Self-Managed Teams Affect Members, Managers Differently

A researcher poses a question: since there is proof that self-managed work teams improve company performance, but far less evidence that task forces or quality circles improve performance, why did the use of self-managed teams fall slightly in the mid-90s to 38% of firms while quality circle use doubled to 57%?

The answer, she says, is that cost-effectiveness is not the only factor top managers use to make decisions: for example, they must also consider politics. If subordinates do not perceive self-managed teams as benefiting them personally, they have powerful reasons to resist or even thwart implementation. So it would help to know, as the study title asks, "Who Benefits from Teams?"

The researcher studied a large "Baby Bell" telecommunications company using observation, interviews, and a survey of nearly 1,200 workers, line supervisors, and middle managers. This company had an ongoing quality circle program and also allowed middle managers to create self-managed teams if they wanted to. The manager, supervisor and team would negotiate a transfer of managerial duties and the supervisor would become a coach. "Team members received additional training but no additional pay and remained under the same contract provisions as other workers," the researcher wrote.

The study found that employees in self-managed teams (SMTs) felt more control over their work, more secure in their jobs, and greater job satisfaction than employees on standard teams. Middle managers who initiated SMTs felt no change in control or satisfaction, but sensed greater job security. However the "coaches" (line supervisors) lost ground on all three variables when their teams moved to self-management.

Involvement with quality circles had no effect on any of the ratings for any level of worker.

Source: Batt, R. (04), "Who Benefits from Teams? Comparing Workers, Supervisors, and Managers," Industrial Relations 43(1):183.