🚀 go-pugleaf

In a message dated 8/17/97 6:09:21, you wrote:

<<Greetings All!

the organisation where I work (15,000+ employees) is trying to introduce
teams into the work environment.  One of the difficulties (amongst many)
I see is that the organisation is traditionally autocratic and
militaristic.  There are major issues here for managers re controls and
accountabilities etc.  My view is that teams work best in a 'quality'
environment, and to try to implement them in an organisation that is not
committed to quality is doomed to failure.

In my experience teams are inextricably linked to quality.  Whilst
quality in the workplace can exist without teams, I do not believe that
teams can operate successfully without a commitment by the organisation
to quality.  I would be interested in peoples observations and/or
experiences on this issue.

Regards,

--
Clint Pheeney
clint@unforgettable.com
Griffith NSW Australia
>>


As a categorical statement, I disagree with your comment that teams can not
function successful in a "autocratic and militaristic"  organization.  The
military has a long history of working in teams for a long time, (aircrews,
sub marine crews, special forces).  The thing to remember is that the term
team has a very broad application.  The American Heritage dictionary defines
team as, "A group of people organized for a particular purpose."

My suggestion is to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the
teams you are wanting to form.  I suspect that you are talking about
self-directed work teams for productivity and quality improvement.  In that
sense, your description of the organizations culture is adverse to the
success of that type of team.

As many are aware, if the effort is not fully support by management, the
project is doomed to failure inspite of evidence of islands of excellence.
 The trick is to do one of two things.  First define the roles and functions
of the team in a manner that can be supported by the existing culture  This
is not necessarily a high performance prospect.  The existing political
nature of the organization will tend to limit potential of the team.

Second, define the roles and functions of the teams based on current state of
the art performance that other organizations already have achieved
(benchmarking).  I would suggest getting as many high up executives to see,
touch, and taste the experience of other organizations as possible and hold
dicussions with their peer groups from other organizations.  This approach
may open up an opportunity for a managment lead culture change.

Option one has the higher probablity of success, but lower goals.  The second
option has the potential of breakthrough performance, but a lower probability
of success.  Managers who attain high rank in a particualr system tend not to
see a need to change the system.

Culture change is not easily accomplished and rarely from below (violent
revolutions come from below).  It is easier to motivate change if there is a
wolf at the door.  If business is not improving, or the competitive
environment is getting intense, there maybe a wolf at the door.  That maybe a
chink in the armor to get an audience for the ideas of self-directed work
teams.

Remember, the success stories of highly successful quality organziations have
occurred in three ways.  One, staring into the abyss and getting religion,
(Harley-Davidson, Motorola).  Two, an epiphany of a senior executive that
quality is the right way, (Corning).  Three, the formation of a company by
executives who are converts (FedEx).

I wish you luck and great success.

Robert Drensek, CQE, CQA
Quality Engineer
RNAV@AOL.COM