Introduction
There are many types of teams that can be found in organisations today. Examples of the common
types of teams are informal, traditional, problem-solving, leadership and virtual. In this review, a
unique type of team that leads itself called Self-Directed Teams(SDTs) will be discussed. This review
provides a basic definition of Self Directed Teams which is then focussed on two major themes;
outcomes and implications of implementing SDTs. Although this review presents these themes in a
wide context but it will be focused on how SDTs may inhibit an organisation's team performance
despite many theories that proposed SDTs to be highly successful.
Self-Directed Teams and Autonomy
Stephen and Ramirez (1999) defines Self-Directed Teams(SDTs) as a team that consists of a group of
well trained individuals with the ongoing responsibility and authority for completing a well-defined
task whereby the team is also provided with a high level of autonomy from the upper management as
long as they meet the expected quota or provide a promising assurance of exceeding goals.
Self-Directed Teams are also commonly known as Self-Directed Work Teams(SDWTs) and Self-
Managed Work Teams(SMWTs).
Therefore, without being managed directly, employees in the teams now have a high level of
autonomy to function independently. This unique characteristic of Autonomy in SDTs is described by
McShane, Olekalns and Travaglione (2010) as a degree in which supervisors empowers their
employees independence such as freedom to schedule and plan their work, employees is also to
determine the steps used in completing a defined goal or task.
Possible side effects of SDTs
The implementation of SDTs in organisations as an attempt to improve its performance level did not
only bring about positive outcomes but had also resulted in side effects due to the challenges of
working in an SDT environment. This could be due to SDTs requiring team members to acquire team
and communication skills at more sophisticated levels than previously on traditional (hierarchical)
teams (Wellins and George, 1996).
Social Loafing
'The SDWT is a fairly new concept in motivational management and can trace its development back
to the early 1970's where one of the first organizations to develop and implement the idea was Gaines
Pet Foods in Topeka in an attempt to tackle employee isolation in manufacturing firms' (Vecchio,
2006, p. 110). The example of Gaines Pet Foods in Topeka is a situation whereby employees were
isolated but were given an opportunity to develop workplace cohesiveness via working in SDTs.
However, this could also potentially lead to problems such as social conflicts among team members as
during the early years of implementation the new roles and responsibilities of SDTs were unclear at
that point of time. Furthermore, workers became interdependent on one another which could result in
social loafing. Comer(1995) defines that social loafing as the tendency of an individual to contribute
less work when they function in a team as when compared to working alone.
A drop in productivity may result as McShane and Von Glinow (2004) suggested that social loafing
is a form of limitation in a team as there is a risk of lower productivity.
Furthermore, Wall et al. (1986) adds that one study suggests that members of SMWTs may be
unwilling to discipline one another such as holding back rewards and punishing a member who
performs below expectations. This could mean that the skiving member may not be dealt with and
instead continue within the team as a black sheep.
Implications of implementing SDTs
However, despite some successful stories of SDTs, there are some draw-backs of this system which
may cause it to fail when implemented into certain companies and organisations. We shall will look
into some more significant problems as a result of implementing SDTs.
Job Security of Management
According to Food Engineering research, the main reason for failure of SDWTs in food
manufacturing plants was the lack of commitment by the management to the change in authority as
managers and superiors were reluctant to relinquish their traditional authoritarian roles (Morris 2003).
This reluctance to give up their authority as higher management occurs as implementation of SDWTs
could mean fewer number of supervisors such as managers. Due to the wide and encompassing
responsibilities which includes work planning and assignment of responsibilities which were
traditionally tasks carried by higher management. Therefore, since SDWTs has inherited their
authority and autonomy their role would definitely appear less significant in the organisation.
Uncooperative Management
'Another problem is that supervisors do not know how to become "hands-off" facilitators of several
work teams rather than "hands-on" supervisors of several employees' (McShane & Von Glinow 2004,
p. 300). McShane and Von Glinow (2004) also pointed out that this eventually became a huge barrier
to SDTs at a TRW auto parts plant whereby supervisors repeatedly resume their supervisory style
towards the teams. It appears that not only did supervisors felt the fear of losing their jobs but also had
difficulties adapting to the new autonomy SDTs received. This in turn resulted in failure to achieve a
successful SDWT in the organisation as workers felt that their superiors did not trust them to function
well on their own which also dampened their motivation.
