Creating a teamwork-based culture within a manufacturing setting.

One area of organizational study that is prevalent and appears to potentially account for a portion of a firm's success is that of a positive, superior corporate culture. For instance, Barney submits that "a firm's culture can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage if the culture is valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable." He believes that the superior performance of companies like IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Proctor and Gamble may be a reflection of their superior organizational cultures. Schein strongly suggests that organizations must address seriously the organizational concept of culture, for it can provide a useful mechanism for improving productivity and quality of work life and it can help companies regain their competitive edge.

One of the most challenging work cultures for an organization to create, sustain, and improve is an authentic teamwork-based environment. For an organization to change from a traditional classical structure to an organic team-based structure requires changes not only in structure, but in processes, systems, attitudes, leadership philosophy and style, and paradigms. Gordon and Carroll indicate that when an organization facilitates this type of change, it is not without significant resistance to such a paradigm shift. Some of the resistance, according to Wilkins, comes about because organizations have not identified the most important areas of change in bringing about a cultural transformation, and have not taken into consideration differences among people in terms of their values, attitudes and perceptions. The purpose of this study was to identify:

* important organizational areas of change within a manufacturing setting that would bring about a teamwork based culture; and

* significant differences among people in terms of their perception of a teamwork culture as related to their job classification, years of experience, salary structure and managerial responsibilities.

As organizations experience the post-industrial revolution, they are being challenged to create cultures that will be proactive in responding to mass unemployment, rapid obsolescence of established technology, the reshaping of the economic, social, political and value patterns and the everlasting quest and competition of quality. Many organizations, to combat such a revolution, are establishing teamwork cultures.

Maccoby submits that for organizations to excel in chaotic times they must not internally compete with each other, but rather form a teamwork-based culture that promotes a win/win posture within that organization. In his article entitled "Turn Your Workers Into a Team," McKee suggests that employee teams are helping many companies in their total quality management efforts. Task forces, quality-assurance teams, cross functional teams, product-development teams and self-directed teams are just a few of the types of teams that can make a difference in quality improvements. According to Montana, the Japanese can develop a new product in 30 percent less time than it takes its Western counterparts. The reason for Japan's success is the supportive corporate culture that emphasizes and rewards teamwork. Therefore, Amormino states many organizations are now realizing greater employee involvement through teams can lead to higher productivity, quality and profits.

Research on teamwork has strongly supported the usefulness of companies in formulating legitimate teamwork-based cultures. This is especially true for manufacturing/production types of organizations in which they are constantly engaged in a competitive process of bringing forth new high-tech products and services. For example, due to competition in the area of electromechanical systems, Digital Equipment Corp. sought a new organizational structure. The new structure lead to the formation of teams and the use of a computer-aided process support (CAPS) system. It was teamwork that linked information, technical systems and organizational resources together in achieving the RAGO disk drive project.

Another example is General Motors, the Chevrolet-Pontiac Canada Group, which recently produced a new sports car engine, the LT-S, in four years rather than the usual seven years. They attributed their success to the formation of a single work team between Lotus Engineering and the Mercury Marine Division. It was reported by Rees, Harris and Lit that a total work team approach was developed by Honeywell's Industrial Automation Systems Division in Arizona and Texas, which designs and manufactures control systems for industrial plants. They indicated that teams were involved in the entire production cycle and had responsibility for all manufacturing functions. The implementation of high performance manufacturing, according to Walker, requires a corporate culture based on self-managing, cross-functional improvement teams. The trend toward simultaneous engineering will require an organizational environment that promotes product-development teams. It appears that for manufacturing organizations to compete and to be successful they ought to consider the importance of teamwork cultures. The first purpose of the study was to identify what area of change a manufacturing organization would identify as being the most important area of change in bringing about a teamwork culture.

When a manufacturing organization takes it upon itself to create a teamwork-based culture, especially if it is implementing total quality management, it must realize that there are significant issues that they need to be addressed in order to proceed in building such a culture. For example, according to Linkow, an organization must determine whether its culture provides an environment that is conducive to total quality. If not, he says, the culture must be altered to accommodate the following core values: employee focus, teamwork, total involvement, customer focus, safety, candor and process focus. The complexity for an organization is that there may be significant differences among employees in how they define these values and how they should be implemented within the environment of that organization. Therefore, in establishing a teamwork-based culture an organization must know the differences that may exist among people and then find healthy, productive ways to resolve those differences in achieving a total teamwork culture. The second purpose of the study was to identify significant differences among people in terms of what they perceive as being important in developing a teamwork culture.

