Levi Strauss & Co.'s Flirtation With Teams

Case Study: Levi Strauss & Co.'s Flirtation with Teams - Chapter 7

Group Name:

Group Members:

Name ID No.

November 9, 2005

1. Discuss the stages of group development and the implementations of them for the development of the teams at Levi Strauss?

Generally, five (5) stages of development are experienced by any team implemented to work together. These five stages are identified as Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning. At Levi Strauss & Co. Ltd., in going through these stages, it was the team members' handling of the inevitable conflicts that developed, which had severe and far-reaching implications for team development at the organization. Team members became frustrated and remained stagnated for long periods in certain stages.

Forming Ð'- is the first stage of group development. Teams in this stage come together and begin to identify their collective purpose. There is an initial belief that synergy will be created and that the team will perform at a higher level than the sum of the individual members.

At Levi Strauss the employees did not form their own teams but were placed by middle management into teams. The building of trust and a team's foundation, an expected step in forming, did not occur at Levi Strauss. There was thus no natural flow of information on tasks, goals and processes.

Team members were generally aware of their common purpose of increasing production in a self-managed environment, but how this was to be accomplished was not clearly defined. Consequently, instead of leaders emerging and synergy developing, conflict reigned.

Storming Ð'- the second stage of team development, should see the clarification of goals and the adoption of an accepted decision-making process. Successful teams learn to accommodate diversity. Conflict, which is not necessarily a negative feature, is characteristic of this stage. At Levi Strauss, no guidelines for resolving conflict were established. Instead, teams became divided, small alliances of like interests were established and conflict reached alarming proportions.

Norming - In this stage, performance of teams reaches a level of acceptability and the minimum is required to maintain it. Tasks become routine and there is an efficiently developed communication system. Since team members at Levi Strauss remained inundated in conflict, they lingered for an inordinate amount of time at the Storming stage, and production levels never reached organizational expectations.

Performing - The performing stage of team development tends to unleash the teams' creativity, focus on goal achievement and shared support. At Levi Strauss, the latter was evidenced when workers performed the tasks of absent members of the team.

Adjourning- The final stage of team development. At this stage, the team accomplishes its goals and completes its mission. Team members disengage from task and relationship oriented behaviour. Team members never accomplished their goals of increased productivity and profitability for the Levi Strauss & Co. Their inability to handle conflict at the storming stage did not auger well for the other stages of team development. Consequently, the company did not reach this stage since the team structure remained.

2. Discuss some of the norms that emerged in the teams. What was their function and how did they influence the behaviour of group members?

Norms may be defined as unwritten and often unspoken rules that govern behaviour. They are expected to provide regularity and predictability to behaviour and are often developed to control loyalty, performance and reward allocation. In this regard, two specific norms that emerged at Levi Strauss were Performance Norms and Reward Allocation Norms.

Performance Norms - The function of performance norms is to ensure that workers maintain high productivity levels, which directly result in higher wages for all. They provide members with explicit cues on how hard they should work, how to accomplish tasks, their level of output and appropriate levels of tardiness. At Levi Strauss, top performers had expectations of slower workers, and all levels of output were estimated to be the same. When this failed to materialize, top performers complained of less skilled workers causing a decline in their wages, since workers were rewarded based on total levels of output. The disparity in performance resulted in increased conflict, decreased productivity levels by top performers and reduced employee morale.

Reward Allocation Norms determine how rewards could be allocated. The reward system changed from one of equity (the piece-rate system) to equality. The new system allowed each employee an equal reward since teams were remunerated based on the total number of completed garments. The behaviour of top performers became quite aggressive and hostile as their wages declined due to the minimal contribution of their less skilled and slower counterparts. Additionally, top performers reduced their levels of productivity in response to these lower wages. As a result of this new reward system, increased peer pressure aggravated the internal strife at Levi Strauss, ultimately resulting in physical and death threats.

3. Discuss the role dynamics that emerged in the groups. Is there any evidence of role ambiguity or role conflict?

Role ambiguity may be defined as a lack of understanding by individual team members regarding the expectations of a particular role. Role conflict is the discrepancy between what a team expects a member to do and what the member thinks he or she should be doing. There is evidence of role ambiguity and role conflict at Levi Strauss. The outline below illustrates the development of role ambiguity.

A Model of the Role Assumption Process

Source: Adapted from Katz, D. et al. (1966, 1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, p. 196. Copyright Ð'© 1966, 1978 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Role Ambiguity

Organisational Factors - Upper management at Levi Strauss failed to provide clearly defined guidelines about the new team structure that was to be introduced. Employees received a memo from the Vice President, Operations on management's decision to implement teamwork