Using Self-directed Work Group Conceptsfor Successful Classroom Group Experiences

Julie Smith DavidSchool of Accountancy and Information Management

Arizona State UniversityTempe AZ 85287-3606

Carol A. WellingtonDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science

Shippensburg University of PennsylvaniaShippensburg, PA 17257

Abstract - Global markets and sophisticated informationtechnology have increased the pace of competition. Tosucceed in this new environment, firms are evolving theirorganizational structure from purely hierarchical to moreteam-oriented groups. As a result, university recruiters wantengineering and business graduates to perform well ingroups. Unfortunately, there is some evidence thatuniversities have not been able to meet this goal (Davis etal. 1997 and Siegel and Sorensen 1994). To provide ourstudents with productive group experiences, we studied thecharacteristics of successful group environments, and nowcreate similar situations in our classrooms. Patterning ourgroups after self-directed work groups (SDWGs), we havedeveloped and refined a structure that allows students tocontrol long-term group activities, including taskorganization, compensation, and problem resolution(Zuidema and Kleiner 1994). We have used these forms in arange of Computer Science classes and upper-divisionAccounting and CIS classes. We will present the structurewe impose and anecdotal results from these experiences.

Introduction

Today's organizations are operating in increasingly complexenvironments. To compete successfully, firms must rely, toa larger extent, on total quality management, overcoming alack of focus, improving their responsiveness, andemphasizing management-employee partnerships [8].

One method today's organizations are using to meetthese challenges is self-directed work groups (SDWGs).Such groups have more responsibilities than traditionalteams; they are often responsible for planning, controlling,and coordinating the work they perform [2]. These teamsare comprised of highly educated, empowered groupmembers who work with minimum supervision to solveproblems in complex multidisciplinary environments [11].Procter & Gamble implemented SDWGs more than 30 yearsago. Since that time, organizations in many differentindustries have taken advantage of this type of teamincluding manufacturing firms such as Boeing and General

Motors [3]; government agencies such as the Palm BeachCounty Performance Enterprise Program [6] and the NavalHospital Orlando [4]; and service functions such asAmeritech's internal audit department [1]

Students graduating from college are likely to beincluded on such teams. This is especially true for studentsgraduating from business and engineering colleges. Forexample, Davis et al [5] identify group skills as one of themost important capabilities for computer informationsystems graduates. Similar claims have been made foraccounting graduates [10]. As a result, engineering andbusiness colleges have recognized the importance of group,interpersonal, and leadership skills. Unfortunately, there issome evidence that the students are not learning these skills([5] and [10]).

This paper describes a methodology for incorporatingthe characteristics of SDWGs in university settings.Specifically, forms are included that allow students tostructure their groups as they see fit. In addition, groups aretaught conflict resolution and time management skills, andare encouraged to identify innovative means to determinethe appropriate strategy for successful problem resolution.

The next section of this paper provides an overview ofself-directed work groups. Subsequently, these concepts areapplied to groups in universities. Specifically, they willdescribe how supporting forms were designed, how theybeen used in various university settings, and anecdotalresults of these experiences.

Self-Directed Work Groups

For over 30 years, firms have struggled to survive inincreasingly complex environments. One of the techniquesthat firms have used to successfully meet this challenge isSDWGs. Although no formal definition is available,Thamhain [11, p. 32] defines them as "a group of employeeswho have day-to-day responsibility for managingthemselves and the work they perform with a minimum ofdirect supervision." To contribute to such a team,employees must be well-educated, well informed, and able

to interact successfully. The team will need to have someboundaries, but will not need to be micro-managed by anoutside agent. In fact, the most successful SDWGs are thosethat find leadership within the group and are given the mostflexibility in the approach to their daily activities.

SDWGs can be given extensive responsibilities. ThePalm Beach County Performance Enterprise Programinitiated an SDWG for its graphics team and gave it fiscalresponsibility for its activities and control over admission ofmembers. The team quickly learned to solve problemswithout blaming those responsible for difficulties [6]. Whengroups have successfully formed teams, they are often ableto take on larger problems. The Salt River Project hasimplemented such teams and now those teams are involvedin 80 percent of the organization's decisions [9].

