Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
1
IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT-LEVEL SELF-MANAGED WORK TEAMS
By
Fred Cheyunski,
Lori Feehan & Barbara Kelly
Draft of Paper Delivered and Included in the Proceedings of the
1992 Organization Development Network
National Conference
Toronto, Canada
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
2
IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT-LEVEL SELF-MANAGED WORK TEAMS
By Fred Cheyunski, Lori Feehan & Barbara Kelly
Because of accelerating change and heightened economic pressures, corporate executives in
many industries are seeking new approaches and tools which will help their companies better
compete in national and global markets. Such inquiry led the executives of Warner-Lambert
Company's Consumer Health Products Group to sponsor a pilot project to design and implement
management-level self-managed work teams in one of the organization's four Marketing
Categories.
In this paper, the authors explain the introduction of a team-based structure to replace the
traditional functional hierarchy in running this $150 million category. After a brief history, the
paper briefly
describes each of the following phases in the project: (1) the development of the initial
strategy and top management acceptance, (2) the organization design process, (3) the team
start-up, (4) the fully operational team structure, and (5) the on-going refinement and extension
of the team approach. At the end of each section, issues faced during that phase are summarized
including such items as business environment and staff changes. Finally, the paper discusses
learnings from the overall process to date including the similarities and differences with
manufacturing and "white collar" applications.
BRIEF HISTORY
In the summer of 1990, the Group President wanted to find an alternative organization
structure which removed barriers to communication among separate functional departments,
and sped decision making to improve business performance. He tasked the Group OD Director
with researching self-managed work teams in other companies and developing a strategy for their
application in the Consumer Health Products Group (CHPG). This strategy was presented to the
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
3
President and his staff in a series of meetings in the winter of 1990. Within these meetings, the
staff refined the strategy and developed guidelines for a group to design a team-based
organization in one of the marketing categories.
The Executive staff commissioned the Design Team, which was a cross-functional group
of 13 people from a wide range of grade levels, to produce an alternative organizational
structure for the category during the spring of 1991. Subsequently, the President and his staff
approved their redesign, consisting of four interlinking teams---a Business Team and three
Operating Teams, and appointed the proposed Business Team members.
During the summer of 1991, the Business Team completed the selection of Operating Team
members and planning for team start-up with a new OD Director. In the fall, the teams
participated in initial orientation and started operating on a full-time basis by winter. As spring
1992 progressed, the teams continued to develop and address the business of the category. In the
summer, former Design Team members and other team representatives participated in a “Design
Review" to make organizational refinements and consider extension of teams in the Group.
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND TOP MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE
Through his own reading the Group President had become interested in self-managed work
teams as a possible vehicle for addressing competitive issues. Based on her research on teams,
the OD Director developed an initial strategy with the President for proceeding. This strategy
called for the design and implementation of teams via socio-technical methods in one category as
a pilot project and then the extension of this approach and learning to the other categories of the
Group. The Group OD Director and Corporate OD Manager conducted sessions with the
President and his staff to enable them to understand a socio-technical approach and its potential
application in addressing their business issues. Within these multiple day meetings, the
executive staff identified their business issues and their vision for CHPG ("Creating a High
Performing Group"). They also specified principles, guidelines, and members for a Design Team
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
4
to perform the analysis and conceptual work to propose a “high performing organization"
structure for the category selected for the pilot. Executive participation in these sessions allowed
senior members to help shape, and thereby accept the strategy. The behavior in the meetings also
gave an indication of some of the emerging issues from this and other phases of the project. The
executives' "bias for action" made them impatient with theory and process, yet they were hesitant
to proceed because of their uncertainty. The strong support from the President was both positive
and negative in that it assured the project would proceed, while stifling some of the concern and
debate with the approach and its implications. Group sales were down somewhat, but business
for the corporation had been good providing available resources for such exploration. The
climate was right for a wholesale change in the way business was being done.
THE ORGANIZATION DESIGN PROCESS
The Group OD Director and Corporate OD staff guided the multi-functional Design
Team through a classical socio-technical organization design process (see Figure 1, page 12).
