Teams | Six Sigma Fundamentals: A Complete Introduction to the System, Methods, and Tools

An old Yiddish proverb states that "the girl who can't dance says the band can't play." In the work environment we find quite often that we blame failures on anything that makes sense at the time. For some reason, we go to great lengths to find justification of failures rather than look no further than the individuals involved in the process and their behavior as a team.

Six sigma methodology depends on the team concept. Without a team effort, nothing will be accomplished. Therefore, a team-building effort must be initiated before the six sigma initiative takes hold of any specific project. But what is team-building? Team-building is the process of taking a collection of individuals with different needs, backgrounds and expertise, and transforming them by various methods into an integrated, effective work unit. This implies that developing a cohesive team requires developing a set of norms or standards for behavior that might be different from the standards the team members are accustomed to using. That means that the team must work together to develop an initial project plan. The usual process for this development is: initiation, idealization, iteration and implementation. While this development is taking place, we must also recognize that the team itself is going through a transformation in the following stages: forming, storming, norming (standardizing) and performing.

Team structure

Project teams are transitory. That means that team members may move in and out when their assigned tasks are completed. Project teams also have structure. Team structure determines patterns of interaction among team members, with a client, with the black belt, with the product being developed, and so on. Finally, how a team is structured determines a project's success. This is why the team formation must be designed in such a way that the team efficiency is enhanced. Efficiency, of course, is the ratio of output to input. (Teams should be cross-functional and multidisciplined, so that there are many variations, making the ratio always larger than 1.)

In a project environment, input consists of team members and other resources. Output consists of work performed and goals accomplished. Inefficiency in teams is attributable to many factors. However, two of the major factors are:

Poor team structure. Projects that are organized based on the matrix structure, while offering many advantages, have built-in inefficiencies. Team membership is temporary. Time is lost in learning the work done by others. (Recommendation: Keep team membership stable.) A second issue is the fact that sometimes the black belt may not control resources directly. When that happens, more time is spent in acquiring human and material resources. (Recommendation: Make it a practice to engage in pre-planning.)
Team friction. By definition a team is a system comprised of many interrelated parts. Therefore, the pieces have to be brought together. If team effort is not properly integrated, team inefficiencies will occur. To avoid this situation, make sure that the team's configuration closely reflects the structure of the deliverable, i.e. what is the deliverable; who is responsible for the deliverable; when it is to be delivered; in what shape, form, or even packaging; what will constitute success and so on.

In both cases, poor communication is a major component of the failure. After all, information is the lifeblood of projects and communicating this information is essential to project success. There are various communication-based frictions that contribute to team inefficiency, for example, communication as an end rather than a means. In other words, in the process of communicating we use too many channels or use up too much time and effort at the expense of actual action. This, of course, is indicative of a bureaucratic system—the failure to separate important from routine information and/or garbled messages.

Effective team-building

To understand the effectiveness of a team, we must understand what prevents a team from being effective. There are four major barriers to effective team-building. They are:

Differing outlooks of team members. The strategy to eliminate, or at least to minimize, this barrier may be based on getting to know your people early in the project, blending individual interests with team and organizational objectives, defining responsibilities clearly and without any ambivalence and stressing the team concept.
Role conflicts. The strategy to eliminate, or at least to minimize this barrier, may be based on asking team members where they see themselves fitting into the project, conducting regular status meetings and handling any conflicts directly.
Unclear project objectives. The strategy to eliminate, or at least to minimize this barrier, may be based on developing and publicizing a clear set of project objectives, communicating frequently with team members and checking for understanding
Lack of management support. The strategy to eliminate, or at least to minimize this barrier, may be based on involving management in project reviews, keeping management well informed, and telling management what you need.

So, how may we go about building effective teams? The following practical guidelines may be of help:

Eliminate "back home" behavior by establishing group norms.
Develop a "group mind" phenomenon—that is, a common set of objectives and motives shared by the group.
Recognize implicit contract (i.e., establish mutual experiences).
Avoid neglected resource syndrome (e.g., a retiring expert whose views are never heard or never noticed because participation is low—create ways to make participation mandatory).
Beware of hidden agendas of team members.
Build trust. In evolving a realistic plan, ask each person to make trade-offs, state contributions, and so on. If they stay true to these aims, it will build trust.

