Developing self-directed work teams

Gavin P. Clifford Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Amrik S. Sohal Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Over the past decade many manufacturing organisations around the world have been changing their structures from the traditional hierarchical pyramid structure to a atter, more responsive and lean structure. Team work and employee participation have become the key tasks for managers in all types of industries. This paper discusses team work and selfdirected work teams. It presents some of the key ndings from a survey conducted in Australia and describes the four stages of developing selfdirected work teams. Some recommendations for companies adopting work teams are also made.

Introduction
Signicant change has occurred within manufacturing organisations over the past decade. The trend has been to move away from traditional hierarchical pyramid structures to atter, more responsive and leaner structures. Most of the structural changes aim at obtaining greater exibility and innovation and employ changes such as cross functional teams, delegating authority to lower levels within the organisation and reducing the number of management layers. The gap between top management and the shop oor employee has decreased due to the elimination of several layers of management (usually line and middle management). The existing middle and line managers within these de-layered manufacturing organisations nd that their role within the organisation has changed from a traditionally dictatorial style to one of situational leadership, where directing, coaching, supporting and delegating are the leadership principles used. This change, more commonly known as the move from cop to coach has demanded more from the existing management levels. They nd that empowerment of the workforce has been one means of improving competitiveness. The changes taking place in organisations have been highlighted by many authors. Brandt (1994, p. 30-6) for example, says that
Recent trends towards downsizing, team management and enhanced customer focus will combine to make the role of the middle manager more rather than less important in the future.

work teams are deployed. The four stages leading to self-directed work teams are then described. The paper ends with some concluding remarks and recommendations.

Literature review
Hyden (1994, p. 10) says that yesterdays management structure wanted to control everything. They extol planning, controlling, problem solving, decision making and directing. Yesterdays management structure also tends to create a culture where employees bring problems to management, management solves them, and then management directs (tells) the employees what to do. The paradigm shift that is taking place today is from management to leadership of empowered individuals or teams. Austin (1993, p. 17) documents that in the past managers have depended on two basic tools of motivating employees: the promotion and the raise. However with hierarchies squashed and spending slashed at most companies, these tools are simply not an option. To complicate the situation further, the role of a manager is changing rapidly; managers everywhere are looking for new, low-cost creative ways to sustain a highly motivated staff. Empowering employees requires new management skills of relinquishing power and authority and moving to democracy within the work environment. As more organisations develop atter management structures and move away from the traditional pyramid hierarchy, the importance of teams at all levels is increasing. Herbert (1994, p. 27) says; A good team covers for each other and takes up the slack to maintain optimum performance. One of the most popular approaches towards working teams is to take a model of a perfect team and see how far the existing people match it. One of the best known models is that created by Belbin (1993) who showed that although it was far easier to identify a team that will fail, a combination of nine types of characteristics in a team sets it up for success. Belbin (1993) suggested that teams cannot be successfully established without some understanding of team role theory. Belbin

Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784 MCB University Press [ISSN 0025-1747]

This change in focus requires managers to discard past management practices and develop new ways of conducting business. Team work, team leadership and employee participation are the new expectations within organisations today . This paper discusses team work and in particular the stages through which an organisation moves to develop self-directed work teams. In the next section some relevant literature is reviewed. This is followed with a summary of the results of a survey conducted in Australia to identify the extent to which