After some initial team building, its members learned about concepts and methods. The Category
Director served as team leader as the group participated in periodic working sessions and
completed assignments over a period of four months while members also continued to perform
their regular jobs. The team conducted "present state," work flow, and variance analyses. On the
basis of these analyses, they redefined the work and developed a team structure (see Figure 2,
page 13). In addition, the group specified people requirements, clarified decision making
functions, and proposed rewards to support the structure and team interaction. As the Design
Team proceeded, it gave interim reports and then final presentations to CHPG executives for
approval of the team structure and sanction for implementation. These sessions were extended
meetings where aspects of the design were questioned and discussed. Eventually, the staff
approved most aspects including recommended Business Team members.
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
5
Before finishing, the Design Team also gave (their presentation to the Chief Operating Officer
and his staff, as well as to CHPG members and other interested groups. After celebrating their
completion, the
Design Team disbanded, and passed on the task of implementation to those in the group who
would continue as members of the Business Team or one of the other teams to be formed. The
Design activity had generated considerable excitement and comradery among those who had
participated. However, participants also found the process very tedious, detailed and time
consuming. The early team-building had been useful in overcoming traditional functional and
style barriers. Theory was helpful, but could not be followed strictly as the management level
work examined was more complex than service or production tasks. Additionally, senior
management grew impatient, not appreciating the process and the time it required. While there
were questions, business prospects for the corporation's future looked promising despite the
sluggish economy and these conditions helped promote optimism, tolerance of the process and
general acceptance of the resulting proposal.
TEAM START-UP
The major initial task of the Business Team was that of staffing the other teams, forming these
groups and getting itself as well as them oriented to the point that they could begin operating.
The new Group
OD Director, replacing the previous one who had transferred to these and other aspects of
implementing the design. The staffing of teams ended up being a multiple negotiation process.
It started with the Business Team determining a slate of appropriate candidates acceptable to
the executive group or the "Board of Directors" (BOD) as indicated in the design. Next
came deliberating with candidates and individual executives to confirm interest and acceptability.
Finally, there came a "working out" of differences and getting agreement with the BOD. As the
staffing issues were resolved, the Business Team and the OD Director planned a "kick-off"
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
6
meeting and preliminary training for the teams. The "kick-off" allowed those on all the teams to
get acquainted with each other as well as to become oriented with the team structure, team
characteristics, and training plans. Each group
then went through a 2 day session to learn and practice team operating concepts while
articulating a vision, mission, strategic objectives, accountabilities and norms for their
respective team.
Following a one day outdoor learning activity pertaining to intra and inter team dynamics, all the
teams met together another day to share and reconcile their respective missions and strategic
objectives. With the conclusion of these activities, each team began to meet on a regular basis as
well as coordinate and share information via Business Team and total group meetings.
While other efforts were underway, team and Human Resource representatives met to further
specify reward systems for the teams. Based on a clarification of behavior desired, this subgroup
drafted a Bonus Plan tied to aggregate business performance indicators for the teams. It also
initiated work on "job evaluations" and a performance management process adapted for teams,
e.g. incorporating peer assessment for members. The team start-up period was bittersweet and
stressful. The Business Team and others were glad to get things moving, but at times progress
seemed halting to non-existent. Executives and others had expressed support earlier, yet when it
was time to staff the teams functional departments did not want to loose valued people.
Prospective members were often hesitant because career implications were unclear with no
guarantees. In addition, the corporation faced unfavorable developments which necessitated cost
reduction and downsizing. These circumstances led the Business Team to plan for two Operating
teams where three had been indicated in the original design. The situation also caused
considerations in the technical and administrative support areas.
There were extra demands, so a normally busy time of year was even more hectic allowing
little time for training and transition to teams. Anxiety prevailed as other changes proceeded in
the Group and the rest of the company. The eventual realignment of resources prompted
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
7
some to make career moves which led to turnover, and replacement in the newly forming
teams. Senior Management was understandably preoccupied with the corporate restructuring
activities. However, their lack of involvement in team start-up contributed to team member
insecurity and speculation about their commitment to the effort.
