ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
The Myth of the Self-Managing Team
Marilyn E. Laiken, Ph.D., RODC (Registered OD Consultant)
The Ontario Institute For Studies In Education
University of Toronto
Department of Adult Education
252 Bloor St. West
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6
CANADA
ABSTRACT
"Self-managed" teams are frequently envisioned as "leaderless", and are asked to
function without managerial intervention. With neither the skills nor the experience
to ensure a successful outcome, these teams often flounder through extended periods
of unmanaged conflict. Where managers do provide leadership, they rarely offer the
kind of facilitation that effectively encourages team development. This article
argues that self-management is an end-point rather than a beginning. It examines
team leadership, drawing on field research in three sites, and explores a model for the
role of manager as facilitator in helping teams develop towards high performance.
The role of managers in "self-managed" work teams continues to be the
subject of widespread concern. In some
cases, where self-management is understood as "leaderless", work groups have
floundered in apparent chaos as they
grapple with the leadership vacuum. In
others, where management is seen as a
temporary necessity, there appears to be
little clarity about what sort of management will be most effective in helping a
team move from inception to high performance. This article suggests that while
self-management may be the envisioned
end-state, high performing, self-managed
teams cannot be expected to emerge without a great deal of time and pain in the
absence of facilitative leadership.
The periods of confusion and decreased
productivity that are a normal part of a
team's life cycle (Tuckman, 1965) are
sometimes prolonged in leaderless teams,
encouraging management to move in and
take over. Often, the result is a sense of
VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 1994
failure and disappointment for all concerned, and for these teams there is no
second chance. This pattern is well documented (Lee, 1990; Taylor et al, Winter,
1987; Laiken, 1987). Where management
provides team leadership, Manz, Keating and Donnellon (1990) identify wrestling with this new role as one of the
major challenges in implementing work
teams. They note that managers tend to
ask, "How does one manage the selfmanaged?" In both the leaderless team
and the manager-led team, the T-group
phenomenon, group development theory,
and the concept of Situational Leadership
(Blanchard & Hersey, 1977) provide
useful insights.
T-Groups: An Experiment
With Leaderless Groups
The roots of team and group development are embedded in the Human Relations Movement, which began in the late
thirties to forties (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939; Lewin, 1947), and peaked in
29
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
the sixties (Bradford, Benne & Gibb, 1964;
Schutz, 1966; Bion; 1959). The purpose of
the T (for "training") group, or Sensitivity
Training Group, was to create a "cultural
island" in which the dynamics of power,
authority and interpersonal conflict could
be safely played out, examined, and
potentially, contribute to a deeper
understanding of how these issues
inform our daily lives.
Organizational
teams are
expected to be
productive in
meeting the
needs of the
organization.
T-groups involved an uninterrupted
period of time, usually in a retreat environment, in which all participants engaged fully with each other in face-to-face
interaction; a "trainer" who contributed
only his or her observations of the process, but who provided no actual content
structure for the group's work; and a task
which was essentially undefined and intentionally ambiguous. The leadership
vacuum thus created encouraged power
and control issues, particularly unresolved concerns about authority, to surface as the key focus for the group's
attention. The resolution of these concerns was the group's task. At the individual level, the process often proved to
be both painful and effective in helping
participants reflect on their interpersonal
impact and their ability to function as a
group member.
Facilitative Leadership
and Team Development
Active facilitation both speeds and eases
team development through to a selfmanaging, high performing end-state. In
the early eighties, I explored pairing leadership styles with the stages of group
development (Laiken, 1983), and this notion has been supported by several other
authors (Carew et al, 1984; Kormanski,
1985). The concept suggests that the effective facilitator adopts a style appropriate
to each stage in the life of the group.
Figure 1 describes this pairing in some
detail, bringing together group development theory, which emerged out of the Tgroup experience, and "situational
leadership" (Blanchard & Hersey, 1977),
which was initially developed to guide
the manager/subordinate relationship. I
believe that the pairing of these two theoretical models, whether through training
or intuition, is the basis of skilled
facilitation.
Field
Studies
Teaming
And
Facilitated
Field research in 1987 and 1993 indicates the importance of a situational approach to team leadership. An initial
study (Laiken, 1987) involved repeated
interviews with twenty-two front-line
Nevertheless, the T-group lacked a crit- workers in a sociotechnically designed
ical element that would have enabled its meat processing plant, over a period of
transferability to the workplace: it had no six months. The greenfield site employed
specific task beyond that of learning 300 production staff in six semi-autonothrough its process. In providing an op- mous teams, each responsible for deciportunity for work teams to function in a sions regarding job structuring, role
self-directed or self-managed way, we assignments, use of time and resources,
are recreating the dynamics of the six- productivity, quality control and personnel
ties T-group, with all of its inherent management. Each team was provided
struggles and potential for personal leadership by "Management Staff
and interpersonal learning. However, Assistants" (supervisory personnel) and
organizational teams are expected to be "Team Facilitators" (team members who
productive in meeting the needs of the volunteered for various leadership roles
organization. A business cannot afford to in the group). However, neither team
support an extended period of down- members nor leaders were trained in
time while team members resolve their group development theory or situational
leadership.
leadership struggles.