[ 77 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

has argued that team roles are based on the concept of individuals strengths and weaknesses within a team. Every individual performs some tasks quite naturally and effectively, while performing others adequately, only after applying a great deal of self discipline. Belbins theory encourages each person to use and develop their natural behaviours, while managing their shortcomings. In fact, it is only through the acceptance of their shortcomings that each individual can naturally contribute to the team without trying to overcome their weaknesses. Belbins work has shown that it does not matter if the functional skills of the group are good; if the group does not have the right balance of team roles, then the functional resources can rarely be applied optimally; the functional skills can often be developed and rened later. It must be clearly noted that teamwork in its entirety is part of a new management paradigm that encompasses management thinking to re-engineer change, and includes business processes, jobs and structures, management and measures, and values and benets. The goal of teamwork is to improve performance by involving every employee in meeting customer needs (Lynch and Werner, 1994, p. 35). A major strategy used by companies today to create an empowered work culture is the use of self-directed teams (SDTs). SDTs are small groups of employees who have day-today responsibility for managing themselves and their work. Wellins (1992, p. 24) says that members of SDTs typically handle job assignments, plan and schedule work, make production-related decisions, and taken action on problems. SDTs operate with fewer levels of management than do traditional organisation structures. Wellins suggests six steps to implement SDTs: 1 Learn about SDTs. 2 Conduct a readiness assessment to determine if teams are right for the culture. 3 Communicate to employees the organisations vision and values as they relate to empowerment and teams. 4 Take the organisation through a workplace redesign process. 5 Implement. 6 Evaluate the process of SDTs. A US study (Smith and Greeb, 1993, p. 44) found that the decision to adopt a self-managed team approach requires signicant adjustment for managers. A new perspective is needed which managers can relate to, and that perspective is management by volunteers (MAV). The unique feature about MAV is not that traditional management skills are rendered obsolete, but that a re-emphasis on those skills more likely to be effective is encouraged.

The benets of work teams in a manufacturing environment are numerous. Both tangible and intangible benets have been recognised and documented. Quick (1992, p. 13) suggests that; working in teams results in benets for both team members and the organisations in which they work. Collaboration is a primary benet. People want to work well together, to support one another, because they identify with a team. Communication is another benet; information ows freely up and down and sideways, the team realises how important it is to pass on information so members can operate more efficiently There is also a more . efficient application of resources, talents and strengths, as team members are applying them more willingly and share them. Problem solving, where decisions and solutions are made simultaneously with total involvement of all team members is another key benet. Decisions are made by consensus. Individuals make their own solutions and decisions and consequently they feel committed to carrying them out successfully Team members also . feel a strong commitment to the team itself, not to let it down. Wellins et al. (1991, p. 47) also indicate that multi skilling and job rotation becomes a normal part of a team, as team members swap roles to achieve work variety Team members . identify training needs and skills required to multi skill themselves. Paulsen (1994) suggests that many benets are experienced by organisations using teamwork and employee involvement including: reduced operational expenses, reduced administration costs, greater teamwork within and between departments, improved communication of company objectives and results, and in organisations that practise true employee participation, people have the opportunity to share in solutions and decisions that affect their work area and performance. Ray (1994, p. 64) indicates that the primary difficulty management faces as it makes the transition to true employee involvement is a profound lack of trust in the ranks of the employees. Employees traditionally have very little reason to trust management. Ray further suggests that management often overestimates the level of trust employees have in them. Landes (1994) writes that empowerment of employees has one basic problem that goes right to the root of the word power. Some organisations have experienced that empowered employees start wielding authority with the same kind of disregard for co-operation and teamwork, that empowerment was supposed to eradicate in the rst place.

[ 78 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

Empowerment of employees is often taken as self empowerment of individuals; they lose sight of the fact that teamwork and co-operation depend on each other. Landes also suggests that employees need to be equipped with knowledge, skills, tools and a master plan, not necessarily empowered. They need a clear set of options, developed jointly by management and employees, that dene the parameters of the decisions they can make. That way everybody knows what kinds of initiatives may or may not be exercised in the name of empowerment. The use of high-performance company teams has not spread as much as might be expected. The most common trouble with teams is that companies rush out and form the wrong kind of team for the job. According to Dumaine (1994, p. 86), when teams are introduced in combination with other organisational changes, they work. When they are introduced as an isolated practice, they fail. In regard to pay, companies that use teams best generally pay members individually, but with a difference. They make teamwork a key issue in an individuals annual performance review. Used correctly, teams can increase productivity, raise morale, and, in some cases, spur innovation. The teams most popular today are of two broad types: work teams, which include high-performance or self-managed teams; and special-purpose problem-solving teams.