THE FULLY OPERATIONAL TEAM STRUCTURE
Despite the rough start-up, the Business and Operating Teams as well as Technical Team and
Administrative Support were eventually operating on a full time basis. The Business Team had
not only gotten the teams in place, but had also secured business goals, an operating plan/budget,
a bonus plan, a team room, and offices for team members from other buildings and sites. In
addition to their regular meetings and the "all team" sessions, Business Team members began
having discussions with their junior counterparts on the teams to clarify functions and priorities.
They also started addressing important topics such as strategic Plans, alliances/ acquisitions, the
career progression in teams, the performance management process and other matters. In addition
to clarifying the ways they would function, Operating Teams had to attend to ongoing business.
The respective teams had new products that had been launched which had to be monitored and
supported to help assure successful introductions. Each also had their portfolio of existing
products to manage as well as new product ideas and concepts to test and cultivate. They also
each had issues and problems which arose that required their attention such as Promotional
delays, FDA and product formulation questions, and Manufacturing difficulties.
Similar to the Operating Teams, the Technical Team and Administrative Support had tasks and
relationships to clarify as well as work to perform to assist other individuals and teams in running
the business. The nature of their work changed less than that of those in the other teams.
However, like others, these people were now more exposed to and included in different aspects
of the business. As bonus eligible members, they had even more of an interest in business
success. They also had to begin to work more closely together within their respective groups.
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
8
After the exuberance and relief of finally being free from the conflicting transition demands, the
teams began encountering the realities of dealing with each other more intensely as individuals
and teams. Having sophisticated members who wanted to exert themselves and their team's
control, they proceeded on independently for some time. Gradually, they began to use the
resources and vehicles available to them to surface and work through the issues they were
experiencing in their movement toward greater self-management.
The issues the teams faced were not only within and among teams, but also with the Executive
staff and others in the environment. Some of the questions pertained to role clarity,
decision making, and communication and feedback methods. While it was a difficult time for
the teams, sales for the Group were still below plan, and the Group President left to pursue other
business opportunities.
ON-GOING REFINEMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE TEAM APPROACH
During the time when the teams were working through their difficulties, several means
for assisting with ongoing refinement of the team organization began to emerge. Such tools,
methods and
Mechanisms were important in capturing the learning occurring in this pilot effort for extension
of team approaches in the Group and elsewhere in the company. One of the "tools" for
refinement that the Business Team and the OD Director put in place was an organizational
effectiveness survey. The survey instrument developed for this purpose was similar to those used
with other socio-technical installations and based on work done originally by the Design Team.
Team members completed the instrument about six weeks after the teams had gone fully
operational to provide a baseline measurement. The OD Director and Corporate OD staff
provided feedback and facilitated discussion of the data. The initial plan was to conduct the
survey every six months for the first 18-24 months of the team organization and then at more
extended intervals thereafter. Another refinement method that came about resulted from OD
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
9
Director and Corporate Training staff discussions with each team concerning
Its training needs. As a result of these conversations, Corporate Training staff conducted team
member interviews and feedback to each team to clarify and prioritize short term and longer term
development issues. Subsequently, corporate staff with the OD Director scheduled customized
team development sessions for the teams. An additional mechanism for ongoing refinement that
the Business Team planned with the OD Director consisted of a “High Performance Organization
Re-look" or design review. This 2 day session involved former Design Team members and a
sample of others from the teams in "re-looking" at the team organization. The intent of the
session was to systematically examine what had changed from the time of the original
design and to determine additions, modifications and revisions needed to assure a good "fit"
with the environment and among the various elements of the organization. Interactions during the
session drew upon the experience of those
Participating and also incorporated information gained through the activities described above.
The learning and "crystallized" the various issues facing the team organization in ways of
addressing them into a clear development "game plan."
KEY LEARNINGS
There have been numerous insights from this pilot project to date. However, some of the key
learnings concerning "what one would, could, or should do differently" may be most useful.
These learnings are
Derived from the issues in each phase and are outlined in this manner below:
1. Strategy Development and Top Management Acceptance
One needs to stress Executives' understanding of the importance of process and their
involvement extensively... It is important to get staff opinions out first apart from those of
the top executive, and constantly work executive and team alignment around the effort.