30
VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 1994
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
The teams did exhibit the developmental stages described by group development theory, moving from an initial
dependence on authority, to a struggle
for control, to (in some cases) a high level
of communication, interdependence, participation, problem solving, and team performance.
Three scenarios were observed. In some
groups, the Management Staff Assistant
acted as a traditional, highly directive
manager. In these cases, group members
became both dependent and angry (this
was not the team experience they had
expected), and these teams performed at a
minimally acceptable level.
In other groups, the Management Staff
Assistant abdicated entirely, believing
that this was appropriate in a plant based
on self-directed teams. This T-group-like
situation became chaotic and dysfunctional, at which time management terminated the self-direction experiment, much
to the dismay of most group members.
Although the experience had been difficult, the premature ending of it was perceived as an irreparable failure by the
participants.
In a few groups, the Management Staff
Assistants intuitively adjusted their behaviour to the team's stage of development (as outlined in Figure 1). These teams
did go through a stormy phase characterized by control struggles, but facilitative
leadership helped them relatively quickly
to achieve levels of collaboration, motivation, and performance well in excess
of corporate goals. Additionally, in these
groups, members reported a very high
degree of job satisfaction.
However, the level of dysfunction in
the plant as a whole led senior management to terminate the entire experiment
in self-managed teaming. The anger this
engendered among employees resulted
in an extended strike. Interestingly, after
termination of self-management and be-
fore the strike, and in the unwelcome
presence of efficiency experts engaged to
ensure productivity, the high performing teams consistently maintained their
effectiveness.
In a subsequent study in 1993, interviews were conducted in two private sector
Ontario
organizations
at
four
organizational levels: senior and middle
managers; first-line supervisors or team
leaders; and work team members. The
two organizations were self-identified as
using a team format successfully to
achieve organizational objectives.
In both organizations, a "self-managed
team" is defined by team leaders and
members as one in which several people
are working together towards common
goals, with no formal leader. However,
all of those interviewed agreed that this
definition does not describe the reality of
their own team experience. One team
member identified three developmental
stages: traditional management structure,
teams with team leaders, and finally,
teams where the leader becomes a team
player. Although none of the teams are
functioning without a leader at this point,
all are being given responsibility and
authority for making decisions which
directly affect their work, within boundaries specified by management regarding
budget, time-lines and productivity
goals. Both organizations have made a
concerted effort to orient and train their
managers and the team members. Training
was focused on orientation to the
teaming concept and to anticipated role
changes; group development theory;
group problem solving, decision making
and goal setting; and technical skills needed
for the analysis of work processes.
Both companies devoted a full year to
planning before introducing the team
structures that are presently in place.
Additionally, on-going coaching for team
leaders is conducted individually and
through team leader meetings in both
Although the
experience had
been difficult,
the premature
ending of it was
perceived as
an irreparable
failure by the
participants.
31
32
VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 1994
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
organizations. Continuous improvement opportunities for team members
are provided through cross-training for
technical knowledge, and through "justin-time" interventions to teach members the process skills necessary for
productive group dynamics.
The field
research
indicates that
the most
difficult
behavior for
team leaders to
learn and model
is the ability to
deal with
conflict in a
productive way.
In contrast to findings in the 1987
study, all of those involved, including
senior managers, are convinced that
teaming was a good and necessary business decision. Moreover, middle and
front-line managers do not feel that teaming
threatens their own job security. In their
view, teams require leadership, provided it
is facilitative and developmental in style.
This stands in distinct contrast to much of
the teaming literature, which reports
frequent job security concerns among
managers and supervisors (Manz et al,
1990, Wellins and George, 1991).
Nevertheless, managers interviewed
in 1993 reported that teaming and team
leadership •was not easy. A manager in
one of the companies notes that the process of change to team structures has
been "very long and drawn out. Team
leaders have to live the process and
model the behaviour expected, and
through action, convince the staff that
the process works because it does!"
(Team Leader).
Dealing With Conflict
Where team members and leaders are
trained, training tends to focus on rational
problem solving methodologies such as
statistical process control and Total
Quality Management (TQM) approaches.
Although some leaders are trained in
group development facilitation, they still
seem limited in their ability to handle
interpersonal conflict in a manner which
promotes team and individual growth.
The field research indicates that the most
difficult behavior for team leaders to
learn and model is the ability to deal
with conflict in a productive way. Since
a conflictual, stressful atmosphere is
characteristic of the second phase of team
development, the "storming" or "control" phase, this is a critical problem.
As members become comfortable with
their participation in the team, they begin
to assert themselves. This second phase
of development then, inherently involves
a struggle for control and resistance to
authority, both that of the leader and of
other team members (Tuckman, 1965).
The process is similar to a teenager's
"separation" from significant adults in
order to begin asserting his or her own
independence. The climate in the group
at this time tends to be stormy, with people
complaining vehemently about the lack
of progress, but offering much resistance
to anyone who attempts to help move
the group along.