Team work in Australian organisations

In an attempt to understand the nature of work teams in Australian organisations, 30 companies that were known to have adopted work teams were sent a short questionnaire. The list of companies included in this survey are listed in the Appendix. Twenty-one companies completed and returned the questionnaire. The key ndings from this survey are: 1 The major reasons for changing to work teams were to improve productivity, communications, quality, employee motivation/participation, and job enrichment. Over 80 per cent of organisations surveyed indicated that teamwork was part of their companys mission. This is a signicant recognition of teamwork as a working philosophy . 2 Most of organisations had embarked on the process of teamwork during the period of the last recession, indicating that organisations were looking for improved ways of manufacturing and cost reduction. 3 None of the companies indicated that they had passed the semi-autonomous stage of teamwork. This is surprising considering

that some of the companies had embarked on the journey of teamwork over a decade ago. Stumbling blocks encountered in introducing teamwork related to resistance from supervisory level staff and middle/senior management. Almost one in four companies indicated that high resistance was encountered from senior management. A reason for this could be the apparent time delay with organisations moving through the semi-autonomous stage to the autonomy stage. Traditionally Australian senior management look for rapid improvements in costs, prots and culture, which have not been fully realised through teamwork. It should be stipulated that teamwork is not a quick x solution to some failing business need, but a process of continuous improvement that empowers employees to more fully contribute, focusing in on common goals and targets. Benets experienced by organisations included: Increased employee participation (priority setting, motivation, morale, process involvement). Cost reduction (work in progress and scrap). Improved quality (less non-conformances). Greater communication, understanding and awareness of business. Increased productivity . Improved customer satisfaction. Around half of the organisations had reviewed and revised their wage structure and incentive schemes since embarking on teamwork. An incentive scheme that is closely aligned to team and organisational goals is important for team development and growth. Most organisations possessed a vision of autonomous work teams within their manufacturing sites.

Although only a small sample of companies was used for the study, the results presented above show that Australian companies have embraced the concept of work teams and are achieving a range of benets. However, they have not yet reached the stage where selfdirected teams have developed in the work place. In the next section of the paper the authors discuss the four stages of team development leading to self-directed, autonomous teams.

The four stages of developing selfdirected teams

The transition to self-directed (autonomous) work teams can be broadly classied into four

[ 79 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

major stages. Signicant communication and training is required during each stage of the transition and total senior management commitment is essential for the completion of each stage. The typical structure within most manufactures is pyramid shaped, usually with the CEO or managing director at its helm, with a host of senior and middle managers in the middle of the pyramid and line supervisors and shop oor employees completing the pyramid at the bottom (see Figure 1). Typically, there are several layers between the CEO and the shop oor, and communication is often lost in the process of dissemination from the top to the bottom. Organisations who operate in this structure rely on committee meetings and notice boards for communication and focus on tasks and responsibilities of individuals and pride themselves on extensive job descriptions. This structure promotes an inward focus, with employees focused more on satisfying internal management requests than overall organisational goals and targets. It is common to nd suggestions that stem from the shop oor only travel up one layer of management prior to being lost in a congested system of bureaucratic red tape. Employees are not encouraged to contribute ideas and suggestions and a typical directive leadership approach is adopted to get the job done. Frustration is often experienced by all levels within the structure. The journey towards teamwork begins when one individual (usually a member of the senior management team) raises the question regarding empowerment and employee participation. Information gathering occurs and the senior management team usually have a think tank to determine if the process of teamwork can be adopted within the organisation. The organisation re-evaluates its Vision and Mission statement and has a review of the companys basis for growth.

