Deck 8: Quality Teamwork

Question 1

Donald Peterson, former CEO of Ford, said "No matter what you are trying to do, teams are the most effective way to get the job done." Do you agree Why or why not

Answer 1

This is an opinion question; however, you might consider the criteria for team effectiveness. If the "criteria for team effectiveness" are not met, teams can be ineffective and very inefficient. There are also many tasks and decisions that are simple and straightforward and likely more easily accomplished by an individual. Teams become more valuable as tasks and decisions become more complex and a larger mix of skills and knowledge are needed to accomplish the goal at hand.

Question 2

The Power of Leadership Teams
When the top management group at Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond decided to become a team, everyone was quite sure that they were already a team and worked pretty well together. The top leadership group in early 1995 was 10 people from three management levels and two individual contributors. The management style was much the same as they had been using for many years in the utility industry and was characterized by an emphasis on the chain of command for most decisions-with the important ones made by one or two people. Information and business results were communicated on a "need to know" basis. For the most part, each department operated and made decisions independently.
This management style served the utility business well, given its business requirements. The business was relatively predictable and structured with a regulated rate of return, regional market protection, and 100 percent control of access to its own distribution facilities. A watershed development, however, occurred in the early 1990s-a move toward deregulation. This demanded fundamental changes in the way Plant Hammond operated and managed its resources.
In the early 1990s, the plant had reduced the number of employees by about one third, resulting in fewer management levels and fewer managers in those levels. In early 1995, the parent organization, Southern Company, implemented a transformation process to improve the plant's ability to compete.
This transformation process required an emphasis on business results at all levels and creation of an organization culture that could deal with uncertainty and competition.
As the plant manager considered the requirements for the future, he determined that the structure, processes, and culture of the plant would need to change. Therefore, top management must change how it operated, broadening capabilities at all levels. Processes were needed to manage decision-making risk and gain consensus on direction. A new organizational structure was one of the early steps in their transformation. The structure provided an "outside in" focus-identifying the operations function as the primary internal customer, and grouped plant activities into several functional areas.
However, plant management knew that simply changing the boxes on an organization chart was not sufficient for real change. In the summer of 1995, the plant manager and nine other employees took their first step toward becoming a team when they came together at a facilitated off-site meeting. They clarified individual roles and responsibilities on this new team and began developing team relationships. They agreed that the role of each leadership-team member should be one of "shared responsibilities with a functional focus." Top managers at the plant could no longer make decisions from only their own departments' view. In fact, managers were required to consider the impact of their decisions- not only on the total plant but also on the total operating system of the Southern Company.
Each member took on the responsibility to champion specific transformation activities for the leadership team.
The team began to have regular one-day session meetings where they discussed and made decisions on strategic and operational issues. This management team took a key developmental step in 1996 by setting expectations for their behavior and presenting them to their organizations during reviews of the 1996 plant strategic plan. Putting these expectations "on the record" built incentives to act accordingly. The team found several tools to be helpful in its operation and development. One was a common work plan that served multiple purposes: (1) to ensure integration of their efforts and to track team results; (2) to establish member accountability; (3) to facilitate the delegation of traditional plant manager tasks; and (4) as a catalyst to surface strategic issues. Each team member took responsibility for the accomplishment of particular parts of the work plan.
The team also used various assessment instruments to understand and deal with the different individual styles of team members. Each team member discussed his or her assessment in an open forum. As a result, members made commitments for change and support. Each team member also formulated his or her own development plan based on these and other assessments.
Because one of the plant's strategies was to improve the capabilities of the management team, the team worked with an outside consultant to identify strengths and weaknesses. The consultant observed each of the team members in work situations and provided specific personal feedback and suggestions over an extended period of time. Each team member reviewed his or her assessment with the group and asked for reactions and recommendations.
The consultant also provided feedback on group processes and worked in concert with an internal consultant to improve teamwork processes.
Discussion Question
What challenges do such leadership teams face

Answer 2

Leadership teams face challenges with:
• Managers giving up control and autonomous decision-making.
• Gaining buy-in for the team concept from all participants.
• Carving out time for quality communication.
• Acceptance of individual assessments and willingness to work on improving communication and teamwork issues.
• Maintaining an "outside-in" focus.

