Document Sample
TYPES OF TEAMS Powered By Docstoc


Teams can do a variety of things. They can make products, provide services, negotiate deals,
coordinate projects, offer advice, and make decisions.6 In this section we'll describe the four
most common types of teams you're likely to find in an organization: problem-solving teams,
self-managed work teams, cross-fictional teams, and virtual teams (see Exhibit 9-2).
Problem-Solving Teams
If we look back 20 years or so, teams were just beginning to grow in popularity, and most of
those teams took similar form. These were typically composed of 5 to 12 hourly employees from
the same department who met for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality,
efficiency, and the work environment.7 We call these problem-solving teams.
In problem-solving teams,. members share ideas or offer suggestions on how work processes and
methods can be improved. Rarely, however, are these teams given the authority to unilaterally
implement any of their suggested actions.
One of the most widely practiced applications of problem-solving teams during the 1980s was
quality circles.8 As described in Chapter 7, these are work teams of eight to ten employees and
supervisors who have a shared area of responsibility and meet regularly to discuss their quality
problems, investigate causes of the problems, recommend solutions, and take corrective actions.
Self-Managed Work Teams Problem-solving teams were on the right track but they didn't go far
enough in getting employees involved in work-related decisions and processes. This led to ex-
perimentation with truly autonomous teams that could not only solve problems but implement
solutions and take full responsibility for outcomes.
Self-managed work teams are groups of employees (typically 10 to 15 in number) who perform
highly related or interdependent jobs and take on many of the responsibilities of their former
supervisors.9 Typically, this includes planning and scheduling of work,. assigning tasks to
members, collective control over the pace of work, making operating decisions, taking action on
problems, and working with suppliers and customers. Fully self-managed work teams even select
their own members and have the members evaluate each other's performance. As a result, su-
pervisory positions take on decreased importance and may even be eliminated.
A factory at Eaton Corp's Aeroquip Global Hose Division provides an example of how self-
managed teams are being used in industry to Located in the heart of Arkansas' Ozark Mountains,
this factory makes hydraulic hose that is used in trucks, tractors, and other heavy equipment. In
1994, to improve quality and productivity, Eaton. ,Aeroquip's management threw out the
assembly line and organized the plant's 285 workers into more than SO self-managed teams.
Workers were suddenly free to participate in decisions that were previously reserved solely for
management for instance, the teams set their own schedules, selected new members, negotiated
with suppliers, made calls on customers, and disciplined members who created problems. And
the results? Between 1993 and 1999, response time to customer concerns improved 99 percent;
productivity and manufacturing output both increased by more than SO percent; and accident
rates dropped by more than half. Xerox, General Motors, Coors Brewing, PepsiCo, Hewlett-
Packard, Honeywell, M&M/Mars, Aetna Life, and Industrial Light & Magic are just a few
familiar names that have implemented self-managed work teams. Estimates suggest that about 30
percent of U.S. employers now use this form of team; and among large firms, the number is
probably closer to SO percent.
Business periodicals have been chock full of articles describing successful applications of self-
managed teams. But a word of caution needs to be offered. Some organizations have been
disappointed with the results from self-managed teams. For instance, they don't seem to work
well during organizational downsizing. Employees often view cooperating with the team concept
as an exercise in assisting one's own executioner.12 The overall research on the effectiveness of
self managed work teams has not been uniformly positive.13 Moreover, although individuals on
these teams do tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction, they also sometimes have higher
absenteeism and turnover rates. Inconsistency in findings suggests that the effectiveness of self-
managed teams is situationally dependent.14 In addition to downsizing, factors such as the
strength and make-up of team norms, the type of tasks the team undertakes, and the reward
structure can significantly influence how well the team performs. Finally, care needs to be taken
when introducing self-managed teams globally. For instance, evidence suggests that these types
of teams have not fared well in Mexico largely due to that culture's law tolerance of ambiguity
and uncertainty and employees' strong respect for .hierarchical authority.