It should be mentioned that there has to be a champion within this process, and it is expected that the champion of the process will play a dominant part during this early stage of team development. She/he must rst convince top management of the need for change. Commitment must be achieved from the top or the entire process may never commence. The champion of the process is now in a position to promote the concept amongst the entire organisation and Stage 1 commences.

Stage 1
Communication and commitment to the process is the key driver throughout this stage. Teamwork can be adopted into an organisation in two ways: 1 The hard hitting approach, where the organisation is faced with a crisis and must change to survive; and 2 The evolution approach which takes time and patience. Many organisations who have adopted the process of teamwork within its manufacturing have used the evolution approach. Communication of the teamwork philosophy is promoted through the companys newsletter (if in existence), group discussions, plant meetings etc. Special attention need to be paid to the supervisors and middle management as resistance is often experienced most from these groups of people. During the early stage of any change process, there exist three groups of people. The rst and most important group is the enthusiastic go-getters, the core group of individuals that would eagerly accept the change as a way of personal advancement; it is advised that the promoting leaders of the change be selected from this group. The second group is the undecided; this group is large and could amount for as much as 80 per cent of all individuals. This group could also be called the followers; they usually have a wait and see attitude and are undecided on whether to stamp their approval on the change process or join the hinderers group. It is often experienced that most of the undecided group are won over by the enthusiastic go-getters. The last group of individuals are the hinderers; this is the group that will be the stumbling block and is traditionally made up of supervisors, some middle management and other dissatised employees. It is also important to state that within any organisation there is a small group who would oppose any change, due to lack of management trust and self trust. The strategy to deal with the hinderers group should be carefully thought through. It is undesirable for the hinderers group to grow any bigger or gain a larger vocal pitch.

Figure 1 Typical organisational structure

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CEO/MD SENIOR MANAGERS MIDDLE MANAGERS SUPERVISORS SHOP FLOOR EMPLOYEES

[ 80 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

Once awareness is spread through the entire workforce, a feedback tool such as a questionnaire is sent to all employees requesting their views on the change process. A positive feedback from the questionnaire of 60 per cent or more is sufficient to get the next stage started. It is important for the champion to recognise this, and focus on converting the undecided group. Usually a pilot team is incorporated into the structure, working within an area where there would be a fair degree of success. This pilot team is important for morale building within the entire workforce, as inquisitiveness from other employees often determines the success or otherwise of the exercise. The focus of the employees is slowly changed from an inward focus to a customer focus. Various groups are involved in highlighting and eliminating problems and issues that they face; this exercise which should usually incorporate a fair proportion of the workforce is fundamental in team building, and should include cross-sections of the entire workforce from senior management to shop oor employees. The CEO/MD should be seen as a key driver of this process; this is often neglected and causes more distress than success. Figure 2 shows the structure of the organisation at this stage. The champion of the process should empower a larger group of champions, usually the go-getters. The organisation is now ready for the formal introduction of work teams as a working philosophy .

Stage 2
The time frame for this stage is dependent on the organisation size and workforce culture. On obtaining approval from the questionnaire feedback to move to teams, a core group of management and employees is formed to look at the introduction of the team philoso-

Figure 2 Stage one organisational structure

TRACES OF EMPOWERMENT EVIDENT. ACTION TEAMS BEGIN TO FORM SHOP FLOOR EMPLOYEES SUPERVISORS CEO/MD VISIBLY SEEN AS COMMITTED TO CHANGE AND EMPOWERMENT MIDDLE MANAGERS SENIOR MANAGERS CEO/MD BOARD OF DIRECTORS CUSTOMER FOCUS RATHER THAN INWARD FOCUS

