|
Why Establish Cross-functional Teams?
Peter Gumpert, Ph.D.
(©GLS Consulting, Inc. 10.23.98)
Traditional systems: bosses, silos, and stovepipes
Our traditional organizational forms get things done through authority-based reporting hierarchies, established bureaucracies, or some combination of the two. These forms have had both their advantages and their problems. We will not take up their historic advantages here; it is their problems that form the background for our discussion of stable cross-functional teams. The problems can be serious in current times, and even fatal in a future in which rapid change is the norm.
The free flow of information throughout the organization is the lifeblood of modern business. Thus the veins, arteries, and capillaries that carry information through the company must be networked in complex ways, and must permit unconstrained flow. The traditional systems tend to create departmental/divisional stovepipes or "silos" that impede both communication and collaboration among them. Likewise, the traditional systems have a tendency to impede the flow of information and knowledge upward ("do I let the boss know what I overlooked?") and downward ("does she really need to know that to do her job?").
In traditional systems based on authority, power, and bureaucracy, decisions tend to be made close to the top of the departmental or corporate pyramid, often on the grounds that top decision-makers are the only ones who have enough of the "big picture" to make them properly. People lower in the hierarchy are reluctant to make decisions that go beyond the routine, or that may fall outside their designated province. But people close to the top of the hierarchy deal with filtered information that comes up from below. Further, since any one person has a limited attention span, he or she can make only a limited number of decisions. Thus action on items that seem less important is often delayed, and decisions tend to be made in response to matters that have already been identified as urgent or critical. Likewise, the impetus to solve problems also tends to come too late, emerging in response to crises that have bubbled to the top because they have already exceeded the normal threshold for acceptable variance. So when problem solving is driven by demands from above, it tends to happen when there is a "crunch." The simple "pinches" that foreshadow difficulties tend to be ignored until they present a palpable or immediate danger.
The traditional systems also assume that everyone "has" his or her job, and is responsible/accountable for carrying out that job. This creates the illusion that if everyone does his or her respective tasks, everything that should be accomplished will actually be done. If something is not attended to, it is deemed the fault of some person who has not done the job correctly, or has not seen to it that others do their work. That person may be reprimanded or corrected--or another person may be tasked with the ignored function. In times of change, however, there are always gaps between silos or functions—gaps that may be invisible to the members of existing functional groups. These gaps are often manifested as unexpected barriers and difficulties that people encounter in their attempts to carry out assignments. They are seen as "someone’s fault." Thus people do not understand much about the jobs of people outside their realms of direct action, and do not understand the difficulties that people in other areas encounter.
Should we, therefore, do away with authority-based, traditional reporting systems, and with bureaucracy?
The short answer to this question is "no." Any business needs a way to mobilize and act quickly in times of crisis, and needs a structure that responds appropriately to internal problems that arise, and to serious failures of accountability. It also needs a clear face to the outside world, designating who is nominally responsible for what.
But it is possible to reduce the "pathologies" of these systems while preserving their useful characteristics. For example, the use of power and authority, in our view, should not be relied on as the organization’s normal method of functioning—it should be reserved as a backup system. In normal circumstances, knowledge, problem solving, and decision-making should be broadly distributed, and responsibility for action in service of the big picture should belong to many. The use of authority (and power) should be restricted to unusual conditions that can be specified, and that are understood by everyone. Likewise, people should understand what their jobs are, and guidelines for action must exist. But rigid bureaucracy should be avoided. "Idiot-proofing" systems by creating rigid procedures carries great costs.
Cross-functional teaming as part of a supplemental organizational structure
We suggest that stable cross-functional teams that are charged with identifying and anticipating problems, generating solutions, and making a range of decisions can be enormously useful for companies. This is especially true in companies that must face constant change in the marketplace and other aspects of the environment, and that must innovate and improve their functioning on a consistent basis. We suggest, furthermore, that such teams should be established both near the top of the organization and near its middle. The top-level ones can be used to strategize, plan, and establish policies. The mid-level ones can coordinate implementation of plans, and insure smooth normal operations.
Stable cross-functional teams have many advantages. Here are some examples: cross-functional teams have many advantages. Here are some examples:
- Early identification of problems and opportunities
- Members learn the functions of other members in some detail, and come to understand the details of how the various functions they represent are interdependent.
- The team can identify gaps between functions.
- CFTs increase the likelihood of early detection of and response to emerging environmental demands and other problems.
Better problem solving and implementation of decisions
- Dialectic processes are encouraged in CFTs—people learn they can disagree in comfort, and that they learn from analyzing their disagreements.
- Solutions and decisions take into account the requirements and needs of the various functions that are involved in their implementation—and thus end up being more effective.
- Members help one another find the courage to challenge accepted practice when needed, and to lay bare uncomfortable truths.
- Better solutions can be created even for problems that arise inside a function; a fresh, outside look can be very helpful.
- Barriers to the implementation of plans are reduced.
- Problems can be tackled while they are still in the "pinch" stage--well before they become crises.
- Thus CFTs permit overall agility in adapting to change.
Development of trusting relationships
- Relationships of trust develop among team members, permitting them to reveal difficulties and ask for help with them, in meetings and informal conversations.
- Crises can be managed with greater calm, and without destructive competition.
Other functions
- CFTs can act as a communication hub, transmitting information and knowledge to other members of the organization they represent.
- CFTs can play a broad leadership role in the organization—promulgating vision, a consistent perspective, and calmness in the face of crisis.
- CFTs can strategize and plan for the near and mid-term future, and can create detailed execution plans.
- CFT’s can monitor progress to financial and other goals, and analyze deviations from plans.
We note that these are not the only advantages of organizational teaming in general. They speak to the uses of cross-functional teams in particular.
©GLS Consulting, Inc. 10.23.98
Cannot be used or reprinted without permission of GLS Consutling, Inc.
top
|
|
