Self-Managed Teams and Culture Shifts

The field of socio-technic systems work redesign emerged in England at the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s. Eric Trist and Fred Emery discovered that coal miners had developed an unusual work arrangement: they preferred to mine coal as self-managed cross-functional teams. Upper management tried to organize them into conventional structures of specialization and hierarchical supervision, but their productivity and morale plummeted. When they were allowed to work again as a team, they regained their very high quality output.

Trist and Emery thought there might be something in that work pattern that could be generalized and applied in other settings. Out of that investigation came the understanding that there is an intrinsic interdependence between the way work arrangements are structured and the way people feel and act toward the work and toward each other--that a change in the technical work system affects the social work system, and vice-versa. Looking for descriptive terminology for this they came up with "socio-technic systems (STS)." They developed ways to design new work arrangements, or to redesign old ones, guided by these discoveries. Most often--though not always--the redesign process led to self-managed teams that included all the skills and resources needed to complete a whole job from beginning to end.

The increases in productivity and work spirit in a range of organizations where this was implemented during the next two decades were astounding. In a world that was beginning to experience accelerated change, technological innovation, and globalized competition, these self-managed teams had a superior ability to adapt and innovate, and to move up any learning curve quickly. And they showed an amazing intrinsic motivation to do so. They didn't need a supervisor to tell them to improve the work--they had an interest in doing it themselves and did it quite well. In fact, supervisors tended to get in the way.

The emerging realization was that there is a fundamental clash of cultures between these two ways of structuring work. Emery distilled the difference in terms of a Design Principle I, referring to the conventionally vertical coordination of work through hierarchy, and a Design Principle II, referring to the horizontal coordination and self-regulation of self-managed teams. Part of the difference, too, was the shift from organizing departments according to function--marketing, fabrication, R&D, etc. (what we now refer to as silos), toward the inclusion in any team of all the skills required by the job--they were not only self-managed teams, they were cross-functional self-managed teams. The classic example is the redesign of the Volvo assembly line, so that instead of each individual attaching the same part to each car moving by on the assembly line, a team of assemblers traveled with the car from beginning to end, putting the whole car together. At the end, they expressed their pride in the quality of their work by engraving all their names on the engine block.

But the shift from Design Principle I to II is not a simple one. It affects technology, organization, supervision, reward systems, assumptions, and interaction skills. Supervisors, especially, can feel threatened because their role seems to become redundant. It takes an appropriate amount of time, planning, training, and coaching support to implement this shift successfully. At an oil extraction plant in Canada where I was part of the consulting team guiding this shift, the staff of the Utilities Division (that produced all the electricity, steam and processed water for the mine) was released from work for one week per month for six months to carry out the planning and training needed to make the shift (yes, temporary workers were hired during this time). At a Motorala cell-phone assembly plant in Florida, teams went through several phases of change, in which supervisors first became participative leaders, then coaches, then on-call consultants.

The tragic error among some managers who learn about the benefits of self-managing teams is to try to implement them by memo--to decree the end-result structure while skipping the participative analysis of all work processes, the appropriate tailoring of the new work design to their core work situation, the necessary investment in training and support, and the time people need to integrate a fundamentally different work culture. In the end, the effort therefore fails, and work structures revert to the old ways--problematic but familiar.

But properly implemented, especially by engaging people appropriately in the redesign of their own work processes, STS can lead an organization toward surprising improvements in both work effectiveness and teamwork.

Use the Comments link to respond, or go to http://human-systems.blogspot.com/

How Did OD Emerge?

Note: This and the next few items are reprinted from another blog I previously created. You will find a thematic connection to the exploration of how our assumptions shape our work and our lives. Your comments and questions are invited.

Organization Development (OD) has been understood--and misunderstood--in a variety of ways by different people at different times. It can be helpful to know how the field got started.

When I was a grad student at UCLA, I learned from mentors like Bob Tannenbaum and Jim Clark that OD emerged from the growing awareness that Management Development, even when very successful, had major limitations. Key managers could be immersed in powerful training experiences like T Groups, developing a fundamentally different understanding of themselves and their interaction with people, but when they returned to their own organization they faced three difficult choices:

1. They could become change agents, leading their organization toward significant new ways of being and working--very few people managed to do this.

2. They could become trouble-makers, out of step with their peers and subordinates' assumptions and expectations, working uphill to create change that nobody seemed to believe in or want. Some people did this for a while, and then gave up; or they were neutralized or expelled from their organization as alien organisms. A few left purposely, and even changed their chosen profession, becoming writers, sculptors, etc.

3. They could unlearn what they had learned and go back to their old way of doing things, encapsulating their brief departure from the corporate cultural norm as a temporary aberration, hopeful but naive; most managers chose this option, and achieved it rather quickly.

So there was something not working with Management Development--the development of managers as individuals. The underlying assumption that you could change an organization by changing individuals did not pan out. Time for a paradigm shift.

Borrowing from what were then new developments in family therapy, such as the work of Virginia Satir, some applied social scientists and consultants began to consider the need to develop the organization as a whole, not just the individuals within it. Family therapists were learning that they could treat a problem child with apparent success, but on returning to the family s/he promptly reverted to the previous problem behavior. The problem was not in the child as an individual, but in the family as a system. Similarly, an organization could be improved not by developing individuals within it, but by changing the organization as a whole--hence the shift in thinking--from management development, to organization development.

Think about some problem in your own organization. Consider how it can be interpreted in terms of the problematic behavior of a particular individual. Then consider how this behavior might be an expression of the organization's unacknowledged, perhaps unmentionable problematic patterns.

What thoughts or questions do you have about this, or about OD, or about the OD Program at Sonoma State? Use the Comments link to respond to or comment on this entry.

Click Follow or enter you email in the field on the right to receive notification when new entries are posted.