Sample

The study was conducted in a large production/manufacturing organization that is recognized as being a leader within its specialty. The participants studied were white- and blue-collar workers. Each employee of the organization was given a teamwork survey and asked to complete it on a voluntary basis. The sample size of this division within the organization was 811, which represents 68 percent of the total population. The demographic information gathered indicated that 353 of the participants (44 percent) ranged from 16 to 20 years of service, 481 (59 percent) had spent four to seven years in their current

job, 543 (70 percent) were hourly/incentive wage individuals and 700 (86 percent) were non-management people within the organization.

Based on the research questions posed earlier, a teamwork survey was developed to identify areas of change that would bring about a teamwork culture within a manufacturing setting while identifying potential differences based on demographic data.

The survey used was a tailorized attitudinal feedback instrument developed specifically for that organization. The survey was used to create a database from which the organization could identify, based on the perception of the worker, those areas that could enrich a teamwork culture. The instruction given to the participants was the following: "You are asked to give your observations of the division and your department. Since any good organizational improvement program must be based on sound data, it is important that you provide the most accurate and honest information possible. There are no right or wrong answers. Report your impressions regardless of why you have them.

Your responses will be compiled with many others and summarized before being used by your organization. Your written comments will be conveyed in typewritten form and merged with the comments of others. You will not under any circumstances be individually identified.

There are 64 statements about your department and the divisional environment. We are asking you to indicate the extent to which these statements are accurate for your department and organization, and how important you think this area of organizational practice be improved. For each statement, you are given five possible responses regarding accuracy and four possible responses regarding the importance that this area be improved.

Please circle one of the available responses in each category. The two categories in the survey were as follows:"

* How often is each statement an accurate description of the situation in your department/organization?

1 = Yes -- most of the time; 2 = More than half the time; 3 = About half the time; 4 = Less than half the time; and 5 = No -- none of the time.

* How important is it that this area be improved?

1 = High priority; 2 = Medium priority; 3 = Low priority; and 4 = No change needed.

The survey was divided into two general areas entitled work environment and teamwork with questions that focused on goals, communication, quality, leadership and relationships within each respective section.

A demographic section was included that identified their departments, years of service, years in current job, compensation plan (wage or salary) and whether or not they were in a management position.

One section within the survey asked respondents to indicate the extent to which the questions were accurate for their department and organization. The following reflect the data collected. The first is a list of the top 10 issues which were identified as areas of strength. It includes:

* Management provides a safe and healthy work environment;

* The members of my department are skilled with respect to their individual jobs;

* My organization produces high-quality products;

* My department is committed to quality in our products and/or services;

* My organization demonstrates that customer satisfaction is an important and worthwhile goal;

* The members of my department have a strong work ethic and are willing to be responsible for their tasks;

* The organization has identified purposeful and meaningful goals;

* My department is looking for ways to improve the quality of our department's products and/or services;

* My organization gives the appropriate amount of attention to quality; and

* My supervisor can be trusted as he/she leads our department.

On a scale of 1 (all of the time) to 5 (none of the time), the range of scores was 1.69-2.27.

The second list identifies the top 11 issues identified as being areas of weaknesses. This list includes the following:

* The organization has an air of excitement in which people are always trying to find new ways to do a better job;

* The management of the organization rewards teamwork;

* The management of the organization encourages and rewards innovative ideas;

* The management of the organization offers opportunities for my career development;

* The organization effectively communicates the goals to all employees;

* The leaders of the organization set a good example of teamwork;

* The members of my department are informed in a timely manner about decisions that directly impact our department;

* The leaders of this organization listen to my concerns and needs;

* The members of my department consult with each other before a decision is made;

* The organization communicates accurate information in a timely manner so that all can do their jobs effectively; and

* The organization has integrated quality into all departments of our organization.

On a scale of 1 (all of the time) to 5 (none of the time), the range of scores was 2.87-3.18.

