TEAMS AND TEAM MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP:QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY ERGONOMICS TEAMS

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY ERGONOMICS TEAMS

Teamwork has been the backbone of quality improvement. More recently, teamwork has been used in the context of participatory ergonomics (PE). However, while QI teams primarily focus on activities related to identifying, designing, and implementing improvements in both work processes and products / services, PE teams primarily focus on improvement of working conditions. The following sections review the state of the art for both applications of teamwork.

Teams in the Context of Quality Improvement

Employee participation, particularly through teamwork, is one of the essential foundations of QI. Different from many other management approaches that present teamwork effectiveness as contingent to several aspects, QI supports the use of teams without any specific provisions (Dean and Bowen 1994).

A variety of quality-related teams can exist within organizations. Kano (1993) categorizes teams into three types: (1) functional teams, which are ongoing voluntary problem-solving groups made up of workers in the same workplace; (2) quality building-in-process teams, in which a set of related jobs are shared, with the goal of building quality into a product during the assembling process; and

(2) task / project teams, which are ad hoc groups comprised of staff or line managers, who disband once the task is completed.

Quality circle (QC) is one of the most widely discussed and adopted forms of teamwork (Cotton 1993). QCs are project / problem-solving teams that have been defined as small groups of volunteers from the same work area who meet regularly to identify, analyze, and solve quality-related problems in their area of responsibility (Wayne et al. 1986). These groups usually consist of 8 to 10 employees who meet on a regular basis, such as one hour per week. In many QCs, the supervisor is designated as the circle leader. Formal training in problem-solving techniques is often a part of circle meetings.

The claimed benefits of QCs include quality and cost awareness; reduction in conflict and im- proved communications; higher morale, motivation, and productivity; and cost savings (Head et al. 1986). The effect of this type of teamwork on employee attitudes is assumed to be the primary reason for their success (Head et al. 1986). Marks et al. (1986) propose that QC participation will lead to enriched jobs, with employees experiencing work as more meaningful, obtaining greater knowledge of the results of their work, and gaining a greater sense of responsibility. Enriched jobs are the result of increased skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Hackman and Oldham 1980). These job characteristics may then be related to outcomes that include higher job satisfaction and motivation.

Teamwork can enrich jobs through different mechanisms. Skill variety can be increased from both project activity and one’s role within the team. Activities such as data collection and analysis, problem solving, presenting information to groups, and group decision making are key elements in quality- related teamwork, which may not be part of workers’ daily routines. Team projects can typically be expected to increase the variety of stimuli to which employees are exposed (Rafaeli 1985).

An essential element of quality-related teamwork is providing feedback to participants (Head et al. 1987). Feedback may be provided through data collection conducted by the team. Interaction within the group and with outside groups (e.g., management, customers) is another potential source of feedback. Team activity increases the frequency of communication among coworkers and super- visors, and may include those outside of the team as well (Buch and Raban 1990; Rafaeli 1985; Marks et al. 1986).

At the team level, the worker may experience a degree of control that is higher than one would expect at the individual level. Autonomy is actually expected to increase among quality team members (Head et al. 1987; Rafaeli 1985). Teams may have control over the content and sequence of activities. In addition, team members may be given control over specific tasks within the group, such as data collection and analysis.

However, the data regarding these hypothesized relationships are somewhat inconsistent. Marks et al. (1986) found that QC participation in a manufacturing firm influenced work attitudes that were directly related to QC involvement: participation, decision making, group communication, worthwhile accomplishments, and enhancing the opportunities and skills needed for advancement. There was no improvement found in job challenge, personal responsibility, and overall job satisfaction. Rafaeli (1985), in a study of QCs in a manufacturing firm, did find QC involvement to be related to the job dimension of task variety, but not to autonomy. In addition, Rafaeli found no relationship between QC involvement and job satisfaction. Head et al. (1986) also studied QC participation in a manufac- turing setting, and found no significant differences on any of the core job dimensions, nor in satis- faction or motivation measures. While Mohrman and Novelli (1985) did find improvements in job satisfaction for warehouse employees, there were then decreases in satisfaction after one year. Non- participants were significantly lower in feedback and involvement in decision making. Buch and Raban (1990) reported improvements in QC members’ perceptions of certain job dimensions, such as autonomy and communication. However, they did not find any difference between members and nonmembers in overall job satisfaction. Finally, Jennings (1988) found QC participation to be related to negative outcomes, namely role conflict and stress.

