Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.

" This article uses an ecological approach to analyze factors in the effectiveness of work teams--small groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes for their organizations. Applications include advice and involvement, as in quality control circles and committees; production and service, as in assembly groups and sales teams; projects and development, as in engineering and research groups; and action and negotiation, as in sports teams and combat units. An analytic framework depicts team effectiveness as interdependent with organizational context, boundaries, and team development. Key context factors include (a) organizational culture, (b) technology and task design, (c) mission clarity, (d) autonomy, (e) rewards, ( f ) performance feedback, (g) training/consultation, and (h) physical environment. Team boundaries may mediate the impact of organizational context on team development. Current research leaves unanswered questions but suggests that effectiveness depends on organizational context and boundaries as much as on internal processes. Issues are raised for research and practice. The terms work team and work group appear often in today's discussions of organizations. Some experts claim that to be effective modern firms need to use small teams for an increasing variety of jobs. For instance, in an article subtitled "The Team as Hero," Reich (1987) wrote, If we are to compete in today's world, we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship, endeavors in which the whole of the effort is greater than the sum of individual contributions. We need to honor our teams more, our aggressive leaders and maverick geniuses less. (p. 78) Work teams occupy a pivotal role in what has been described as a management transformation (Walton, 1985), paradigm shift (Ketehum, 1984), and corporate renaissance (Kanter, 1983). In this management revolution, Peters (1988) advised that organizations use "multi-function teams for all development activities" (p. 210) and "organize every function into tento thirty-person, largely self-managing teams" (p. 296). Tornatzky (1986) pointed to new technologies that allow small work groups to take responsibility for whole products. Hackman (1986) predicted that, "organizations in the future will rely heavily on member self-management" (p. 90). Building blocks of such organizations are self-regulating work teams. But University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire University o f Tennessee far from being revolutionary, work groups are traditional; "the problem before us is not to invent more tools, but to use the ones we have" (Kanter, 1983, p. 64). In this article, we explore applications of work teams and propose an analytic framework for team effectiveness. Work teams are defined as interdependent collections of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations. In what follows, we first identify applications of work teams and then offer a framework for analyzing team effectiveness. Its facets make up topics of subsequent sections: organizational context, boundaries, and team development. We close with issues for research and practice. A p p l i c a t i o n s o f W o r k T e a m s Two watershed events called attention to the benefits of applying work teams beyond sports and mih'tary settings: the Hawthorne studies (Homans, 1950) and European experiments with autonomous work groups (Kelly, 1982). Enthusiasm has alternated with disenchantment (Bramel & Friend, 1987), but the 1980s have brought a resurgence of interest. Unfortunately, we have little evidence on how widely work teams are used or whether their use is expanding. Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, and Shani (1982) reported that introduction of autonomous work groups was the most common intervention in 134 experiments in manufacturing firms. Production teams number among four broad categories of work team applications: (a) advice and involvement, (b) production and service, (c) projects and development, and (d) action and negotiation. Advice and Involvement Decision-making committees traditional in management now are expanding to first-line employees. Quality control (QC) circles and employee involvement groups have been common in the 1980s, often as vehicles for employee participation ( Cole, 1982 ). Perhaps several hundred thousand U.S. employees belong to QC circles (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1988), usually first-line manufacturing employees who meet to identify opportunities for improvement. Some make and carry out proposals, but most have restricted scopes of activity and little working time, perhaps a few hours each month (Thompson, 1982). Employee involvement groups operate similarly, exploring ways to improve customer service (Peterfreund, 1982). 120 February 1990 • American Psychologist Copyright 1990 by the American Psyc2aological A~mciafion, Inc. 0003-066X/90/$00.75 Vol. 45, No. 2, 120-133 QC circles and employee involvement groups at times may have been implemented poorly (Shea, 1986), but they have been used extensively in some companies