phy It is encouraged that the CEO/MD be a . committed part of this group. This group that usually calls itself the restructuring group is expected to do an analysis of the internal organisation, highlighting its core competency, product lines, customer groups, employee groups, etc. It is also recommended that the union representative of the organisation be a part of the restructuring group. It is worthwhile to have the union involved from this stage, as long as they are a constructive part of the group. It is often found that unions are given far less credit than they deserve, and they could be a key driver of this process if brought on side. Separate meetings may be required involving the union, to bring them on line with the philosophy and the need for the organisation to adopt the philosophy The authors believe that employees and . management are far better off within a culture conducive to success; this would surely be recognised by any union official as a key to the organisations future success. The organisational structure at this stage is shown in Figure 3. During this stage teams are developed. The teams could either be functional (by process or job type) or crossfunctional (by product); either team could be adopted. During the formation of core teams, several key issues need consideration: The team leader: should he/she be chosen by senior management or by the team they represent? The tasks, responsibilities, and boundaries of the team. The size of the team and its composition. (it is recommended that teams contain no more than 11 members, so as to maintain a focused group). Key performance indicators or team goals: their measurement, improvement plan and achievement of result. Team communication: how would the team communicate internally? Facilities may need to be provided such as time, place, coaching resources. Team support: this is an important necessity for a team to develop, a commonly used team support system is outlined in Figure 4 and is based on the situational leadership model. A focus on the team composition needs to be in place. The make-up of the team should reect the job or task that is required of the team. Various member traits are required for the team to be effective. Belbin (1993) suggested that nine roles are critical in the make up of a team. The organisation structure during this stage undergoes a major transformation, rather than a rigid top down approach; employees are seen as the forefront of major

[ 81 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

Figure 3 Stage two organisational structure

TEAM MEMBERS (FRONT LINERS) TEAM LEADERS SUPPORT GROUP (COACHES)

STRATEGY GROUP CEO

change. Often positional name-changes occur to encourage a new approach; e.g. shop oor employees are called front liners, team members are called associates etc. The role of the supervisor vanishes and is replaced by a team leader, who possesses higher people skills than the traditional supervisor. The title of manager is changed to that of a coach or co-ordinator. Support is clearly evident throughout the organisation (from the CEO to team members). The senior management group now focuses more on strategy formulation and future thinking, than on day to day activities. During the development of this stage the teams take over the day to day running of the organisations, responsible for production, scheduling, customer complaints handling, hiring of staff and key performance measurements. A key focus of team development through this stage is the amount of training provided and absorbed. Organisations should allow for at least a 50 per cent increase in traditional training spending. Teams also commence a benchmarking process, either through internal benchmarking or external benchmarking. The teams

should be encouraged to visit suppliers, customers and other organisations practising teamwork as a working philosophy . This is also the stage when the power of teamwork is realised through improved operational performance leading to improved nancial performance and employee contribution. The key drivers of the business may consider the implementation of a performance bonus to encourage team development. Often small appreciations such as barbecues, team outings, recognition certicates go a long way in increasing morale and team wellbeing. It is also common that nancial performance of the organisation is opened up for all to see; an open book system is used to convey nancial performance throughout the organisation. In this system team members experience increased commitment, ownership and understanding of the business. The time frame for this stage can often be as long as ve years or more. There are a number of Australian organisations that are performing extremely well at this stage (e.g. Bendix Mintex, ASTA, Air International, Dulux, Kodak Australia, Pacic Dunlop Industrial Foam & Fibre, Rheem Australia Ltd). They however have experienced difficulty with moving to the next stage of team development.

Stage 3
This stage sees the evolution of self-directed work teams (autonomous teams), where the teams have evolved to the stage of operating as a independent business unit, responsible for total product or process manufacturing including all nancial aspects. The structure to the organisation is attened, to the extent of elimination of traditional management levels. Often only two layers of management exist between the CEO and the team member (see Figure 5). The team leader and coaches are absent in this structure, as teams have developed to a stage of total autonomy Direction is limited to . future organisational growth into new markets and product lines. The accounting, manufacturing, purchasing, logistics, HR, sales and marketing functions form part of the new individual teams. Discipline is controlled within the team and democratic consensus is the norm. The teams reach a stage of obsession for perfection and continual improvement. Essentially each self-directed team operates , as an independent business unit constantly seeking improvements in quality productivity , and cost reduction. The teams utilise their own skill base to achieve organisational goals and consult with the strategic teams as the case arises. The organisation is now at a stage to respond rapidly to changing business needs.