These conflicting results may be due to the time period in which the different studies were conducted. Longitudinal studies of QCs have shown a consistent pattern of diminishing effects over time. Griffin (1988) found increases in both job satisfaction and organizational commitment for the first one and a half years of a QC program in a manufacturing plant, which were followed by decreases in these measures over a three-year period. Mohrman and Novelli (1985) found a similar pattern of results for job satisfaction. In a qualitative study of manufacturing and banking organiza- tions, Doherty et al. (1989) found an increase, followed by a decrease, in perceived communication, participation, and employee / management relations for a team suggestion program.

The patterns from longitudinal studies indicate that QCs might not have lasting effects. Perhaps long-lasting attitudinal changes should not be expected from a program that accounts for such a small proportion of employees’ total work time (Wood et al. 1983). Overall, studies of QCs seem to show a slight impact on satisfaction and commitment. Cotton (1993) argues that direct, teamwork-related attitudes, such as perceptions of influence, are more affected by QCs, while general attitudes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, are less affected.

It has been suggested that, in order to obtain greater benefits, teamwork should be part of a more comprehensive program (Head et al. 1986). Quality circles are a parallel structure in the organization and may not have the authority or resources to affect change (Lawler and Mohrman 1987). QCs may not be related to the day-to-day work done in organizations, and nonparticipants may feel left out, resulting in a negative backlash (Lawler 1986). Demands may be increased for both participants and nonparticipants. For participants, there are the additional duties of going to team meetings and training sessions, while nonparticipants may occasionally have to fill in for participants who are away from their jobs. The main drawback with QCs, according to Lawler and Mohrman (1987), is that they are not well integrated into the organization, in terms of management philosophy, technical and organi- zational redesign, personnel policies, and training.

Quality improvement (QI) uses quality teams that are similar to QCs in that they address specific problem areas, employ statistical tools, provide group process and problem-solving training to team members, and use team facilitators. Both QCs and QI teams use the PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act) and the QC Story (i.e., seven-step problem-solving method) as their primary problem-solving methodologies. However, there are differences in the context of quality teams under QI that may result in better integration within the organization.

Carr and Littman (1993) identify several differences between QI teams and QCs. QCs are often limited to employees and front-line supervisors, while QI teams include members from management as well. Involving management in quality teams can reduce management resistance and fear. QCs in general have a more limited focus than QI teams in both issues addressed and composition of teams. While QCs generally include only the members of a specific work area, QI teams may be cross- functional, including members from different units within the organization. Teams such as this can deal with broader organizational issues and can implement solutions that are more likely to be accepted and effective since more stakeholders are involved. Teams under QI have the potential for a high degree of integration into the organization through greater involvement of management and the existence of more broadly based teams.

Participatory Ergonomics

Perhaps one the fastest-growing applications of teamwork has been in the field of ergonomics. The use of teams to evaluate, design, and implement jobs and workstations is relatively recent but has met widespread acceptance. A clear indication of this trend is the growing number of submissions on the topic in most national and international ergonomics conferences and the inclusion of employee participation as one of the basic requirements in the proposed OSHA Ergonomics Standard (OSHA 1999).

Participatory ergonomics can be understood as a spinoff of the activity of quality-related teams focusing on working conditions. Noro and Imada created the term participatory ergonomics (PE) in 1984 with the main assumption that ergonomics is bounded by the degree to which people are involved in conducting this technology. According to Imada (1991), PE requires users (the real beneficiaries of ergonomics) to be directly involved in developing and implementing ergonomics. Wilson (1995) more recently proposed a more comprehensive definition of PE as ‘‘the involvement of people in planning and controlling a significant amount of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power to influence both processes and outcomes in order to achieve desirable goals.’’ Imada (1991) points out three major arguments in support of worker involvement in ergonomics. First, ergonomics being an intuitive science, which in many cases simply organizes the knowledge the workers are already using, it can validate the workers’ accumulated experience. Second, people are more likely to support and adopt solutions they feel responsible for. Involving users / workers in the ergonomic process has the potential to transform them into makers and supporters of the process rather than passive recipients. Finally, developing and implementing technology enables the workers to modify and correct occurring problems continuously.