Employee Resistance
Training is essential for workers to function effectively in SDTs as they have new roles and
responsibilities to assume. However McShane and Von Glinow (2004) reported that sometimes
employees oppose implementation of SDTs as they have to learn new skills which requires more work
and effort by employees. Learning of skills often comes along with stress which further discourages
employees and this causes employees to be unwilling and unmotivated to work towards SDTs.
Cross-Cultural Issues
McShane and Von Glinow (2004) also found that employees in Mexico had very high power distance
value and which explains why implementing SDWTs in such country had been unsuccessful. People
of such countries have cultures that has shaped them to be submissive instead of being pro-active.
Therefore, SDWTs would be less effective in such cases as McShane and Von Glinow (2004)
suggested that SDWTs focuses heavily on self-initiative and individual responsibility in the work
team. Hence, SDWTs are not suitable for all organisations in the world due to factors such as high
power distance which is an obstacle to a successful SDWT.
Other implications
Besides the mentioned factors and implications there are many other factors that could easily arise and
lead to failure of an SDT in an organisation.
Some of these factors are:
Confusion on team’s authority
Complexity of the team leader’s role
Unclear on team’s goals
Communication break down
Lack of rewards and recognition
Poor team dynamics among members
Key Findings and Reflection
After reviewing SDTs, some key findings I found are that implementing SDTs in an organisation is
risky and may backfire as there are many complications from both management and employee levels.
In terms of management, supervisors would feel less inclined with their subordinates and this leads to
lesser interactions which may result in misunderstanding and lower social cohesiveness. Moreover, a
manager's vast amount of experience and foresight would be wasted as they do not guide the teams
directly anymore.
Employee level wise, I realise that certain employees could find themselves contributing more to meet
targets as skiving employees would take advantage of the system and contribute less. This has been
described in the review as social loafing and this unfairness would eventually lead to conflicts which
cripples the team.
Besides an uneven contribution of work, another finding that I found is that workers may also resist
SDTs as they have to undergo much more training then before in order to cross function and many
dislike this additional stress as they could already be satisfied with their current job scope. I also feel
that certain employees function better individually then in teams and this is due to their personality
which must be respected and hence SDT is not suitable for everyone.
In order to reflect upon SDTs, I have read about the other types of teams such as virtual, problem-
solving and top management and realise they all have specific characteristics and are usually
implemented when an organisation intends to improve its effectiveness and productivity or to solve a
problem.
However, I feel that SDT is more suitable when employees needs to have an understanding of the
different job processes rather than merely knowing their individual duties. Knowing the processes
well they can tailor their work towards enhancing the previous employee's work or facilitate the next
employee's job. This not only improves a team's effectiveness but also employees are thankful
towards each other in the case of spotting mistakes of fellow employee's work before serious
consequences happen.
An example is that food preparation workers at McDonalds must also understand the difficulties faced
by the delivery worker to ensure the meal is delivered safely to the customer. By communicating
regularly between one another, the team in-charge of delivery discusses the feedbacks and act upon it
such as putting the drinks into individual plastic bags. In the case of leakage, rest of the items will
remain intact. This improves the effectiveness of the delivery and better job relations. However, such
scenarios does not apply to all organisational settings.
Important information to know is that in order for SDTs to be successful the factors mentioned in the
review must be thoroughly dealt with. Higher management must ensure their supervisors continue to
guide the SDTs appropriately and ensure they do not feel that SDTs threaten their job. Companies
should allow employees to decide upon whether or not they want to be in an SDTs else implications
such as social loafing and dissatisfaction could occur.
Conclusion
It is shown in the review that serious problems such as management resistance, employee resistance
and implications like social loafing have caused more harm than good in an organisation when the
system of SDTs is adopted. Furthermore, not every employee is suitable for teamwork, they may
work better alone and even when unsupervised. Attempts to implement self-managed teams may
cause frustration to both employees and management when organisational systems and structures do
not accommodate self-managing requirements.
I conclude that SDTs have indeed shown positive results in some organisations but there have also
been numerous cases whereby it has failed and resulted in both management and worker frustration.
Ultimately, the implementation of SDTs does not guarantee success and it must be carefully planned
by the organisation else the application of SDTs would inhibit team performance in an organisation
and financial loss would be the unfortunate end product.
-1747 words-