Figure 4 Team support-situational leadership model

TEAM SUPPORT (SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL) THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE USED IS DEPENDENT ON THE ABILITY OF THE TEAM OR INDIVIDUAL. DIRECTING: ONLY USED WHEN THE TEAM IS UNSURE OF THE TASKS AT HAND, ONCE UNDERSTANDING IS REACHED, THE COACH SHOULD REFRAIN FROM USING THIS STYLE. COACHING: THIS STYLE IS USED EXTENSIVELY, ESPECIALLY DURING TEAM FORMATION AND EARLY STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT. ONE ON ONE AND GROUP COACHING CAN BE UNDERTAKEN. SUPPORTING: THIS IS A COMMONLY USED STYLE OF LEADERSHIP ADOPTED ONCE THE TEAM IS ON TRACK. SUPPORT SHOULD BE PROVIDED DURING BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SITUATIONS. DELEGATING: USED IN ADVANCED STAGES OF TEAMS DEVELOPMENT, THIS OCCURS PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF THE COACHING POSITION AND IS EVIDENT IN SELFDIRECTED (AUTONOMOUS) TEAMS
DIRECTING COACHING SUPPORTING DELEGATING

[ 82 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

Figure 5 Stage three organisational structure

MULTIFUNCTIONAL TEAMS

STRATEGY GROUP CEO

important for the newly integrated (collaborated) group to compete in the global marketplace. A typical example of an organisation that has succeeded in this is Saturn Corporation in the USA (Anym, 1994, pp. 8-9), where team members build cars as per individual customer requests, and follow-up with maintenance and support directly till the end of the cars use.

Conclusions
Many organisations may wrongly assume this to be the nal stage in a teams development, but this, need not be so. Teams can grow to bigger and better things and this is only restricted by individual thoughts and aspirations. Up until the early 1980s, many if not most, , Western manufacturing organisations operated in an insular protected environment and were managed by managers and staffed by employees that required uncomplicated work to be performed requiring a predominantly low level of skills. Today most of our manufacturing organisations operate in a richly diverse, highly skilled and externally-focused environment. To succeed in such an environment, manufacturers must employ a fundamental change in the way they operate. Organisations should enjoy the benets of maximised employee contribution which can be achieved through empowerment and training. Teamwork is a philosophy that would create the environment conducive to success in the late 1990s and beyond. It is clearly evident from this research reported in this paper that many manufacturers have looked to teamwork to provide them with a mechanism to focus on world markets. Teamwork is fast becoming the new competitive tool to allow organisations to overhaul their work environment and become exible and more adaptive to the ever changing turbulent environment of the 1990s. Evidence from the research suggests that a positive enterprise culture is evident within organisations that have adopted the philosophy of teamwork. Signicant benets can be gained from adopting teamwork; they generally include; improved productivity, reduced costs, increased customer satisfaction leading to increased protability Some common . benets achieved by Australian organisations include: Increased employee participation through priority setting, motivation, improved morale and process involvement. Signicant cost reduction through reduced scrap and work in progress. Improved quality through a reduction in non-conformances, credit claims and rework requirements. Increased productivity through improved machine efficiency, improvements in up time and improved preventative maintenance.

