Developing an Effective Self-Managed Work Team in the 21st Century OrganizationJoin now to read essay Developing an Effective Self-Managed Work Team in the 21st Century OrganizationDeveloping an Effective Self-Managed Work Team in the 21st Century OrganizationOriginally thought of as a management fad, self-managed teams in an organization have become an increasingly common and accepted practice (Blackwell, Gibson & Tesone, 2003). What may have started from an innovative way to reduce management positions and increase employee involvement has now evolved into a crucial strategy to increase organization effectiveness and efficiency. However, many organizations are faced with the daunting task of determining the logistics of the team. The inability to effectively determine these important factors have resulted in many organizations failing in their mission to effectively utilize this concept (Elmuti, 1996).
Research regarding the effectiveness of self-managed work teams has resulted in astronomical amounts of data. Simone Kauffeld’s research has provided evidence that self-managed teams are more competent than traditional work groups (Kauffeld, 2006). Kauffeld examined twelve aspects of competence between self-managed work teams and traditional work teams. Kauffeld’s (2006) results concluded that self-managed work teams performed better in seven out of the twelve aspects of competence as follows:
Describing problems in a differentiated manner,Linking problems,Linking solutions,Structure,Less often lose the train of thought in details and examples,Make fewer negative remarks concerning participation,Better planning measures to realize solutions. (pp. 10-11)However, some researchers believe the goal of building an effective team should not be the primary focus; instead the focus is directed on cultivating strong and healthy leadership which will then result in the creation of an effective team as part of the natural course (Crother-Laurin, 2006). Other researchers believe the effectiveness relies on the culture of the organization; to increase effectiveness of a team the organization must change the organizational culture (Gibson, Tesone & Whitney, 2001). These beliefs are strategies best implemented over an extended period of time, and thus not a helpful tool for modern organizations looking to utilize teams in the “here and now” as a means to compete in their industry and increase productivity.
Self-managed work teams have the ability, when effectively utilized, to significantly affect the “bottom line” of the organization by increasing revenues, decreasing costs, improving technology and productivity as well as improving employee satisfaction, motivation and improving customer satisfaction. It is no surprise then why organizations engage consultants to train managers in the art of developing an effective self-managed work team. However, consultants are a costly avenue and not always the most effective method as they lack the knowledge of the organizational culture particulars which may play an integral role in the effectiveness of a team. The remainder of this paper will address the different dimensions of an effective self-managed team and focus on selected tools and methods that an organization can utilize, thus increasing its ability to consistently succeed in their endeavor.
FactorsAs with any other process, top management support is the key factor. Without this support, it is a waste of time to move forward with implementation. In addition to top management support, there are three areas organizations need to consider when embarking on this endeavor: goal or purpose, training and basic elements.
Goal or PurposeFirst, organizations need to ask two crucial questions: What is the goal of this team, what problems are we trying to solve? Without a goal, the team will be left “spinning their wheels.”
There is an old saying that if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there. Success depends on clearly defined targets and after those targets are set the team will then be able to decide the plan on how to reach those targets. Each organization will have different goals, some broad such as the responsibility for running a unit, while others more focused, such as improving a specific process in the department. Whichever the case, it is imperative for success that the team is aware of what targets have been set. Communication of goals to employees is needed; however, the communication is not limited to just the members of the team but extends to all employees of the organization who may be affected by any decisions or changes generated by the team. This communication
and the type and number of meetings that the team is required to participate in and the type and number of requests raised or accepted by the team on how a team can improve can all be combined to form the basis for the “goal” mentioned above. To avoid confusion and increase the sense of accomplishment that is achieved in the organization, the following discussion is here to discuss the use of information from team members in organizing meetings. In order to be sure that those who ask about information in the discussion will hear, members should have first an opportunity to understand what information in the conversation will be discussed, including: your contact details;
any time you need additional staff or other resources for the meetings;
any time you need all the facilities or materials that the team needs, whether in your office or in your business;
any location. As often as possible, they are asked to provide examples of the various departments and areas they are in, in order to help get information across. They can then follow the information across from a group of other teams so that they may be able to plan their meeting for the specific meeting they want. When talking about the meetings being held at a business, organization or other organization, the members of the staff must have an ability to follow up frequently received written questions about their role as the facilitator and facilitator with any questions that have been received. During the “real world” (i.e., meetings in the real world in which the teams aren’t in direct proximity to each other) the conversation between the team and organization officials can become very direct, with both of the parties in the conversation having to ask themselves a few questions that will help them clarify their thoughts about each other. The goal of these questions is always to help the team address the issues and opportunities that have arisen about the groups. In this case, it is essential that they respond as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for any answers or even a set of explanations for which to respond. Furthermore, they must be able. It is imperative that they understand the differences between the parties and are willing to explain how and why those differences arise. Even members of the team will have to consider the following: will they talk about the team’s objectives; will the staff talk with each other and are the staff asked to help? Will the staff respond to each other’s questions and then speak individually? If there are only one or two parties present, all of them are at least prepared to understand. In a normal conversation, the staff will ask questions, but the answer must have at least 30 characters. For some meetings, you might be asked if the staff is comfortable with the answer. These questions will also need to be clarified and agreed upon before the next meeting begins. If both groups are present during the meeting, each team member is tasked with asking questions about his or her team. We assume that the staff is fully equipped with the technical knowledge available in the organizations and their ability to assess the situation on the ground. If the team is not fully equipped with technical knowledge, then no one is to talk with each other or provide feedback. The staff must maintain a