Participatory ergonomics can be an effective tool for disseminating ergonomic information allowing for the utilization of this knowledge in a company-wide basis. It is evident that professional ergonomists will not be available to deal with all the situations existent in an entire organization and that there is a need to motivate, train, and provide resources to workers to analyze and intervene in their work settings.

Participatory ergonomics sees end users’ contributions as indispensable elements of its scientific methodology. It stresses the validity of simple tools and workers’ experience in problem solution and denies that these characteristics result in nonscientific outcomes. Employees or end users are in most situations in the best position to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the work situations. Their involvement in the analysis and redesign of their workplace can lead to better designs as well as increase their and the company’s knowledge on the process.

This approach stresses the relevance of ‘‘small wins’’ (Weick 1984), a series of concrete, complete, implemented contributions that can construct a pattern of progress. The nature of these small victories allows the workers to see the next step, the next improvement, and it constitutes a gradual, involving movement towards organizational change. Participatory ergonomics is seen occasionally either as method to design and implement specific workplace changes or a work organization method in place regardless of the presence of change. Wilson and Haines (1997) argue that the participatory process is in itself more important than the focus of that participation since a ‘‘flexible and robust’’ process may support the implementation of any change.

Participatory ergonomics emphasizes self-control and self-determination and provides workers more control over their working conditions. This approach also offers potential for reduced job strain through increased social interaction and support. In fact, worker involvement has been shown to be the most common feature among effective stress-management programs (Karasek 1992).

Participatory ergonomics has been implemented through a variety of different organizational approaches and team designs, and no clear unifying model has been proposed or seems likely to be achieved (Vink et al. 1992). Liker et al. (1989) describe six different models of participation based on either direct or representative participation and on different levels of worker input. Wilson and Haines (1997) describe seven dimensions of participatory ergonomics, characterizing the level of participation (e.g., workstation, organization), focus (e.g., product, workstation, job), purpose (e.g., design, implementation), timeline (e.g., continuous, discrete), involvement (e.g., direct, representa- tive), coupling (e.g., direct, remote), and requirement (e.g., voluntary, necessary).

The tools employed in participatory ergonomics clearly reflect the importance given to the sim- plicity and meaningfulness of the methods. Group processes follow procedures that mirror those used in quality-related teams. The most common techniques utilized are also derived from QI applications, including Pareto analysis, brainstorming, cause-and-effect diagram, flowcharts, and several forms of displaying quantitative information. Other tools for observation, time measurement, workstation anal- ysis, and problem solving have been developed to address the needs of teams working on ergonomic issues. See Noro and Imada (1991) and Wilson and Haines (1997) for a more complete account of available methods.

Participatory ergonomics is a main feature of most successful ergonomic programs, as emphasized in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) elements of ergonomics programs (Cohen et al. 1997). This approach has been increasingly common among interventions aimed at improving productivity and reducing both physical and mental workloads. Successful ap- plications of PE have been reported in many industries, including meatpacking (Garg and Moore 1997), health care (Evanoff et al. 1999), automotive (Joseph 1986; Orta-Anes 1991; Keyserling and Hankins 1994), office work (Vink et al. 1995; Haims and Carayon 1998), and agriculture (Sutjana et al. 1999).

Even though the potential benefits are significant, PE faces the same difficulties as do other teamwork initiatives discussed elsewhere in this chapter. Difficulties for the successful implementation of PE include lack of commitment from management and its use as decoy for other purposes such as undermining the union or reducing management influence (Day 1998). The skeptical stance of management regarding the need for ergonomic improvement, the lack of worker awareness of er- gonomic deficiencies, and labor management conflict are also highlighted as possible hurdles for PE development (Vink et al. 1992).