2. The Organization Design Process
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
10
Optimally, one should seek ways to streamline the process without compromising
important issues and group dynamics. It is extremely useful to build in transition
planning and such mechanisms as design reviews before the end of the design
process. When there are changes in OD staff, those involved should collaborate and
overlap tasks in relating to the client group as the change occurs. Such an overlap during
the "hand-off" can aid with continuity and provide the foundation for more effective,
ongoing consultation.
3. The Team Start-up
An extensive orientation to self-managed teams, an operational framework for their
maturation
As well as built-in feedback and development mechanisms, should be planned up front to
minimize confusion and questioning in later stages of development.
4. The Fully Operational Team Structure
Having "built-in" transition plans and other mechanisms in earlier phases, it is essential to
assure follow-through with these plans and activities.
5. Ongoing Refinement and Extension of the Team Approach
As above, one should "bake-in" tools and methods and assure they are used involving all
parties, especially maintaining a link with the executive staff.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF MANAGEMENT-LEVEL SELF-MANAGE
TEAMS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
From the work done with this project, there are a number of similarities and differences
between implementing management-level self-managed teams and installing such teams in "blue
collar" and "white collar" settings. In terms of differences, management-level activities involve
abstract knowledge work and a high degree of political interaction. The people are sophisticated,
have extensive education, and are conditioned by their functional disciplines. Many are driven
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
11
and have high career and reward expectations. They are used to being more individually focused
rather than team oriented. As a result they are less patient, less accepting of theory and
facilitation.
These considerations should be kept foremost as one proceeds in implementing teams in such
areas.
On the other hand, by the way of similarities, management level people are still very human.
They are subject to the same basic principles of group dynamics, the same development
progression to self-management in teams, and the same basic skills required for effectiveness in
such an environment.
Given these differences and similarities, it seems like such a truism to say that "the key to being
effective is adapting the principles and tools to the setting." At the management-level, that
means positioning the concepts and approaches and enabling participants to use their
sophistication and skill to help determine appropriate applications.
Fred Cheyunski is Director of Organization & Human Resource Development for the Consumer
Health Products Group of Warner-Lambert Company in Morris Plains, N.J.
Lori Feehan is a Business Team member and a former Category Director with Consumer Health
Products Group of Warner-Lambert Company
Barbara Kelly is an Independent Consultant in Kinnelon, N.J. and formerly OD/HRD Director
with Warner-Lambert’s Consumer Health Products Group.
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
12
References
Bartee, E. M., and Cheyunski F., "A Methodology for Process-Oriented Organizational
Diagnosis", The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1977
Cheyunski, F. and Borucki, C. “Proactive Adaptation for Strategic Change in a Socio-Technical
Work System,” paper presented at the 48th annual meetings of the Academy of Management in
Anaheim, CA, August 1988
Fisher, K.K., “Management Roles in the Implementation of Participative Management,” Human
Resources Management, Fall 1986
Johansen, R., Martin, A., Sibbet, D., Leading Business Teams: How Teams Can Use Technology
and Group Process Tools to Enhance Performance, Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1991.
Mohrman, S.A., and Cummings, T.G, Self Designing Organizations: Learning How to Create
High Performance, Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1989
Osburn, J. D., Moran, L., Zenger, J., and Musselwhite, E., Self Directed Work Teams: The New
American Challenge, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, 1990.
Pava, C. H., Managing the New Office Technology: An Organizational Strategy, New York: Free
Press, 1984
Senge, P.M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New
York: Currency/Doubleday, 1990.
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
13
CHPG
“Slinky”
Organization Design Model
Environment
“Input”
Vision
Roles
Process
Structure
Skills
Rewards
Behaviors
Performanc
e
“Output”
Figure 1
Implementing Management-Level Self-Managed Work Teams
14
Skin Care Team Structure
Business
Team
Lubriderm
Team
Benedryl
Team
• Product Management
• Market Research
• Research & Development
• Manufacturing
• Sales
Figure 2
Annusol,
Nix, Other
Team