Question 3

Petronius, a Roman satirist, noted back in 66 A.D.: "We trained hard-but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. "What implications does this quote have for modern managers

Answer 3

This quote can serve as a warning to managers and those responsible for implementing quality initiatives that organizational change needs to be made for the long term. It is not the answer to every change in environment or customer demand or every problem or bump in the road that the organization runs into. An organizational structure and a team structure require an opportunity to mature and to prove itself before it is changed again. Change for the sake of change is a very negative thing and is demoralizing to workers at all levels. After a few changes, workers begin to ask themselves, "Why bother embracing this change It won't be long until the next one."

Question 4

How might a jazz quartet be viewed as a metaphor for a team in a business situation If possible, watch the individuals in a jazz quartet in action in addition to simply listening to the music (the author's favorite is Diana Krall's Live in Paris DVD!).

Question 5

What are the similarities and differences among the types of teams used in TQ

Question 6

Think of a team that you are on, or have been on recently. How does it stack up against the criteria for quality teamwork What specific steps could be used to improve the performance of your team How could TQ techniques be used to improve team processes

Question 7

How are Six Sigma project teams different from the other types of teams discussed in this chapter

Question 8

How did the team at Norfolk General Hospital illustrate the effective teamwork practices discussed in the text

Question 9

If self-managed teams can succeed without active intervention from managers, what-if anything-does this imply about the traditional roles of management (to plan, organize, and control) in organizations Should a new set of roles be identified for such situations

Question 10

Do you think that the current popularity of teams in organizations is a fad or a fundamental change in the way we manage organizations Why

Question 11

Are teams absolutely necessary for TQ to be successful Sketch out a plan for a TQ effort that does not involve teams.

Question 12

Discuss the conditions under which team incentives may work. When is it a poor idea to install such systems

Question 13

How might a team leader deal with "social loafing," when members of the team are freeloaders, willing to receive the benefits of teamwork without doing the work themselves How would you deal with it if it occurred in a class project

Question 14

How does the Wikipedia virtual team environment reflect the principles discussed in this chapter For instance, which of Peter Scholtes' ingredients for a successful team are evident Can you suggest any improvements to the Wikipedia approach based on these principles

Question 15

You have undoubtedly been assigned to teams for student projects. Suppose that you are assigned to work with a group of your fellow students on a term project. Draft a team charter that will guide your work. Compare your charter with those of other classmates and discuss similarities and differences.

Question 16

The Power of Leadership Teams
When the top management group at Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond decided to become a team, everyone was quite sure that they were already a team and worked pretty well together. The top leadership group in early 1995 was 10 people from three management levels and two individual contributors. The management style was much the same as they had been using for many years in the utility industry and was characterized by an emphasis on the chain of command for most decisions-with the important ones made by one or two people. Information and business results were communicated on a "need to know" basis. For the most part, each department operated and made decisions independently.
This management style served the utility business well, given its business requirements. The business was relatively predictable and structured with a regulated rate of return, regional market protection, and 100 percent control of access to its own distribution facilities. A watershed development, however, occurred in the early 1990s-a move toward deregulation. This demanded fundamental changes in the way Plant Hammond operated and managed its resources.
In the early 1990s, the plant had reduced the number of employees by about one third, resulting in fewer management levels and fewer managers in those levels. In early 1995, the parent organization, Southern Company, implemented a transformation process to improve the plant's ability to compete.
This transformation process required an emphasis on business results at all levels and creation of an organization culture that could deal with uncertainty and competition.
As the plant manager considered the requirements for the future, he determined that the structure, processes, and culture of the plant would need to change. Therefore, top management must change how it operated, broadening capabilities at all levels. Processes were needed to manage decision-making risk and gain consensus on direction. A new organizational structure was one of the early steps in their transformation. The structure provided an "outside in" focus-identifying the operations function as the primary internal customer, and grouped plant activities into several functional areas.
However, plant management knew that simply changing the boxes on an organization chart was not sufficient for real change. In the summer of 1995, the plant manager and nine other employees took their first step toward becoming a team when they came together at a facilitated off-site meeting. They clarified individual roles and responsibilities on this new team and began developing team relationships. They agreed that the role of each leadership-team member should be one of "shared responsibilities with a functional focus." Top managers at the plant could no longer make decisions from only their own departments' view. In fact, managers were required to consider the impact of their decisions- not only on the total plant but also on the total operating system of the Southern Company.
Each member took on the responsibility to champion specific transformation activities for the leadership team.
The team began to have regular one-day session meetings where they discussed and made decisions on strategic and operational issues. This management team took a key developmental step in 1996 by setting expectations for their behavior and presenting them to their organizations during reviews of the 1996 plant strategic plan. Putting these expectations "on the record" built incentives to act accordingly. The team found several tools to be helpful in its operation and development. One was a common work plan that served multiple purposes: (1) to ensure integration of their efforts and to track team results; (2) to establish member accountability; (3) to facilitate the delegation of traditional plant manager tasks; and (4) as a catalyst to surface strategic issues. Each team member took responsibility for the accomplishment of particular parts of the work plan.
The team also used various assessment instruments to understand and deal with the different individual styles of team members. Each team member discussed his or her assessment in an open forum. As a result, members made commitments for change and support. Each team member also formulated his or her own development plan based on these and other assessments.
Because one of the plant's strategies was to improve the capabilities of the management team, the team worked with an outside consultant to identify strengths and weaknesses. The consultant observed each of the team members in work situations and provided specific personal feedback and suggestions over an extended period of time. Each team member reviewed his or her assessment with the group and asked for reactions and recommendations.
The consultant also provided feedback on group processes and worked in concert with an internal consultant to improve teamwork processes.
Discussion Question
What lessons do you think the company learned about transforming its leadership system to a team-based organization

