Introduction to self-managed teams
Self-managed work teams are official groups that finish a whole set of work necessitating a number of mutually dependent responsibilities and have considerable independence over the execution of these job-related responsibilities. Self-managed teams are also known as self-directed teams and have several attributes. These attributes include: the teams are in charge of assigning tasks to each of the team members; the teams have total control over the work input, flow and output; the teams are in charge of finding solutions to the problems they encounter; and the teams use feedback and sanction mechanisms to enhance their performance (McShane and Travaglione 2007, 10-5). O’Carroll (2004) states that, “these autonomous, self-regulating work groups are cross-trained, empowered workers who progressively accept, as a team, the total responsibilities and duties necessary for completing a well-defined segment of work,” (78).
The major difference between self-managed teams and the traditional work teams lies in the fact that the former increasingly take on growing control over their function. The only task that the management performs is to set the desired goals and limits for the teams. Once this is done, the team proceeds to institute the techniques, measurements and approaches necessary to attain the set goals. The teams progressively assume more responsibilities for their functioning as they continue to achieve their goals. In this process, the organizational structure of the organization is reduced. O’Carroll (2004) argues that, “the result of this process is a lean, empowering organization that realizes a level of organizational effectiveness that previously did not seem possible,” (80). However, the development of self-managed teams does not happen overnight – it is a long process that entails calculated training as well as the patient guidance of a manager who support the development process. A number of scholars have studied the effectiveness of self-managed teams and provide evidence that these teams are more effective than the traditional teams. Indeed, self-managed teams have become popular in today’s business world and many organizations, both great and small, have implemented them. This paper aims at examining the features of self-managed teams that make them to be effective.
Emotional intelligence of self-managed teams
Emotional intelligence is generally defined as “the emotional, affective, and social skills dimension of general intelligence,” (Frye, Bennett and Caldwell 2006, 49). In the course of the last decade, organizations have enhanced the utilization of self-managed teams to carry out work responsibilities and achieve organizational objectives (Guzzo and Salas 1995). Given that teamwork is characteristically a social undertaking that engrosses individuals involved in interpersonal associations and becoming accustomed to a wide range of individual disparities (for instance, work style and personality variations) in addition to environmental and work demands, it is most probable that emotional intelligence is a necessary ability for individuals working in team-based organizations. In any case, successful team performance is dependent, partially, on individuals’ mentally dispensation of emotional data and utilizing it to participate in efficient interpersonal associations with other team members. Emotional intelligence of teams has been studied by various researchers. Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel and Hooper (2002), for instance carried out a study to examine the emotional intelligence of self-managed teams of university students. The emotional intelligence of teams has been linked to a number of team performance attributes. Jordan et al. (2002) discovered that the standard level of general emotional intelligence in self-managed teams of their sample was correlated to team process efficiency and team goal focus. Team process efficiency and team goal focus are two attributes of team performance.
Due to the fact that conflict (both useful and dysfunctional conflict) naturally occurs in work teams, Jordan and Troth (2004) carried out a study of the effect of emotional intelligence on the performance of a team through a problem-solving job. The objective of the study was to identify the conflict resolution strategies that self-managed teams use. The scholars utilized a sample of 350 undergraduate university students who executed their responsibilities in groups of four to five members. It was theorized that groups that had higher levels of emotional intelligence would: a) record better performance on the problem-solving chore than groups that had lower average emotional intelligence; b) implement mutual conflict resolution strategy; and c) encounter fewer relationship-related conflicts but more task-related conflict than groups that had lower emotional intelligence levels. As anticipated, the groups that had higher standard emotional intelligence levels recorded better performance on the problem-solving chores and implemented group effort as their ideal conflict resolution approach. Jordan and Troth (2004) inferred that, “teams composed of individuals high in emotional intelligence, particularly the ability to deal with one’s own emotions, may be more inclined to listen to alternative viewpoints and seek superior solutions without feeling threatened by the possibility of being wrong,” (211). The results of this study suggest that it is rational to expect the emotional intelligence of each of the team members of a group to improve or hamper the growth of effective team interpersonal processes, which is a significant constituent of team performance.
