Embedded knowledge teams: succeeding with hybrid organizational forms

Citation

Miner, D. and Beyerlein, M. (1998), "Embedded knowledge teams: succeeding with hybrid organizational forms", Team Performance Management, Vol. 4 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm.1998.13504daa.001

Embedded knowledge teams: succeeding with hybrid organizational forms

Embedded knowledge teams: succeeding with hybrid organizational forms

Dallen MinerOrganizational Capability Group, AMOCO Corporation, USA, and

Michael BeyerleinCenter for the Study of Work Teams, University of North Texas, Denton, USA

Traditional organizational structures and teaming efforts are often plotted as theoretical opposites. In many cases a team structure is introduced to solve the negative aspects currently existing in a bureaucratic or hierarchical organization. To further differentiate team structure initiatives, there is a recent movement to distinguish between production teams and knowledge work teams. We propose, knowledge teams can be successfully embedded within a traditional organizational structure and, when properly constructed, can contribute synergistically to the objectives of that organization.

Whenever an organization attempts to install knowledge-based teams, the results are not what was expected based on expectations created by experience with production teams. Employees often become frustrated, because they discover that they are not self-governing after all. Managers can also become frustrated with teaming efforts, when mixed results or limited success is achieved, thereby confirming their doubts and suspicions about teaming being a "management fad" (i.e., SMWT) rather than a long-term solution (e.g., employee involvement).

Knowledge work in teams

Historically self-managed work teams (SMWT's) were predominantly utilized for production and manufacturing work until the past decade or so. Some of the early SMWT production experiments were very successful, at a time when the use of matrix organization for knowledge work was showing itself to be inadequate. Hence, a number of companies began to experiment with SMWT structures in their knowledge work arenas, including employees from engineering, programming, research, HR, accounting, and finance. In some organizations those teams are referred to by a number of names, but most common would be project teams or high performance teams. How have those experiments fared?

Knowledge work in SMWT's has met with limited success. There are a number of reasons for failure of the method to meet expectations, including poor implementation, inadequate commitment and lack of alignment of support systems with team needs. However, the main reason for limited success, and the key point of this editorial, is that most of the attempts viewed the SMWT as an island and emphasized clear definition of boundaries. We suggest that although an island design may be somewhat successful for production work, it is bound to fail for knowledge work.

Production work has a clear outcome, a measurable product. The boundaries of the SMWT are determined by identifying where the work requires interdependencies; if all of the interdependencies are captured by the boundary, the team is somewhat self-contained, allowing some independence or at least limited dependencies on/in the organization. The work for such a team represents a whole product or a complete piece of work, and the team functions like an external supplier in delivering only a portion of the entire product or a measurable service. Quality measures and or guidelines are relatively easy to establish, because the product is tangible or the service is simple and routine.

In contrast, knowledge work is stifled by artificial boundaries, including boundaries between disciplines and functions. Knowledge teams require multiple connections integrating them into the organization. Links, avenues, and processes connect them to multiple vertical and horizontal levels of the organization, even when they are working on only one product or service. Finally, the measurement of contributions to knowledge work products and services by either an individual or a team is problematic; much of the work is thought work and much of it is conversation (Mohrman, Cohen & Mohrman, 1995).

The study of knowledge work performed by teams is still being developed. Drucker predicted the rapid ascendancy of knowledge work as over 30 years ago, but only recently has it begun to dominate the business world. McDermott (1995) and Purser and Pasmore (1992) have suggested a continuum of knowledge work ranging from routine to non-routine and from simple to complex. Our focus here is with non-routine, highly complex work, where creativity and collaboration are essential.

The lack of team connectivity

Traditionally, when production teams were created or implemented, the standard was that of the island format, whether through the introduction of pilot teams to launch a change initiative or through the failure to attend to the integration of teams across the organization. At the other end of the continuum of change, others have suggested that the entire organization be changed and designed from scratch.