Stage 4
In this stage teams go past the stage to continuous improvement and development internally They now spread their wings vertically . past the organisation in question, and integrate with suppliers and their customers (see Figure 6). Here total integration between the structures of the organisation and its suppliers and customers is evident and functionally

Figure 6 Stage four organisational structure

CUSTOMERS STRUCTURE

MULTIFUNCTIONAL TEAMS

STRATEGY GROUP CEO

SUPPLIERS STRUCTURE

[ 83 ]

Gavin P. Clifford and Amrik S. Sohal Developing self-directed work teams Management Decision 36/2 [1998] 7784

Signicant communication improvement throughout the entire organisation through a attening of the organisational structure. Improved customer satisfaction that has translated into repeat customer orders and increased protability . The future of manufacturing cannot be guaranteed unless organisations embrace new management paradigms such as teamwork. Teamwork must be focused on opportunities in the future and be part of a working management mission that emphasises commonality of purpose. Organisations who propose to introduce work teams, need to clearly determine its benets and limitations and attention needs to be paid to the method adopted for its introduction. A copycat method based on the introduction techniques used by another organisation need not be the answer. Care should be taken to reect the individual needs of the organisation in question. In adopting work teams, the following recommendations are made: The introduction of work teams should be undertaken to suit the implementing organisations needs, not a copycat introduction technique that could spell disaster. Development and communication of team learning through industry networks would greatly assist organisations using and wishing to use work teams in their manufacturing sites. Federal and local governments should continue to encourage the development of work teams in the manufacturing industry This . can be undertaken by enhancement of programmes such as the best practice programme in Australia.

Herbert, C. (1994), Teambuilding heralds new spirit of co-operation, Works Management, Vol. 47 No. 9, September, pp. 27-8. Hyden, H.E. (1994), From manager to leader, Executive Excellence, December, p. 10. Landes, L. (1994), The myth and misdirection of employee empowerment, Training, Vol. 31 No. 3, March, p. 116. Lynch, R.F and Werner, T.J. (1994), A league of their own, Small Business Reports, Vol. 19 No. 4, April, pp. 35-42. Paulsen, K. (1994), Total employee involvement why are you waiting?, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 2, February, pp. 16-18. Quick, T.L. (1992), Successful Team Building, Worksheet series, Amacom. Ray, D.W. (1994), The missing T in TQM trust, Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 17 No. 3, June, pp. 64-7. Smith, A.C. and Greeb, F.B. (1993), Managing employees as if they were volunteers, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 3, Summer, pp. 42-6. Wellins, R.S. (1992), Building a self-directed work team, Training & Development, Vol. 46 No. 12, December, pp. 24-8. Wellins, R., Byham, W. and Wilson, J. (1991), Empowered Teams Creating Self-Directed Work Groups that Improve Quality, Productivity & Participation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.CA.

Appendix. List of survey respondents

Aero Space Technologies of Australia Limited Air International Pty Ltd Amcor Fibre Packaging (Victoria) Australian Print Group Bendix Mintex Bonlac Foods Cadbury Schweppes Aust Ltd (Tas) Carlton & United Breweries Composite Materials Engg Pty Ltd Cyclone Hardware Diane Ferrari Du Pont (Australia) Limited Ford Australia Hendersons Automotive Joyce Australia Kodak Australia Pacic Dunlop Industrial Foam & Fibre Peters Foods (Nestl) Southcorp Packaging Rheem Container Products Trico Pty Ltd Unidrive Pty Ltd Van Leer Australia Pty Ltd

References
Anym (1994), Saturns rings replace typical management pyramid, Supervisory Management, Vol. 39 No. 8, August, pp. 8-9. Austin, N. (1993), Making teamwork work, Working Women, Vol. 18 No. 1, January, p. 28. Belbin, M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, Oxford. Brandt, J.R. (1994), Middle management: where the action will be, Industry Week, Vol. 243, No. 9, pp. 30-6. Dumaine, B. (1994), The trouble with teams, Fortune, Vol. 130 No. 5, September, pp. 86-92.

Application questions
1 What have been the most and least effective teams you have been involved with? Relate your experiences to the authors points. 2 When would self-direction not be an appropriate goal for a work team?

[ 84 ]