Another section of the survey asked the participants to identify areas that needed to be improved. This information was taken from the response category in which it asked the employee to indicate how important it is that this area be improved. The potential responses were high priority, medium priority, low priority, and no change needed. This list includes those areas identified as needed for improvement:

* The organization produces high-quality products;

* The organization gives the appropriate amount of attention to quality;

* The organization has integrated quality into all departments of the organization;

* The organization demonstrates that customer satisfaction is an important and worthwhile goal;

* The organization is working to achieve its goals;

* The organization communicates accurate information in a timely manner so that all can do their jobs effectively;

* The organization is willing to experiment with new approaches that improve quality;

* The leader of the organization set a good example of teamwork;

* The leaders of the organization respect the individual employees; and

* The organization effectively communicates the goals to all employees.

The second purpose of the study was to examine any significant differences based on demographic data with respect to individual or group perceptions toward teamwork. The results of the data indicated that there were minor significant differences between departments and those who were wage and salary people, but perhaps the most significant differences found were between non-management and management people. For example, of the 58 questions concerning accuracy, non-management and management people differed on 40 items at the significant level of .05. The majority of those items were issues related to leadership and management support, and management tended to perceive those items in a more positive light than the non-management people.

To provide a theoretical framework that will assist in clarifying and explaining this section, the forcefield analysis approach by Lewin will be used. The force field analysis is an approach in analyzing and diagnosing organizational effectiveness. In all organizations there are driving and restraining forces that influence the level of organizational effectiveness. Driving forces (strengths) affect the organization in initiating positive change. Restraining forces (weaknesses) act to restrain or decrease change. Equilibrium is reached when the sum of the driving forces equals the sum of the restraining forces.

Using this approach, the driving forces (strengths) and the restraining forces (weaknesses) were identified in Table 1, and it is important to note that the intensity of the strengths and weaknesses are relative with respect to the organization studied.

Building upon the forcefield analysis, there are three basic approaches to change. The three general change strategies that would allow the organization to increase their effectiveness and enrich their teamwork-based environment are:

* to introduce a new driving force(s) (strengths) or add to the intensity of an already existing driving force(s);

* to eliminate or decrease an existing restraining force(s) (weaknesses); or

* to do a combination of strategies one and two at the same time.

The recommended change strategy for most manufacturing organizations is that they implement strategy number three, in which they should build upon the driving forces (strengths) labeled safe work environment, TABULAR DATA OMITTED skilled workers, quality products, departmental quality, and customer satisfaction. Additional strengths include work ethic, meaningful goals, ways to improve and attention to quality. It is also recommended that the organization eliminate and decrease the restraining forces (weaknesses) -- people finding creative ways to do a better job, management rewards teamwork, management rewards innovation, management supporting career development and communication of goals. Other weaknesses include leaders setting an example of teamwork, members of my department informed about decisions, management listens to concerns, department members consult before decisions, organizations communicates, and integrates quality into all departments.

This strategy for change is reinforced by the top 10 areas that the employees identified as issues that needed to be improved. Seven of the 10 areas are directly identified within the Force Field Analysis, with four areas being weaknesses and three areas being strengths. This observation is most important, for it points out that to create and sustain a teamwork culture you need not only eliminate weaknesses, but continue to enhance your strengths.

The following is a summary of the areas of change that manufacturing organizations ought to consider in creating a teamwork based culture:

* Organizations must strengthen their commitment and approach in producing quality products. To remain on the cutting edge of quality, organizations must be willing to create an environment that supports teamwork in which work teams can find new and creative ways to meet the customer needs for quality products and services.

* Organizations must be committed and focused in giving the appropriate amount of attention to quality. It is the attention to quality and the willingness to spend the time enhancing quality that leads to quality products and services. Therefore, work teams must be given the responsibility, authority and time to focus on quality.

* Organizations must find new ways in which they can integrate quality into all of their departments. Synergy is achieved when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For organizations to synergize, it must encourage, reinforce and empower all departments (work teams) to work in ways that their product or service is always quality-oriented.

* Organizations must keep in the forefront that the customer is truly number one and that customer satisfaction is a critical and worthwhile goal. Companies must creatively find new and appropriate ways in which all work teams know, understand and are responsive to the needs of their customer.

* Organizations must develop, train and enable all work teams in such a way that all work teams can focus more directly on the achievements of its purposeful and meaningful goals. It appears that the employees within this study believe goals are important, but more attention needs to be given on how work teams can actually achieve these goals without distractions.