The results of these teams can be dramatic. WhenCaterpillar Equipment implemented SDWGs, the results oftheir pilot program included less staff turnover, improvedpurchasing cycle times, and gains in efficiency [2].Thamhain [11] identifies the following as additional benefitsof SDWGs: increased ability to cope with change, reducedtime to market, increased quality, improved resourceutilization, and increased overall performance.

To introduce SDWGs into an organization, it isimportant for management to stress that benefits will bepermanent although they won't occur immediately. In factmany organizations find that it takes years for SDWGs tofully evolve. During this process, the groups will gothrough many phases. For example, Retss [9] says thatimplementation must include the following phases:

1. Concept Introduction - This should includedescribing the goals the teams may face,management support structures, and time forimplementation. Upper management must showsupport for the teams and flexibility to modify theorganization to meet the teams' needs [1].

2. Allocating Responsibilities - If the teams are notgiven the ability to manage their environment, theywill be unable to produce the expected results.Thamhain [11] stresses the need for a clearassignment, ability to identify internal leadership,and responsibility for their actions.

3. Problem Solving - For this phase, teams may needadditional training and have to overcome barriersbetween members of the team. Many authors havestressed the importance of interpersonalcommunication training including skills necessaryfor conflict resolution [4, 13, 12, 2].

4. Settling In - Time will allow members of the groupto become comfortable with this philosophy andprovide dramatic results for the organization.

5. Passing the Torch - Once one group hassuccessfully managed its environment, the lessonslearned can be shared with others.

Little has been written in the literature about how

SDWGs should be reviewed. In accounting-relatedSDWGs, team member scorecards have been completed atthe end of audits, and bonuses have been based on teamperformance [1]. Some companies have found that peerreviews are an effective means to manage teams, whileothers find them too time-consuming [7].

Classroom Self-directed Work Groups

To provide students with a rich experience in group work,we have developed materials that create SDWGs within theclassroom. For these activities, the classroom is turned intoa fictitious work place. Specifically, the class is anorganization employing the students and the professor; thestudents form the SDWGs, and, the professor is the HumanResources Department. Following the tenets of SDWGs, theteams are given training on communication and groupmonitoring skills. They establish their own rules of conductand manage the accomplishment of their projects.

Upon forming groups, the class discusses thereservations about groups and previous successful groupcharacteristics. Often students complain that universitygroup experiences are frustrating and add little to theirlearning experience. Their concerns include other student'swork influencing their grades, finding adequate meetingtime, and unequal distribution of the work. Once thesechallenges are openly discussed, the Human ResourcesDepartment (the professor) distributes an EmploymentContract and a Code of Conduct (Figures 1 and 2).

The Employment Contract describes the organizationalstructure for the teams while the Code of Conduct providesan area for the team to write the rules their team will follow.The teams are encouraged to discuss their expectations forteam members, what problems they have had in previousteams, and how they hope to resolve problems in the future.As a result of this discussion, each team will create its ownrules for the behavior of its members. This Code of Conductwill be filed with Human Resources and can be used as areference for future problems.

There are two goals for this planning activity. First,discussing expectations allows group members to share theirconcerns. Awareness of expectations allows them tomonitor their behavior before any problems occur. Second,if a problem does occur, the rest of the group can beprepared to reprimand the offending member.

To overcome concerns with team performance, we havegiven the students the ability to document problemmembers. Similar to many organizations, a team membermay be given an oral warning (see Figure 3) if he or shedoes not perform to the level described in the code conduct.If that member continues to perform below expectations, theteam may complete a written warning form (see Figure 4)documenting the problem. At this point, the team isresponsible for monitoring that student's progress. If thestudent's performance improves, the team must file an

Employee Status Update form (see Figure 5). If the problemcontinues, the group is able to terminate the non-performingmember. Each of the steps results in a document that iscompleted by the team, signed by all members, and filedwith Human Resources. These forms focus on how themember can improve his/her performance and become aproductive member of the team.

Results and Conclusions

This organizational format has been used in a wide varietyof courses. It was developed for a junior level introductorybusiness process analysis course. In this course, it has beenused for four semesters including approximately 500students in 100 teams. It has also been introduced tocomputer science majors, computer information systemsmajors, and general business students. In total,approximately 1,600 students have been members ofSDWGs.

