5 (This question is based on an original case study by Dr Ran Bhamra, Loughborough University.)

Service Adhesives Ltd produces specialist adhesives. It has always been profitable, but there had been a slowdown in the company’s profits. Several improvement initiatives had attempted to reverse the company’s declining position, but none had fully taken hold. Some senior management put this down to staff having ‘below-average’ skills and motivation, and being reluctant to change. Staff turnover was high, and the company had started employing short-term contract labour to cope with fluctuating orders. There had been some tension between temporary and permanent employees. The company organised a visit to one of its customers, called (bizarrely) ‘Happy Products’. ‘It was like entering another world. Their plant was cleaner, the flow of materials seemed smoother, their staff seemed purposeful, it seemed efficient, and everybody worked as a team. I’m sure that team-based approach could be implemented just as successfully in our plant’ (CEO, Service Adhesives).

The Happy Products operation made diapers (nappies) and healthcare products and was organised into three product areas, each staffed by five operators. One operator was a team leader responsible for ‘first line management’. A second operator was a specially trained health and safety representative. A third was a trained quality representative who also liaised with the quality department.

A fourth operator was a trained maintenance engineer, while a fifth was a non-specialist

‘floating’ operator. This meant that most day-to-day problems could be dealt with immediately, so production output, product quality and line efficiency were controlled exceptionally well. Team members derived great satisfaction from playing a key part in the success of the organisation. Teams were also involved in determining annual performance targets for their specific areas. Service Adhesives decided to adopt a team-based work organisation. However, it realised that it lacked the organisational ‘cohesiveness’ that Happy Products had. Traditionally, it had prided itself on its hierarchical organisation structure, with five layers of management from the plant director to the shop-floor operatives. The chain of command was strictly enforced by operating procedures enshrined in the comprehensive quality assurance system.

(a) Service Adhesives Ltd currently employs some people on short-term contracts. How could this affect its proposed team-based working structure?

(b) In moving from a traditional to a team-based work structure, what sort of formal (e.g. roles and procedures) and informal (e.g. social groups and communication) barriers is Service Adhesive likely to encounter?

(c) Senior management of Service Adhesives thought that the main reason for ineffective improvement initiatives in the past was the apparent lack of cohesion among the organisation’s human resources.

Could a team-based work organisation be the answer to their organisational difficulties?

(d) Employee empowerment is a key element of team-based working. What difficulties could Service Adhesives face in implementing empowerment?