Work teams in GE's new aircraft engine manufacturing plant

Work Teams

Today, work teams are increasingly being seen as an effective way of enhancing employee satisfaction and organizational productivity. However, though quite a number of organizations have benefited by embracing work teams, others have not been so lucky. In fact, teams have in some instances been blamed for increases in employee turnover rates. In this text, I discuss work teams in the context of the new GE factory charged with developing GE 90 (a wildly popular commercial jet engine from GE). In so doing, I will highlight instances where teams are considered most appropriate and those where they are not. Further, I will also suggest (with relevant reasons) the kind of teams we should use for our factory and how individuals working on those teams should be paid.

Discussion

The main issue in this case is whether the adoption of teams in the case of the new GE plant will lead to enhanced productivity and quality while ensuring that the level of employee satisfaction increases. If indeed our visit to other factories supports the assertion that GE's new plant will be better off by embracing work teams, how should such teams be formed and which major considerations should be made to guarantee the effectiveness of such teams i.e. In regard to compensation and team structure?

The Kind of Teams to be used

There are several kinds of teams an organization can use to enhance its competitiveness. First, in terms of autonomy, teams can be categorized as self-designating teams, semi-autonomous work groups, traditional work groups etc. (Williams 2011). Other special categorizations include project teams, virtual teams and cross functional teams. In terms of autonomy, our factory would be better off embracing semi-autonomous work groups. According to Williams (2011), these teams in addition to furnishing the management with relevant suggestions and facts also possess the power to solve problems and come up with decisions touching on the various tasks under consideration in the production of goods and services. The appropriateness of such teams in our case is largely hinged on the fact that workers will be left alone to decide on work methods. This will allow for efficiency in the production process. Further, as Jackson (2000) notes, by dint of being able to control themselves without a lot of external interference, semi-autonomous work groups do not overburden the management in regard to supervision. Hence in our case, such a group will allow the management of the new factory to concentrate on other important tasks.

Further, in terms of the other kinds of teams, the new factory could use cross-functional teams. As Williams (2011) notes, such teams are made up of individuals from various areas (functional) of the company. In regard to our factory, cross-functional teams would be appropriate due to their ability to generate a wide variety of solutions which may come in handy for purposes of innovation. The relevance of innovation in this case cannot be overestimated given the product under consideration i.e. A commercial jet engine. In this case, new innovative additions to the engine could push up sales.

Payment of People Working in Teams

As Williams (2011) notes, team compensation can turn out to be quite a difficult undertaking. When it comes to our factory, individuals working in teams will be compensated in two main ways i.e. through gain sharing and by the use of non-financial rewards. Gain sharing will involve financial rewards for gains made in terms of performance i.e. cost reduction and/or improvements in productivity. On the other hand, non-financial rewards will be beneficial in enhancing team morale. Such rewards will include trips, official recognition etc.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that before forming teams, an organization should first determine if there is indeed a need or purpose that necessitates the establishment of teams. This assertion is largely founded on the mixed fortunes companies have experienced over time while working with teams. However, it can be noted that in most cases, teams fail as a result of poor formation, lack of task clarity and limited resources. With that in mind, organizations must view teams not as the end in themselves but as means to an end.