Combined final presenation_v2

A Case Review:Empowerment or Iron

Cage?

Presented by: Bobbi Derheimer, Ignatius Okoroji, Jack Plouse, Laura Pittner,Megan Rocha, Melanie Morrill, & Nassiba Khelifi.

A Case Review: Empowerment or Iron Cage?Overview

Characteristics

Discussion-Xel

Discussion-Stitchco

Challenges

Successes

Conclusion

References

OverviewXEL VP wanted organization to

become more adaptive and innovative.

Decentralized structure turning over decisions to self-managed teams.

Self-managing teams constituted group standards.

“Concertive control” by teams does not produce desired effect (Conrad & Poole, 2012).

STITCHCO Managements goal was to

increase flexibility and speed of manufacturing.

Organization changed from individual reward system to group reward system.

Reward system failed.

Suffered from interpersonal dilemmas.

Characteristics of Self-Managed Teams

Open-mindedness

Communication skills

Emotional stability

Accountability

Problem solving abilities

Conflict resolution skills

Trust“The glue that holds all the pieces in place for an effective and efficient [self-managed team] is trust” (Cook & Goff, 2002, p. 490).

Xel Communications’ Goal: Increase its flexibility.

Xel’s model fits Barker, Melville, and Pacanowsky description: interdependent tasks and complex processes.

Opted for self-managed teams.

Plan reconfiguration: 3 emerging self-managing teams (Red, Blue, and White) (Conrad & Poole, 2012).

The Process: Xel’s Success

The Process: Xel’s Success & FailureEach team was responsible for its own success and problem

solving methods.

Structural change gradual with initial trial group.

Former boss looked to as “consultant” and offered problem solving suggestions, not demands.

Initially successful.

Led to a restrictive environment.

Xel: Case Study Summary

Faced issues with employees not in agreement with the majority.

These issues were taken to the Vice President (Mr. Painter) who gave advice.

White team in conflict with Mr. Painter: organizational communication issue over team’s independence.

Problem: Alma misinterpreted Painter’s advice for an order.

Xel: Case StudyWhite team initial reaction:

AngerResentmentRebellion

Painter’s reaction: UnderstandingReassuring the White team of their “independence”

White team final reaction: PleasedBack to independence

Opted for self-managed teams.

Rapid change to team structure without warning.

Goal: increase flexibility and manufacturing speed.

Stitchco’s model does NOT fit the Barker, Melville, and Pacanowsky description – tasks not interdependent, too simple (employees understand the system too well).

The Process: Stitchco’s Failure

The Process: Stitchco’s FailureEmployees divided into groups based on skill levels,

manufacturing output, and speed.

Bonuses and pay rate became dependent on group performance rather than on the individual.

Managers still responsible for problem solving.

Challenges of Self-Managed Teams

Co-dependent behaviors diminish effectivity of self-managed teams (Cook & Goff, 2002).

• Team members must become participants, not followers. Barker, Melville, and Pacanowsky (1993) acknowledge that “‘participant’ is a necessary, but learned role that does not come naturally to workers shaped by the traditional, ‘follower,’ organization” (p. 304).

Critical situations cause team members to fall back into familiar hierarchical behavior patterns (Cook & Goff, 2002).

Challenges of Self-Managed Teams “The desire to create more empowering, more innovative, more

productive, kinder and gentler organizations, however inspiring, is probably too abstract an undertaking to withstand the vicissitudes of business reality” (Barker et al., 1993, pp. 309-10).

• “Research reveals there are many benefits to adopting self-managed teams” (Cook & Goff, 2002, p. 488), such as:

• Greater organizational profitability

• Improvement in production quality

• Less absenteeism

• Productivity increases

• Increase in employee satisfaction and morale

So Why a Self-Managed Team?

Adaption of self-managed teams requires a change in the organizational culture.

“Organizational cultures are more likely to change when the culture change is linked to is consequential changes in business practice” (Barker et al., 1993, p. 310).

Example: Xel succeeded because the business was driving the culture change.

The Key to Success

Conclusion: Goals of Self -Managed TeamsProvide employees with enhanced job satisfaction and

involvement.

Create a fit between employee satisfaction and organizational prosperity.

Allow all members of the team to be leaders and part of the decision making process.

ReferencesBarker, J. R., Melville, C. W., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1993). Self- directed teams

at Xel: Changes in communication practices during a program of cultural transformation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21(4), 297-312.

Bolman, L. Deal, T. (2008). Reframing Organizations. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conrad, C., & Poole, M. (2012). Strategic organizational communication in a global economy. (7th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cook, R. A., & Goff, J. (2002). Coming of age with self-managed teams: Dealing with a problem employee. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(3),

485-496.