* Organizations must renew their commitment in communicating accurate information in a timely manner so that all can do their jobs effectively. In creating a teamwork-based environment, organizations must ensure that the methods of communication they use are timely, accurate and effective in communicating to empowered work teams the information they must have in order to achieve their goals.

* Organizations must be constantly open and willing to experiment with new approaches that improve quality. It is essential that work teams be given the responsibility and power to creatively experiment with new approaches to quality.

* Organizations must without question develop leaders that have the appropriate philosophy, attitude, commitment and skills that can set a good example of teamwork. Leaders who can work with other leaders in a team setting are needed, but also leaders that can reinforce and actively participate in the development and maintenance of their own high-quality work teams.

* Leaders must value, in word and in behavior, the importance of respecting the worth and significance of the individual employee.

* Organizations must effectively communicate at all times the goals of its organization to all employees. It is vital that organizations not only communicate what the goals are, but why they are important, and the role of individuals and work teams in the accomplishment of those goals.

Before proceeding to the next point, it is critical and most important we recognize the analysis and diagnosis of the data is based so far on a macro or wholistic view of the organization. This view is important. However, the usefulness of the collected data will be even more beneficial to the organization as they analyze the data from a micro level or based on the different business units. Looking at both levels of analysis (macro and micro), the organization can then identify those areas that need to be addressed and changed in bringing about a teamwork-based environment.

Another significant issue was the significant difference between managers and non-managers with respect to how they perceived teamwork issues. The managers tended to see things in a more positive way, whereas the employees were more critical in their evaluation and perception. Wilkins and Bristow clearly state that leadership is the key to cultural change and formation. In a study of 350 senior executives, SERPA found that the single most important leadership quality is the ability to build effective teams and a culture that supports and reinforces team efforts to instill teamwork throughout the corporation, the example must come from the top.

For that example to have hue impact, it is critical that managers and employees be together and have a common understanding of each others' perception toward a teamwork culture. The goal would be to reduce the disparity between managers and employees, thus increasing the probability of success.

For further reading

Amormino, M., "Hidden talents: How to take the lead with employee involvement teams," Plant Engineering & Maintenance, 1992.

Barney, J.B., "Organizational Culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?," Academy of Management Review, 1986.

Carroll, D.T., "A Disappointing Search for Excellent," Harvard Business Review, November-December, 1983.

Deal, T. & Kennedy, A., "Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life," Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982.

Gorden, W. I., "Corporate Cultures," Academy of Management Review, April, 1984.

Izuchukwu, J., "The Design Team Approach to Class "A" engineering," Industrial Engineering, 1991.

Janson, R. & Gunderson, R.L., "The Team Approach To Company-Wide Change," National Productivity Review, 1991.

Lewin, K., "Field Theory in Social Science; Selected theoretical papers." New York: Harper, 1951.

Linkow, P., "Is Your Culture Ready for Total Quality?," Quality Progress, 22, 1989.

Maccoby, M., "Rethinking competitiveness," Research Technology Management, 1991.

Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr., "Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1987.

Mckee, B., "Turn Your Workers Into a Team," Nation's Business, 1992.

Montana, A.J., "If It Isn't Perfect, Make It Better," Research-Technology Management, 1992.

Naisbitt, J., Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives, New York: Warner Books, 1982.

Peters, T.J. & Waterman R.H., In search of excellence, New York: Harper and Row, 1982.

Rees, T., Harris, R., & Lit, H., "Work teams that work," Manufacturing System, 1989.

Schamisso, A., "Creating teamwork in engineering," Machine Design, 1992.

Schein, E.H., "What you need to know about organizational culture," Training and Development Journal, 1986.

Serpa, R., "Teamwork starts at the top," Chief Executive, 1991.

Stinson, T., "Team in real engineering," Machine Design, 1990.

Tichy, N., Managing strategic change: technical political and cultural dynamics, New York: Wiley, 1983.

Walker, J., "No pain, no gain," (Part G), PEM: Plant Engineering and Maintenance, 1992.

Wilkins, A.L., "The culture audit: A tool for understanding organizations," Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 1983.

Wilkins, A.L. & Bristow N.J., "For successful organization culture, honor your past," The Academy of Management Executive. 1987.

Taggart F. Frost, Ph.D., is a professor of at the College of Business Administration at the University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa.