Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams

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


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.


3/15


4/15

32 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ


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


5/15


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


6/15

34 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ


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


7/15


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


8/15

36 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ


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


9/15


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


10/15

38 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ


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


11/15


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


12/15

40 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ


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


13/15


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


14/15

42 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 2/ 2001, ASQ


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.


15/15


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

Documents

Beyond Design- Implementing Effective Production Work Teams