Theorists have suggested several alternatives for solving the problem of teaming with knowledge workers. However, such approaches do not seem adequate for what would be required for most "Fortune 500" and other large and culturally bound organizations. We believe in the theory and literature surrounding whole systems organization change but find most of the examples of whole system change to be limited to single departments or plants rather than large systems. Therefore, the essential question then becomes, "how do you maximize the benefits of a knowledge team within a hierarchical structure?"

Knowledge work represents a system; the work is never isolated within a team. The principles of open systems theory apply. A team member engaged in dialogue with other members of the organization will act and speak on behalf of the team, but at the same time, the individual's expertise will influence the system. The goal is to achieve integrated solutions, and that requires a design that is: (a) achievable within the existing organization, (b) clarifies accountabilities for both the individual and the team, (c) acknowledges the expertise of the individual, and (d) formalize the network character of knowledge work.

Members of knowledge teams have responsibilities for gathering and sharing information in an arena much broader than their team. They work within a web of participation that cannot be divorced from the organization. Hence the teams must have clear responsibilities and understand their relationships with other teams or individuals (levels of the organization, management, and other employees).

Incorporating this structure would involve creation of a hybrid by setting up a new team based on establishing roles and responsibilities and clarifying understanding of desired outcomes within the existing (or traditional) organization. A synthesis across organizational boundaries requires reframing who communicates with whom. This amalgamation enables an integrated solution for development problems, rather than a point solution.

Additional knowledge workers, new organizational ideas

We suggest a hybrid between "team islands" and large system change. In many organizations, it is reasonable to assume that the whole systems may never be changed, yet, the knowledge workers need to be enabled as a team and at the same time not be isolated within strict boundaries.

The process may be as follows: first, define the team's contribution to the organization and clarify the team members' roles and job accountabilities. This is important for discernible direction and effectiveness of work. Second, educate and authorize the team to work up and down the organizational structure. Knowledge workers will have an effect on the entire system, not just the team or their organizational level. Acknowledging the expanded roles should enable all members participating in the system. Third, educate the organization on how to interact with the team members, while at the same time, holding the individual team members accountable for the desired outcomes, just as non-team participants' positions would require.

Finally, the team must accomplish desired goals, ones that are consistent with the organization. Therefore, the links upward, downward and across the organization from the knowledge team must be treated as important as the team itself; the team is the central node of the network that represents the knowledge work system. The network focus is a shift, a zooming out from the team focus, but it falls short of dealing with organization-wide change. The embedded team is treated as a number of individuals performing the same roles and responsibilities as the "manager" they have replaced. However, the team must manage the numerous relationships within the web of participation.

Figure 1 illustrates two different organizational structures. The diagram on the left signifies the traditional or hierarchical organization. The diagram on the right illustrates the embedded team managing the relationships within a traditional organizational structure.

We agree that certain recommendations from the current knowledge team literature can apply in this situation. For example, the team is now responsible for roles and responsibilities, i.e., accountable. The team has a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities embodied within its members and within the team as a system that enables it to function as a knowledge team. The team is embedded within a larger knowledge work system. The manager or director holds the team jointly accountable. The team influences the larger system-infiltrating the organization. Regardless, we are not necessarily changing the rest of the system; in fact, it can still retain its current structure, even if it is a bureaucracy!

Figure 1.

A brave new hybrid

Our conclusion: put knowledge teams in the middle of the system. Its coming together, its synergy (1 + 1 = 3), is transported, not in a package shipped from the island, but by the individuals going out into the organization as emissaries. They carry the team concept, mission, and deliverables out to the rest of the organization. They are able to speak the language of the dominant system in order to fulfill the team's desired outcomes.

We believe in changing the whole organization, but it may be a luxury and has to be dealt with as part of a strategic, long range plan. The embedded team hybrid is a practical organizational solution, for addressing the issue of maximizing the team performance of knowledge workers.