Quality-control teams have been in use for many years. Originally seen most often in manufacturing plants, these were permanent teams that generally met at a regular time, sometimes weekly or daily, to address quality standards and any problems with the products made. The use of quality-control teams has since expanded into other arenas such as the medical field, where they are used to improve patient care services. Problem-solving teams like these rarely have the authority to unilaterally implement their suggestions, but if their recommendations are paired with implementation processes, some significant improvements can be realized.

As we discussed, problem-solving teams only make recommendations. Some organizations have gone further and created teams that also implement solutions and take responsibility for outcomes. Self-managed work teams are groups of employees (typically 10 to 15 in number) who perform highly related or interdependent jobs; these teams take on some supervisory responsibilities.5 Typically, the responsibilities include planning and scheduling work, assigning tasks to members, making operating decisions, taking action on problems, and working with suppliers and customers. Fully self-managed work teams even select their own members who evaluate each other’s performance. When these teams are established, former supervisory positions become less important and are sometimes eliminated.

Research results on the effectiveness of self-managed work teams have not been uniformly positive. Some research indicates that self-managed teams may be more or less effective based on the degree to which team-promoting behaviors are rewarded. For example, one study of 45 self-managing teams found that when team members perceived that economic rewards such as pay were dependent on input from their teammates, performance improved for both individuals and the team as a whole.6

A second area of research focus has been the impact of conflict on self-managed team effectiveness. Some research indicated that self-managed teams are not effective when there is conflict. When disputes arise, members often stop cooperating and power struggles ensue, which lead to lower group performance.7 However, other research indicates that when members feel confident they can speak up without being embarrassed, rejected, or punished by other team members—in other words, when they feel psychologically safe, conflict can be beneficial and boost team performance.8

Thirdly, research has explored the effect of self-managed work teams on member behavior. Here again the findings are mixed. Although individuals on teams report higher levels of job satisfaction than other individuals, studies indicate they sometimes also have higher absenteeism and turnover rates. Furthermore, one large-scale study of labor productivity in British establishments found that although using teams improved individual (and overall) labor productivity, no evidence supported the claim that self-managed teams performed better than traditional teams with less decision-making authority.9

Starbucks created a team of individuals from production, global PR, global communications, and U.S. marketing to develop the Via brand of instant coffee. The team’s suggestions resulted in a product that would be cost-effective to produce and distribute, and that was marketed with a tightly integrated, multifaceted strategy.10 This example illustrates the use of cross-functional teams, teams made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task.

Cross-functional teams are an effective means of allowing people from diverse areas within or even between organizations to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems, and coordinate complex projects. However, due to the high need for coordination, cross-functional teams are not simple to manage. Why? First, power shifts occur as different expertise is needed because the members are at roughly the same level in the organization, which creates leadership ambiguity. A climate of trust thus needs to be developed before shifts can happen without undue conflict.11 Second, the early stages of development are often long since members need to learn to work with higher levels of diversity and complexity. Third, it takes time to build trust and teamwork, especially among people with different experiences and perspectives.

In sum, the strength of traditional cross-functional teams is the collaborative effort of individuals with diverse skills from a variety of disciplines. When the unique perspectives of these members are considered, these teams can be very effective.

The teams described in the preceding section do their work face-to-face, whereas virtual teams use computer technology to unite physically dispersed members in an effort to achieve a common goal.12 Members collaborate online using communication links such as wide area networks, corporate social media, videoconferencing, and e-mail; whether members are nearby or continents apart. Nearly all teams do at least some of their work remotely.

Virtual teams should be managed differently than face-to-face teams in an office, partially because virtual team members may not interact along traditional hierarchical patterns. Because of the complexity of interactions, research indicated that shared leadership of virtual teams may significantly enhance team performance, although the concept is still in development.13 For virtual teams to be effective, management should ensure that: (1) trust is established among members (one inflammatory remark in an e-mail can severely undermine team trust); (2) progress is monitored closely (so the team doesn’t lose sight of its goals and no team member “disappears”); and (3) the efforts and products of the team are publicized throughout the organization (so the team does not become invisible).14

The types of teams we’ve described so far are typically smaller, stand-alone teams, though their activities relate to the broader objectives of the organization. As tasks become more complex, teams often grow in size. Increases in team size are accompanied by higher coordination demands, creating a tipping point at which the addition of another member does more harm than good. To solve this problem, organizations use multiteam systems, collections of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal. In other words, a multiteam system is a “team of teams.”1

To picture a multiteam system, imagine the coordination of response needed after a major car accident. There is the emergency medical services team, which responds first and transports the injured people to the hospital. An emergency room team then takes over, providing medical care, followed by a recovery team. Although the emergency services team, emergency room team, and recovery team are technically independent, their activities are interdependent, and the success of one depends on the success of the others. Why? Because they all share the higher goal of saving lives.

Some factors that make smaller, more traditional teams effective do not necessarily apply to multiteam systems and can even hinder their performance. One study showed that multiteam systems performed better when they had “boundary spanners” whose jobs were to coordinate efforts with all constituents. This reduced the need for some team member communication, which was helpful because it reduced coordination demands.16 Leadership of multiteam systems is also much different than for stand-alone teams. While leadership of all teams affects team performance, a multiteam leader must both facilitate coordination between teams and lead them. Research indicated teams that received more attention and engagement from the organization’s leaders felt more empowered, which made them more effective as they sought to solve their own problems.17

In general, a multiteam system is the best choice either when a team has become too large to be effective, or when teams with distinct functions need to be highly coordinated.