Cross-Functional Teams
Custom Research Inc., a Minneapolis-based market-research firm, had been historically
organized around functional departments, but senior management concluded that these functional
departments weren't meeting the changing needs of the firm's clients. So management
reorganized Custom Research's 100 employees into account teams.16 The idea behind the teams
was. to have every aspect of a client's work handled within one team rather than by separate
departments. The goal was to improve communication and tracking of work, which would lead
to increased productivity and more satisfied clients.
Custom Research's reorganization illustrates the use of cross-functional teams. These are teams
made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas,
who come together to accomplish a task.
Many organizations have used horizontal, boundary-spanning groups for decades. For example,
IBM created a large task force in the 1960s-made up of employees from across departments in
the company-to develop its highly successful'
                                  OBin the News

System 360. And a task force is really nothing other than a temporary cross-functional team.
Similarly, committees composed of members from across departmental lines are another example
of cross-functional teams. But the popularity of cross . discipline work teams exploded in the
late} 980s. For instance, all the major auto mobile manufacturers-including Toyota, Honda,
Nissan, BMW, GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler-.-currently use this form of team to coordinate
complex projects. Harley-Davidson relies on specific cross-functional teams to manage each line
of Us motorcycles. These teams include Harley employees from design, manufacturing, .and
purchasing, as well as representatives from key outside suppliers. I? And IBM still makes use of
temporary cross-functional teams. Between November 1999 and June 2000, for instance, IBM's
senior management pulled together 21 employees from among its 100,000 information
technology staff to come up with recommendations on how the company can speed up projects
and bring products to market faster. Is The 21 members were selected because they had one
common characteristic-they had all successfully led fast-moving projects. The Speed Team, as
they came to be known, spent eight months sharing experiences, examining differences between
fast-moving projects and slow ones, and eventually generated recommendations on how to speed
up IBM projects.
. Cross-functional teams are an effective means for allowing people from diverse areas within an
organization (or even between organizations) to exchange information, develop new ideas and
solve problems, and coordinate complex projects. Of course, cross-functional teams are no picnic
to manage. Their early stages of development are often very time consuming as members learn to
work with diversity and complexity. It takes time to build trust and teamwork, especially among
people from different backgrounds with different experiences and perspectives.

Virtual Teams
The previous types of teams do their work face-to-face. Virtual teams use computer technology
to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common. goal. 19 They allow
people to collaborate online-using communication links like wide-area networks, video
conferencing, or e-mail-whether they're only a room away or continents apart.
Virtual teams can do all the things that other teams do-share information, make decisions,
complete tasks. And they can include members from the same organization or link an
organization's members with employees from other organizations (Le., suppliers and joint
partners). They can convene for a few days to solve a problem, a few months to complete a
project, or exist permanently.20
The three primary factors that differentiate virtual teams from face-to-face teams are: (1) the
absence of preverbal and nonverbal cues; (2) limited social context; and (3) the ability to
overcome time and space constraints. In face-to-face conversation, people use preverbal tone of
voice, inflection, voice volume) and nonverbal (eye movement, facial expression, hand gestures,
and other body language) cues. These help clarify communication by providing increased
meaning, but aren't available in online interactions. Virtual teams often suffer from less social
rapport and less direct interaction among members. They aren't able to duplicate the normal give
and take of face-to-face discussion. Especially when members haven't personally met, virtual
teams tells to be more task-oriented and exchange less social-emotional information. Not
surprisingly, virtual team members report less satisfaction with the group interaction process
than do face-to-face teams. Finally, virtual teams are able to do their work even if members are
thousands of miles apart and separated by a dozen or more time zones. It allows people to work
together who might otherwise never be able to collaborate.
Companies like Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Ford, VeriFone, and Royal Dutch/Shell have become
heavy users of virtual teams. VeriFone, for instance, is a California based maker of computerized
swipe machines that read credit card information. Yet the use of virtual teams allows its 3,000
employees, who are located all around the globe, to work together on design projects, marketing
plans, and making sales presentations. Moreover, VeriFone has found that virtual teams provide
strong recruiting inducements. Says a VeriFone vice president, "We don't put relocation re-
quirements on people. If a person enjoys living in Colorado and can do the job in virtual space,.
we're not intimidated by that."21


Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work. Teams, for instance,
have increased communication demands, conflicts to be managed, and meetings to be run. So the
benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs. And that's not always the case. In the
excitement to enjoy the benefits of teams, some managers have introduced them into situations in
which the work:

Shared By: