SELF-DIRECTED TEAMS

INTRODUCTION

Many theories have shown that self-directed team (SDT) has been a successful solution adopted by organization to increase overall performance. This review will focus on characteristics of SDT such as autonomy and its effect on an organizations productivity. However potential conflicts and abuse of empowerment might also hinder the productivity of the SDT. These will be further illustrated in the following literature review.

SDT DEFINITION

Self-directed teams involve people from different structural groups cooperating to make organizational goals more achievable. As human resource is a vital asset, cooperation and coordination between departments should be deeply emphasized; resulting in the formation of self-directed teams to achieve the overall agenda of the organization. Mcshance, Olekalns and Travaglione (2010) defines self-directed team as a team that work with high level of interdependence within the team and make their own decision with little or no direct involvement of supervisor and having the potential to increase productivity and job satisfaction. Daft (2006) further support that the main idea of selfdirected team is that the team, instead of the managers or supervisors, undertake the duty of making decisions, supervision of their performance and modify their work behavior to resolve issues, meet goal and adapt to varying circumstances. Having the luxury to make decisions without red tapes and hierarchy level empowered to them, self-directed teams are liberated to deliver strategic outcomes with minimum interference. Without the restriction of upper management, decision-making is hence more forthcoming and better collaboration can be achieved. Members having intensive

communication with each other, relationships can thus be fostered. A more cohesive team is able to produce solutions that will increase the productivity of an organization.

PRODUCTIVITY

In view of organization performance rising, favorable economic status can be achieved. Yukl and Becker (2006) describes that employees who can make decisions are more likely to take accountability for their work and may be more self-driven to generate a high-quality product or service. Similarly, Mcshance, Olekalns and Travaglione (2010) outlined that recent research of SDTs suggest the potential of increasing efficiency and work contentment. With employees job satisfaction being established, enthusiasm in work can be nurtured. Employees having motivation are able to achieve better social distinctiveness in organization. Employees will hence pledge their loyalty to the organization which will diminish the turnover rate of organization, thus decreasing unnecessary cost of training new employees. Yukl and Becker (2006) claims that selfmanaged (self-directed) groups trim down the number of staff specialists required in an organization, which reduce costs. Having the advantage of cost reduction, funds are used to hire and nurture more talents to be involved in self-directed team. Self-directed teams encourage self-improvement of the members within the team through sharing of knowledge gained from various working backgrounds. Potential of constructive ideas can therefore be achieved. Occasionally, organization focuses on productivity so as to determine an organizations economic stability. Moreover, increasing the competency level of the employees is also essential prior to organization productivity. Yukl and Becker (2006) mentions that increased knowledge of work processes helps team members work out problems and imply development. Increases of knowledge amplify potential uprising of innovative ideas through brainstorming sessions between members. Motivation in employees helps encourage constant selfenrichment in organizations.

AUTONOMY

Self-directed teams are not restricted in their decision-making as they do not conform to the norms of being controlled by a higher authority. Traditionally, teams working in organization are usually restricted by the superiors decision which affect the teams freedom to make own decision. As competition increases, SDTs flexibility work nature will be an advantage to boost organizations performance in order to maintain its status among competitors. Example of Orpheus Orchestra of New York City forming teams of musicians to decide on the repertoire, schedule concerts, select new musicians, interpret musical works, and manage all the other artistic and performance duties of a conductor (Daft 2006). Members having extensive control over the work increase their motivation to fulfill objective. Yukl and Becker (2006) describes that greater autonomy can result in greater satisfaction in employees, along with lower turnover rate and lower rate of occurrence of habitual absence from work. High level of autonomy at workplace nonetheless, produces more accessibility and control over their job duties for the employees.

More control over job duties will result in more responsibilities, introducing high level of achievement into the involved personnel once the task is complete. Langfred (2007) describes that self managing (self-directed) teams competence to decide and modify their structures has important relationship with performance. High level of autonomy increases the flexibility of the job nature; allowing the enhancement of ones ability to restructure the job scope to suit the demands of the task assigned by organization. While certain level of autonomy is authorized to the team, it also signifies the trust entrusted to them by the organization. Self-directed team who are able to perform job duties upon organizational criteria will not only increase their self-awareness of their ability in contributing to the organization but also provide them with a sense of belonging to the organization. However positive effects are not guaranteed from the formation of self-directed teams. Problems may occur within the team, which will directly or indirectly affect the

productivity of the organization. Without a doubt, self-directed teams are not a warranty to the success of the organization.

DISADVANTAGES OF SDT

Members in self-directed team may face difficulty working with each other. Weber et al. (2010) describes that team members are somewhat reluctant to make individual adjustment to adapt the structure of a self-directed work team and will have trouble living up to expectations. Similarly, Yukl and Becker (2006) describe that being assigned greater responsibility may generate fear and uncertainty in some employees. Members of the team may have different perspective of the goal that they want to achieve, therefore relationships between each other may be affected. If members are unable to depend on each other, performance of the team might be affected.

When members start to build up barriers against each other, negative working attitude will be introduced to the team thus resulting in the loss of confidence and miscommunication between members may be develop. With communications being reduced, sharing of essential information may be affected. Langfred (2007) states that direct impact of conflict on task interdependence is possible as team members may reconstruct their team to avoid communicating with one another. If the problems

remained unsolved, it will have an impact on the teams long term performance and may sabotage the initial set-up of a self-directed team. Mcshance, Olekalns and Travaglione (2010) mentions that evaluation apprehensions tend to affect members confidence of bringing up ideas that seem impractical to others believing that other team members are silently reviewing them. Team members should understand each other behaviors to overcome interpersonal barriers. Relationship between each other can be fostered and conflicts can be reduced.

SIMILAR POINTS OF VIEWS OF AUTHORS

Daft (2006) defines that external leaders serve as an active bond between the team and the organization, building positive relationships and getting the team what is needed to achieve optimal performance and similarly, Druskat and Wheeler (2003) further support that external leadership plays a significant role in the success of empowered organizations. Similar agreement from above two authors has emphasize that exterior supervisor plays a vital role in affecting the performance of the team. Minimum management is essential to be imposed on a team to act as a link between organization and team. External leader providing assistance to the team with information or skills training will improve teams ability to meet organization goals. Empowering the team will grant them the access to broad range of resources required to perform their task.

However, level of empowerment should be assessed carefully by organization to prevent the improper use of autonomy. Langfred (2007) states that flexibility in team may become a liability when teams reconstruct themselves in dysfunctional ways when dealing with conflict management, and Weber et al. (2010) further supports that when member presume they have authority over the team, interdependency is lost and there will be probability of conflict arise. Members taking for granted the autonomy empowered to them, fundamental communication between group members may disappear, and hence conflicts may materialize over a period of time.

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEWS OF AUTHORS

Mcshance, Olekalns and Travaglione (2010) outline that self-directed team is able to generate advantages that are favorable to the employees but Weber et al. (2010) argue that there is still a limitation to self-directed team. Mcshance, Olekalns and Travaglione

(2010) describes that SDTs has potential to increase productivity and job fulfillment. Being able to participate in self-directed team has expose employees with the possibility of increasing individuals capability through communicating of knowledge between each other. However, Weber et al. (2010) argues that senior personnel are unable to improve or develop their personal talents as their ranks have been integrated with regular personnel, restricting themselves from developing their abilities outside of the teams functional position. Senior personnel involving in SDT with junior personnel, has more likelihood to impart knowledge than gaining knowledge from them which may defeats the initial purpose.

CONCLUSION

Correlation between organization success and team productivity has been closely link with each other. I believe that employees behavior should be examined carefully pertain to teams success. Understanding employees behavior during development of the team will facilitate in relationships between team members. A strong and cohesive team is deemed to survive longer in an organization, better productivity can be generated. Empowerment being a trait of SDT, offer boundless advantages essential in building a cohesive team. However, if managed incorrectly, might produce counterproductive behavior which can set off conflicts between team members. Therefore, It emphasize the fact that for empowerment involvement to be successful, intense consideration such as understanding of employees behavior should be taken and not just focusing on the nature of the task.

1608 words

Reference List

Daft, R L 2006, The New Era of Management, international edn, South Western

Druskat, V U and Wheeler, J V 2003, Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435 457, viewed 22 July 2010

Howell, R T 2001, Fostering Self-Directed Team Members, Journal of technology studies Volume XXVII, Number 1, Winter/Spring 2001, viewed 17 July 2010

Langfred, C W 2007, The Downside Of Self-Management: A Longitudinal Study Of The Effects Of Conflict On Trust, Autonomy, And Task Interdependence In Self-Managing Teams, Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 4: 885-900, viewed July 15, 2010, Business Source Complete database

McShane, S, Olekalns, M and Travaglione T 2010, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, Australia

Weber, M, Alagoa, E, Tkalcevich, S and Marcelino, M 2010, Self Directed Work Teams (SDWT), viewed on 17 July 2010, <http://e-steve.ca/?p=13>

Yukl, G A and Becker, W S 2006, Effective Empowerment in Organizations, Organization Management Journal 3, no. 3: 210-231, viewed 15 July 2010, Business Source Complete database

QUESTIONS What are the methods to determine level of autonomy required to each self-directed teams prior to level of task to prevent the risk of abuse of empowerment? Example When should upper management step in? Are there any ways to prevent conflict of interest between SDT from other team under the same organization? Example - Prevent unhealthy competition Is it essential to appoint a permanent leader or everyone should rotate the role of leader within SDT?