, W.
Mothersell, S. Rabine, S. Ramanand, M. Strolle, and A.Wheaton. 1994. Japanese team-based work systems in NorthAm eri ca : Explaini ng the di ve rs it y. California ManagementReview(fall): 42 64.
Doeringer, P. B., C. Evans-Klock, and D. G. Terkla. 1998.
Hybrids or hodgepodges? Workplace practices of Japanese anddomestic startups in the United States. Industrial and LaborRelations Review(January): 171186.
Gaetner, K. N., and S. D. Nollen. 1989. The effects of employeerelations practices on work unit effectiveness. Research in theSociology of Organizations 7:145171.
Garvin, D. A. 1986. Quality problems, policies, and attitudes inthe United States and Japan: An exploratory study. Academy ofManagement Journal(October): 653673.
. 1993. Building a learning organization. HarvardBusiness Review (JulyAugust): 7889.
Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group
effectiveness. Admin ist rat ive Sci enc e Qua rterl y (December):499517.
Griffin, R. W. 1988. Consequences of quality circles in an indus-trial setting: A longitudinal assessment. Academy of Management
Journal (June): 338 358.
Gupta, Y. P., and D. Ash. 1994. Excellence at Rohm and HaasKentucky: A case study of work-team introduction in manufactur-ing. Product ion and Operat ions Management(summer):186200.
Ichniowski, C., and K. Shaw. 1999. The effects of humanresource management systems on economic performance: Aninternat ional compar ison of U.S. and Japanese plants.
Management Science(May): 704 721.Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qual itati ve analysis of conf lict types anddimensions in organizational groups. Admini str ati ve ScienceQuarterly(September): 530557.
Katzenbach, J. R., and D. K. Smith. 1993. Wisdom of teams.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Keys, J. B., and T. R. Miller. 1984. The Japanese managementtheory jungle . Ac ad em y of Ma na ge me nt Re vi ew (Apr i l ) :342353.
Kirkman, B. L., and D. L. Shapiro. 1997. The impact of culturalvalues on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of glob-alized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of
Management Review(July): 730 757.Latham, G. P., and T. P. Steele. 1983. The motivational effects ofparticipation versus goal setting on performance. Academy ofManagement Journal(September): 406417.
Lau, D. C., and J. K. Murnighan. 1998. Demographic diversityand fault lines: The compositional dynamics of organizationalgroups.Academy of Management Review(April): 325 340.
Lawler, E. E., III, and S. A. Mohrman. 1987. Quality circles: Afterthe honeymoon. Organizational Dynamics (spring): 4255.
-
7/31/2019 Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
15/15
Beyond Design: Implementing Effective Production Work Teams
Lawler, E. E., III, S. A. Mohrman, and G. E. Ledford. 1992.Employee involvement and total quality management: Practices andresults in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leana, C. R., E. A. Locke, and D. M. Schweiger. 1990. Fact andfiction in analyzing research on participative decision making: A
critique of Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, andJennings .Academy of Management Review(January): 137146.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1988. Implementation as mutual adaptationof technology and organization. Research Policy (October):251267.
Levine, D. I., and L. D. Tyson. 1990. Participation, productivity,and the firms environment. In Paying for productivity: A look atthe evidence, edited by Alan Blinder. Washington, D.C.: TheBrookings Institution.
Lincoln, J. R., and A. L. Kalleberg. 1996. Commitment, quits, andwork organization in Japanese and U.S. plant s. Industrial andLabor Relations Review(October): 3959.
Locke, E. A., and D. M. Schweiger. 1979. Participation in deci-sion-making: One more look. Research in OrganizationalBehavior1:265339.
McLachlin, R. 1997. Management initiatives and just-in-timemanufacturing.Journal of Operations Management (December):271292.
Miller, K. I., and P. R. Monge. 1986. Participation, satisfaction,and product ivi ty: A meta-analyt ic review. Aca de my ofManagement Journal(December): 727753.
Mohrman, S. A., and L. Novelli, Jr. 1985. Beyond testimonials:Learning f rom a qual i ty ci rc les programme. Jo ur nal ofOccupational Behaviour6, no. 2:93 110.
Nutt, P. 1998. Framing strategic decisions. Organization Science(March April): 195 216.
Osterman, P. 1994. How common is workplace transformationand who adopts it? Industrial and Labor Relations Review(January): 173188.
Pfeffer, J. 1998a. Six dangerous myths about pay. HarvardBusiness Review(MayJune): 109 119.
. 1998b. Seven practices of successful organizations.California Management Review(winter): 96 124.
Repenning, N. P. 2000. Drive out fear (unless you can drive itin): The role of agency and job security in process improvement.
Management Science(November): 13851396.
Roth, A. V., and W. Jackson. 1995. Strategic determinants ofservice quality and performance: Evidence from the bankingindustry. Management Science(November): 17201733.
Symons, R. T., and R. A. Jacobs. 1995. A total quality manage-ment-based incentive system supporting total quality manage-ment implementation. Production and Operations Management(summer): 228241.
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin (June): 384399.
Wageman, R., and G. Baker. 1997. I ncentives and cooperation:The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on groupperformance. Journ al of Organiza tional Behavior (March):
139158.
Wagner, J. A., III. 1994. Participations effects on performanceand satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence.
Academy of Management Review (April) : 312 330.
Wein gart , L. R. 1997. How did the y do tha t? The ways andmeans of studying group process. Research in OrganizationalBehavior19:189239.
Yelle, L. E. 1979. The learning curve: Historical rev iew and com-prehensive survey. Decision Sciences (April): 302 328.
Young, S. M. 1992. A framework for succes sful adopt ion andperformance of Japanese manufacturing practices in the UnitedStates.Academy of Management Review(October): 677700.
BIOGRAPHY
Joy M. Fie ld is an assistant professor of operations managementat the Wallace E. Carroll School of Management at BostonCollege. She earned a Ph.D. in operations management from theUniversity of Minnesota. Her current research interests are workteam implementation, quality management, operations strategy,and service operations.
Field has consulted internationally on work team implementation.She is a member of ASQ. She may be contacted as follows:Department of Operations and Strategic Management, WallaceE. Carrol l School of Management, Boston Col lege, 140
Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467; Telephone: 617-552-0442; Fax: 617-552-0433; E-mail: [email protected] .
www.asq.org 43