Conflict resolution

As already mentioned, every time there is a change, there is bound to be a conflict. Let us then identify some typical situations that foster an environment for conflict.

The greater the diversity of disciplinary expertise among the participants of a project team, the greater the potential for conflict to develop among members of the team.
The lower the black belt's degree of authority, reward, and punishment power over those individuals and organizational units supporting his project, the greater the potential for conflict to develop.
The less the specific objectives of a project (cost, schedule, and technical performance) are understood by the project team members, the more likely it is that conflict will develop.
The greater the ambiguity of roles among the participants of a project team, the more likely it is that conflict will develop.
The greater the agreement on superordinate goals (the big picture goals as they relate to the business strategy of the organization) by project team participants, the lower the potential for detrimental conflict.
The more the members of functional areas perceive that the implementation of a project management system will adversely usurp their traditional roles, the greater the potential for conflict.
The lower the need for interdependence among organizational units supporting a project, the greater the potential for dysfunctional conflict.
The higher the managerial level within a project, the more likely it is that conflicts will be based upon deep-seated parochial resentments. By contrast, at the project or task level, it is more likely that cooperation will be facilitated by the task orientation and professionalism that a project requires for completion.

Typical conflict handling modes are:

Withdrawal. Retreating or withdrawing from an actual or potential disagreement.
Smoothing. De-emphasizing, or avoiding areas of difference, and emphasizing areas of agreement.
Compromising. Bargaining and searching for solutions that bring some degree of satisfaction to the parties in a dispute. Characterized by a give and-take attitude.
Forcing. Exerting one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. Often characterized by competitiveness and a win/lose situation.
Confrontation. Facing the conflict directly, which involves a problem-solving approach whereby affected parties work through their disagreements.

In any team environment conflicts will arise. The issue is not why the conflict exists, but how should it be handled? Typical conflicts in the life of a black belt using the six sigma methodology may involve the following:

People resources.
Equipment and/or facilities.
Capital expenditures.
Costs.
Technical opinions and trade-offs.
Priorities.
Procedures.
Scheduling.
Responsibilities.
Personality clashes.

In the traditional world we try to avoid conflicts. We will not let go of our ego and we view conflict as bad. In the six sigma methodology conflicts are viewed as possibly beneficial. They are understood to be part of change and therefore inevitable, and they are seen as naturally occurring issues arising from relationships among components (i.e., system structure). Therefore, a black belt must confront conflict, not try to avoid or prevent it. While a number of alternatives for dealing with conflict are available, only three are considered to be suitable for resolving conflict in the six sigma methodology. These approaches are win/lose, negotiation and problem-solving. In order to select the best approach to resolve conflict, the black belt should know the uses as well as the dangers and difficulties of each alternative.

Win/lose. This is usually a poor choice, but it is useful when:

It is clarifying and educational. Many people will not examine assumptions they make until they are called on to clarify and support them by someone with an opposing view.
Quick, decisive action is vital to company welfare.
Other alternatives have been genuinely tried and failed.

The difficulties and dangers of win/lose conflict resolution are:

A poor choice when there is a dependence relationship.
Can be very costly.
May irreparably destroy participant's future.
Destroys all trust.

Negotiating. Negotiating a conflict resolution is useful in the following situations:

When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals.
To achieve a temporary settlement to complex issues.
To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure.
To move opponents toward problem-solving by learning each other's thinking patterns and priorities, increasing trust and providing a mutually rewarding experience.
To establish a precedent.

The difficulties and dangers associated with negotiation include:

One party may not see that it is in his or her own best interest to compromise.
If conflicting personalities are involved, conflict can be heightened.
A temporary solution does not resolve the underlying problem.

Problem-solving. The use of problem-solving to resolve conflicts are:

To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised.
To gain commitment by incorporating others' concerns into a consensual decision.
To work through hard feelings which have been interfering with an inter-personal relationship.
To merge insights of people with different perspectives.
When your object is to learn (e.g., testing your own assumptions, understanding the views of others).

The difficulties and dangers of using problem-solving to resolve conflicts are that:

It depends on an open atmosphere, requiring a high level of trust.
It requires considerable time and stress to establish trust between parties at odds.