Question 17

Describe the use of teams at KARLEE in the Performance Excellence Profile. How does the team based structure support performance excellence

Question 18

The Power of Leadership Teams
When the top management group at Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond decided to become a team, everyone was quite sure that they were already a team and worked pretty well together. The top leadership group in early 1995 was 10 people from three management levels and two individual contributors. The management style was much the same as they had been using for many years in the utility industry and was characterized by an emphasis on the chain of command for most decisions-with the important ones made by one or two people. Information and business results were communicated on a "need to know" basis. For the most part, each department operated and made decisions independently.
This management style served the utility business well, given its business requirements. The business was relatively predictable and structured with a regulated rate of return, regional market protection, and 100 percent control of access to its own distribution facilities. A watershed development, however, occurred in the early 1990s-a move toward deregulation. This demanded fundamental changes in the way Plant Hammond operated and managed its resources.
In the early 1990s, the plant had reduced the number of employees by about one third, resulting in fewer management levels and fewer managers in those levels. In early 1995, the parent organization, Southern Company, implemented a transformation process to improve the plant's ability to compete.
This transformation process required an emphasis on business results at all levels and creation of an organization culture that could deal with uncertainty and competition.
As the plant manager considered the requirements for the future, he determined that the structure, processes, and culture of the plant would need to change. Therefore, top management must change how it operated, broadening capabilities at all levels. Processes were needed to manage decision-making risk and gain consensus on direction. A new organizational structure was one of the early steps in their transformation. The structure provided an "outside in" focus-identifying the operations function as the primary internal customer, and grouped plant activities into several functional areas.
However, plant management knew that simply changing the boxes on an organization chart was not sufficient for real change. In the summer of 1995, the plant manager and nine other employees took their first step toward becoming a team when they came together at a facilitated off-site meeting. They clarified individual roles and responsibilities on this new team and began developing team relationships. They agreed that the role of each leadership-team member should be one of "shared responsibilities with a functional focus." Top managers at the plant could no longer make decisions from only their own departments' view. In fact, managers were required to consider the impact of their decisions- not only on the total plant but also on the total operating system of the Southern Company.
Each member took on the responsibility to champion specific transformation activities for the leadership team.
The team began to have regular one-day session meetings where they discussed and made decisions on strategic and operational issues. This management team took a key developmental step in 1996 by setting expectations for their behavior and presenting them to their organizations during reviews of the 1996 plant strategic plan. Putting these expectations "on the record" built incentives to act accordingly. The team found several tools to be helpful in its operation and development. One was a common work plan that served multiple purposes: (1) to ensure integration of their efforts and to track team results; (2) to establish member accountability; (3) to facilitate the delegation of traditional plant manager tasks; and (4) as a catalyst to surface strategic issues. Each team member took responsibility for the accomplishment of particular parts of the work plan.
The team also used various assessment instruments to understand and deal with the different individual styles of team members. Each team member discussed his or her assessment in an open forum. As a result, members made commitments for change and support. Each team member also formulated his or her own development plan based on these and other assessments.
Because one of the plant's strategies was to improve the capabilities of the management team, the team worked with an outside consultant to identify strengths and weaknesses. The consultant observed each of the team members in work situations and provided specific personal feedback and suggestions over an extended period of time. Each team member reviewed his or her assessment with the group and asked for reactions and recommendations.
The consultant also provided feedback on group processes and worked in concert with an internal consultant to improve teamwork processes.
Discussion Question
What conditions do you think are necessary for management teams to become "real teams" and not just a grouping of independent functional managers who cooperate with each other