Field of Dreams: Team Implementations and Greenfields

Abstract

Greenfields represent one of the most successful organizational strategies of the last decade (Lawler, 1996; O’Toole and Lawler, 2006) yet they have not been systematically studied. The widely different experiences of the two Fortune 100 companies described above demonstrate the potential risks and rewards. Greenfields are new plants – typically, but not exclusively manufacturing – that belong to an existing organization. Ideally, greenfields offer fertile ground for both team and technology system design; they can act as a catalyst for change by serving as an experiment for the parent organization (Clark, 1995). Thus they offer tremendous potential for orchestrating long-term change in technological and people systems in organizations. Briggs and Stratton used an organizational strategy of cascading successful team-based work practices across five engine plants, as each new plant was built (Goldsberry, 1996). The context of the greenfield operation as an important organizational structure for implementation of teams has not been addressed in the literature. As a result, we really do not understand greenfields that well. This is surprising, given the potential that greenfields offer as primary settings for team systems, new products and new technology. Greenfields make significant contributions to productivity growth in the manufacturing sector, as firms replace existing plants that are less productive (Baldwin and Gu, 2006; Baldwin and Brown, 2004; Capelli and Neumark, 2001; Dunne, Roberts and Samuelson, 1989). Greenfields represent high stakes in terms of organizational investment. They also involve tremendous personal risk, in that managers stake their careers on the future success of the operation. Initial hopes and “fields of dreams” are not always realized. Thus it is important to examine greenfields more closely.