Leadership in self-managed teams
Majority of prior studies done to examine leadership in self-managed teams have concentrated on the emergent or peripheral leader of the work team. Nevertheless, the role of shared leadership in self-managed teams has attracted the attention of scholars in the recent past. Shared leadership is defined as, “a condition in which teams collectively exert influence, and leadership is distributed among all team members depending on their skills, abilities, and the task,” (Pearce and Conger 2003, 12). Shared leadership recognizes the different personalities, skills, abilities and knowledge of each of the team members. Each of the team members is then assigned some leadership roles on different tasks based on their skills and capabilities (Albert and Fetzer 2005, 146). This is different from the kind of leadership that is implemented in the traditional work teams in which only one individual is assigned the leadership role. In shared leadership, leadership is dispensed equally among all the team members. Shared leadership is one of the most important factors that determine the effectiveness of self-managed work teams. This is because the range of opinions and capabilities of each of the team members make it possible for the team members to execute an array of leadership responsibilities throughout the performance of their tasks. However, to gauge the effectiveness of shared leadership on self-managed teams, four attributes of leadership – Relating to People, Producing Results, Managing Processes and Leading Change – should be measured.
Zaft, Adams and Matkin (2009) carried out a study to examine the effect of shared leadership on the effectiveness of a self-managed team using a sample of 81 engineering students. The scholars found that teams that record higher levels of three leadership profiles – Producing Results, Managing Processes and Leading Change – experience a higher level of effectiveness and performance in the teams than their counterparts. The ‘Producing Results’ leadership attribute concentrates on issues such as general production, goal achievement, direction, preparation, organization, and competition. The ‘Managing Processes’ leadership attribute concentrates on issues such as controlling tasks, guaranteeing correct jobs, elucidating policies, developing strategies, preserving order, general synchronization, and enforcement. The ‘Leading Change’ leadership attribute is characterized by issues such as flexibility, sensitivity to the peripheral environment (such as stakeholders), predicting clients’ needs, experimentation, innovative problem solving, exploration of enhancement, and obtaining essential resources (Belasen 1997, 83). Hence, the knowledge of which leadership skills are the most crucial in a work team can significantly enhance the experience and results of the team.
Goal orientation and supervisory encouragement in self-managed teams
Goal orientation
The duty performed by each of the members of self-managed team has for a long time been a subject of interest for scholars as well as practitioners. Goal orientation is one of the factors that affect the effectiveness of self-managed teams. According to Carson, Mosley and Boyar (2004), “goal orientation is a theory that has emerged from the educational psychology and child development literatures with most of the initial research using adolescents in experimental studies,” (155). Goal orientation is comprised of three factors namely: learning goal orientation, performance proving goal orientation, and performance avoiding goal orientation. The learning goal orientation focuses on the learning process which the team members go through by gaining a deep insight into the task and the approaches used in carrying out the tasks. It also focuses on the development of skills and aptitude necessary to perform the tasks. Learning goal orientation prompts team members to believe that proficiency can be enhanced, to assess their capability as compared to prior levels of proficiency, and to select and stick with difficult tasks (Druskat and Pescosolido 2002, 284). The performance goal orientations lean toward the attainment of precise performance goals rather than the process followed in the attainment of the set goals. Performance goals frequently bring about an evaluation of individuals’ performance in comparison with the performance of others. The performance goal orientations prompt team members to believe that their capability is least likely to be enhanced, to assess their capabilities in comparison to others, and to select a chore in which they can excel rather than fail (Carson, Mosley and Boyar 2004, 157).