On average, only one or two teams have used the oralwarning form during any semester. The common problemsrecorded include failing to complete work on time, missingmeetings regularly, and preparing low-quality work. In onlyone instance has a team prepared a written warning form. Inno cases have team members been fired.

By focusing on the process of being a member of aSDWG, students understand their responsibilities and canresolve their own difficulties. Even with the training ingroup mechanics, the initial Codes of Conduct tend to beshallow with vague rules (i.e. "Stay focused" or "We willcomplete our work on time"). However, as the semesterprogresses, the teams often revise their Codes of Conduct toinclude more rigor (i.e. "Prepare an agenda for eachmeeting" or "Dave will keep a list of individual assignmentsincluding due dates and who is responsible"). This showsthey are thinking about how their group functions and how itcan function more effectively.

Since students recognize the group's expectations andhave procedures to reprimand members who don't meetexpectations, teams no longer come to the professordescribing problem situations. When the professor receivesa warning form, it is a sign the group is working toovercome valid problems. In all but one case, the groupshave been able to overcome these problems.

Another benefit is that teams appear to be working moreeffectively together. When students complete evaluations atthe end of each course, they frequently described their groupexperiences as the highlight of the course. We posit that thesuccess is largely a result of the initial discussions held todevelop the Code of Conduct. Additionally, since all groupmembers know they can be reprimanded by their peers, they

work to satisfy expectations.While the results presented here are anecdotal, we have

enjoyed more fulfilling group experiences sinceimplementing this format. We have developed a processthat introduces group concepts, gives responsibility to theteams, and allows them to solve problems. The result ismore satisfied students, better work from teams, and a muchless stressful environment for faculty and students.

The url http://www.ship.edu/~cawell/groups containsall of the forms and related information.

References

[1] Adamec, B.A. and J.H. Zelenka. "Self-directed AuditTeams," Internal Auditor. Vol 53, No. 2, April1996, pp. 36-43.

[2] Anonymous, "Working to Delight the InternalCustomer," International Journal of CareerManagement, Vol 7, No. 4, 1995, pp. 29-30.

[3] Anonymous. "Implementing Self-directed Work Teams,"CMA Magazine, Vol. 71, No. 3, 1995, p. 31.

[4] Dasch, M. "Hospital Sets New Standard as ClosureApproaches: Quality is Continuous," Quality-Progress, Vol. 28, No. 10, 1995 pp. 45-48.

[5] Davis, G.B., J.T. Gorgone, J.D. Couger, D.L Feinstein,and H.E. Longenecker, Jr,. IS ’97 ModelCurriculum and Guidelines for UndergraduateDegree Programs in Information Systems, 1997.

[6] Devaney, S.G., "A Formula for Success," Journal forQuality and Participation, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan/Feb1997, pp. 8-10.

[7] Hitchcock, D., "What are People Doing Around PeerReview?" Journal for Quality and Participation,Vol. 19, No. 7, Dec. 1996, pp. 52-55.

[8] Ray, D. and Bronstein, H., "The Right Direction,"Incentive, Vol. 169, No. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 46.

[9] Retts, C., "From Hierarchy to High Performance,"Training and Development Vol. 49, No. 10, Oct.1995, pp. 30-33.

[10] Siegel, G. and J.E. Sorensen. What Corporate AmericaWants in Entry Level Accountants. Montvale, NJ:The Institute of Management Accountants, 1994..

[11] Thamhain, H. J., "Enhancing Innovative Performanceof Self-directed Engineering Teams," EngineeringManagement Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, Sept. 1996, pp.31-39.

[12] Zuidema, K.R. and B.H. Kleiner. "New Developmentsin Developing Self-directed Work Groups,"Management Decision, Vol 32, No. 8, 1994, pp.57-63

Figure 1 - Employment Agreement Form

Figure 2 - Code of Conduct Form

Figure 3 - Documentation of a Verbal Warning

Figure 4 - Documentation of a Written Warning

Figure 5 - Employee Status Update Form

Figure 6 - Move to Terminate Form