During this phase, the facilitative leader
will help members acknowledge frustration and anger, surface and manage
conflicts, and will resist trying to solve
problems or encourage the group to reach
agreements. Eventually, members will
make suggestions which counter the leader's
original proposals or organizing
structures. If the leader goes along with
such suggestions, the group may move
through its storming phase. Norms will
be established based on the wishes of all
group members, including but not only
those of the leader. If the group's attempt
at independence is blocked by a leader
who fears "losing control", or becomes
panicked by the conflictual atmosphere, it
will likely regress to and may remain at a
dependent stage. However, if the storming
phase is successfully negotiated, the
group will move on to the third phase
relatively quickly. This phase is characterized by interdependence and high performance, and at this time the leader
becomes less involved in both task and
process direction, acting largely as a resource to the group (Tuckman, 1965; Hersey and Blanchard, 1977, Laiken, 1991).
(Open Acrobat Doc. below for full model).
VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 1994
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
Conclusions
The 1987 study found that managers
needed considerable training and support if they are to be effective in the
storming phase. Beyond understanding
that a storming phase is normal in group
development and will pass relatively
quickly with appropriate facilitation, they
need skills in conflict management and
help in dealing with their own feelings of
rejection. Equally, the study found that
the organization needs to allow for a
temporary drop in productivity during
this phase, as the group builds its capacity
to function more effectively.
Facilitators and team members interviewed in the 1993 study were better
trained in conflict management and negotiating skills, but all reported that, in
reality, this remained one of the most
difficult aspects of teaming. One team
member expressed particular concern
about supervisors who have difficulty
"letting go of control". Team members
felt that confronting the facilitator and
dealing with conflict directly is essential
for healthy team functioning. However,
facilitators and team members alike were
all somewhat uncomfortable with confrontation, and opinions differed on how
best to handle difficult issues, particularly
those related to workload distribution and
member "discipline".
An intellectual understanding does not
appear to be sufficient. No matter how
much it is intellectually accepted that
surfacing and managing conflict is a normal, healthy and productive process in a
team's life, most team members and leaders
appear to be frightened of the outcomes
and disinclined to engage. The reasons
appear to be emotional, attitudinal and
cultural. If this is so, experiential learning,
in this area in particular, maybe very
important for successful teaming.
Clearly, conflict management within
teams is a critical issue for both research
and practice.
The notion that teams will function
effectively from the start with no intentional facilitation is a myth and a misconception. Self-management is an end-point,
not a beginning. Skilled, facilitative leadership is a practical necessity if teams are
to become high performing with a minimum of time and stress. One of the most
important contributions made by a facilitative leader is the role he or she plays as
the team struggles with the conflict that is
inevitable in the process of group maturation.
REFERENCES
Bion, W.R. (1959). Experiences In Groups.
New York: Basic.
Bradford, L., Benne K. & Gibb, J. (Eds.).
(1964). T-Group Theory And Laboratory
Method. New York: Wiley.
Carew,
D.K.,
Parisi-Carew
&
Blanchard
K.H.
(1984).
Group
Development And Situational Leadership: A
Model For Managing Groups. Blanchard
Training and Development Inc.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management Of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Kormanski, C. L. (1985). A Situational
Leadership Approach To Groups Using
the Tuckman Model of Group Development. In Goodstein, L.D. & Pfeiffer, J.W.
(Eds.), 1955 Annual: Developing Human
Resources. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Laiken, Marilyn (1983). Facilitation: A
Developmental Approach To Group Leadership. Toronto: unpublished paper.
Laiken, Marilyn (1987). Taking Charge:
The Impact Of Organizational Restructuring
On Learning And Change Within SelfManaging Teams. Unpublished Doctoral
Thesis. O.I.S.E., Toronto.
Laiken, Marilyn (1991). The Anatomy Of
High Performing Teams: A Leader's Handbook. Toronto: Laiken Associates Press.
Lee, Chris (1990). Beyond Teamwork.
Training, June, 1990, 25-32.
33
34
VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 1994
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
Lewin, K. (1947). Group Decision and
Social Change. In T. Newcomb and E.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings In Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 197-211.
Manz, C, Keating, D., & Donnellon, A.
(1990). Preparing for an Organizational
Change to Employee Self-Management:
The Managerial Transition. Organizational
Dynamics.
Autumn,
1990,15-26.
Roethlisberger, F.W., & Dickson, W.
(1939). Management And The Worker: Technical Vs. Social Organization In An Industrial Plant. Boston: Harvard University.
Schutz, W. (1966). The Interpersonal Underworld. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior
Books.
Taylor, O.T., Friedman, DJ. and Couture, D. (1987). Operating Without Supervisors: An Experiment. Organizational
Dynamics. Winter, 1987, 26-38.
Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965).
Developmental sequence in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. 6.
Wellins, R. & George J. (1991). The key to
self-directed teams. Training and Development Journal. April, 1991, 26-31.