Encouraging supervisory behaviours
Supervision of self-managed teams is a contradiction that is handled by elucidating six leadership attributes that help self-managed teams to manage themselves. These attributes include: encouraging self-observation/self-evaluation, encouraging self-goal setting, encouraging self-reinforcement, encouraging self-criticism, encouraging self-expectation, and encouraging rehearsal. Self-observation/evaluation aids the performance assessment procedure. In this attribute, the supervisor persuades the work team to scrutinize, be mindful of, and incessantly evaluate its level of performance. Self-goal setting aids the laying down of performance objectives. This attribute permits the work team to lay down practical but demanding goals. Self-reinforcement aids the acknowledgment and strengthening of excellent performance. Using this attribute the supervisor prompts the work team to emphasize and strive to achieve high performance standards. Self-criticism aids important self-assessment and opposition of poor performance. Self-expectation aids enhanced anticipations for group performance. Lastly, rehearsal aids the practice of a task before its actual execution. The supervisor encourages the work team to appraise a task and run through the procedures involved in the task before the task can be performed. With the encouragement of these attributes, supervisors assist the self-managed teams to develop self-control. According to Carson, Mosley and Boyar (2004), “this self-control, or self-regulation, is the key component of self-management and self-management, in turn, enables team members to exhibit performance-enhancing behaviours that lead to increased team effectiveness,” (159).
Conclusion
Self-managed teams are very popular in today’s business world and are used even in virtual organizations. They are considered to be more effective than the traditional work teams due to a variety of reasons. The shared leadership that is characteristic of self-managed teams increases the effectiveness of teams because it enables all the team members to utilize their unique skills and abilities in the execution of the tasks at hand. As a result, it is easy for the team to find multiple solutions to the problems facing them. In addition, self-managed work teams have a higher level of emotional intelligence than the traditional work teams. The high emotional intelligence of self-managed teams enhances the interpersonal associations of the team members and in the process minimizes conflicts that arise due to poor interpersonal relations. This increases the general performance of the work teams as well as their effectiveness. Despite these benefits of self-managed teams, it should be noted that the development of self-managed teams is not applicable to all organizations. Problems such as slow decision making and reluctance of team members to take on responsibilities that were previously carried out by managers are some of the disadvantages of self-managed teams. These problems are dependent on the type of organizational structure one is dealing with. The success of self-managed teams therefore depends on the alignment between the structure of the work team and the structure of the organization (Tata and Prasad 2004, 250).
References
Albert, Sylvie and Ronald Fetzer. “Smart community networks: self-directed team effectiveness in action.” Team Performance Management 11(5/6): 144-156.
Belasen, Alan. 1997. “An application of the competing values framework to self-managed teams.” Current Topics in Management 1: 79-111.
Carson, Charles, Don Mosley and Scott Boyar. 2004. “Goal orientation and supervisory behaviours: impacting SMWT effectiveness.” Team Performance Management 10(7/8): 152-162.
Druskat, Vanessa and Anthony Pescosolido. 2002. “The context of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating.” Human Relations 55(3): 283.
Guzzo, Richard and Eduardo Salas. 1995. Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jordan, Peter, Neal Ashkanasy, Charmine Hartel and Gregory Hooper. 2002. “Workgroup emotional intelligence scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.” Human Resource Management Review 12: 195-214.
Jordan, Peter and Ashlea Troth. 2004. “Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution.” Human Performance 17: 195-218.
McShane, Steven and Tony Travaglione. 2007. Organizational behaviour in the Pacific Rim. Australia: McGraw-Hill.
O’Carroll, Robbie. 2004. “Designing organizations to survive in the global economy: An insider’s account.” Irish Journal of Management 25(2): 76-91.
Pearce, Craig and Jay Conger. 2003. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tata, Jasmine and Sameer Prasad. 2004. “Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness.” Journal of Managerial Issues 16(2): 248-265.
Zaft, Carmen, Stephanie Adams and Gina Matkin. 2009. “Measuring leadership in self-managed teams using the competing values framework.” Journal of Engineering Education 98(3): 273-282.