BUAD 300—Integrated Skills for Management Session 6 The Team That Wasn’t Case Summary
1.
Develop a partial Competency Model, focusing on the Enabling and Domain competencies, and determine to what extent this team meets our criteria for becoming a high-performance team? Or, are they in alignment with those required for team success? (RIGHT COMPETENCIES + ALIGNED SYSTEMS = HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAM) This team does not meet our standard for a high-performance team because they do not have the right competencies—specifically their Enabling Competencies are not in alignment. ENABLING COMPETENCIES:
Good Communication Skills: NO Teamwork Skills: NO Ability to Negotiate and/or Reach Compromise: NO Open-Mindedness: NO
DOMAIN COMPETENCIES: Depth of knowledge over each member’s individual functional area: YES 2.
What type of team is this? Based on what criteria? Is this the right “type” of team? This is an “Ad-Hoc” team. It was formed to complete 1 project over a short period of time. The team will dissolve once project is complete. It is the appropriate type of team for this project.
3.
What is this team’s mission? To develop a winning business strategy so as to “save” FireArt, Inc.
4.
Who is the leader of this team? From where does he/she derive their authority? Do you think that the authority is clearly given? Why/Why not? Eric is the leader of this team. His authority was assigned him by the CEO. The authority although clearly given, could have been reinforced by a visit from the CEO at the first meeting.
The Team That Wasn’t Case Summary Page 2 5.
Assume yourself to be a member of this team (in case study): from what you have read, do you feel that your team meets the standards (“Aligned Systems”) of a highperforming team (i.e. Clarity, Standards, Responsibility, Rewards, Trust)? Why or why not? This team did not have in place the necessary aligned systems to meet the standard of a high-performing team. Specifically:
6.
Â
CLARITY—Overall long-term goal was known, but was too general. Sense of urgency was not transmitted to members. CEO set no real goals/objectives prior to beginning project.
Â
STANDARDS—Only standard was to present findings in 6 months. No other goals/timetables or measurements of success/failure were given. There were no metrics given as to determine progress against goals or mission attainment.
Â
RESPONSIBILITY—Eric had overall responsibility for the team, but quickly lost control to Randy’s machinations. CEO abdicated his role as the ultimate leader by his lack of involvement. Individual team members had no direct ownership in the project—if the project succeeded, most likely, Randy would get the credit, if it failed, Eric would “hold the bag”. Individual team members had no accountability other than to “brainstorm”.
Â
REWARDS—Other than “keeping their jobs”, there were no rewards or recognition systems in place for either team success or excellent individual performance.
Â
TRUST—No trust between team members. “Every man for himself” mentality. Randy personality/style brought friction and defensiveness to other team members.
Draw 2 diagrams representing: 1.) Eric’s team as it is currently aligned 2.) Eric’s team as it should be aligned. How does having Randy on this team impact its alignment? CURRENT ALIGNMENT
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
Carl
Mo
Eric
Randy
Carl
Ray
Mo
Eric
Ray
Randy
Because of Randy’s ego and disruptive influence, it is best to create a “consultant” role for Randy and have him report on a dotted line to Eric and the Team.
The Team That Wasn’t Case Summary Page 3 7.
How would you describe Eric as a leader (be specific and support with events)? Is he effective? No, Eric was not an effective leader of this team. Specifically: Reactive vs. Proactive—waited too long to address issues developing on team. Did not exercise his authority—too much of an observer. Did not lead or enforce the agenda he had set. Anticipated problems, but yet did nothing to prevent them. Seemed to be intimidated by Randy—let him run wild. Did not utilize his “hole card”—the CEO—to underscore his authority. Did set up meeting agendas. Acted as a facilitator in meetings vs. leader of team. Experienced in developing business strategies.
8.
What changes would you make to the team in structure, leadership, format, etc. to help it become a high-performing team? (Beyond what you have already discussed). Clarity—Meet with CEO to develop standards/metrics and gain consensus of overall mission objectives. Communicate to team members and assure understanding. Standards—Develop understandable and tight metrics including timelines and delivery dates, individual team member assignments and objectives so as to measure success/failure of team. Responsibility—Assure that every team member has specific goals/measurements and a clear understanding of their individual responsibilities. Eric to delegate responsibility, but also to retain ultimate authority of dispute resolution. Make certain every team member understands their individual accountability for the success/failure of the team. Assure that team understands that there is no individual success if there is no team success. Rewards—Provide means of rewarding team members for successful project completion (e.g. bonuses, stock options, paid time off, group trip to “exotic” locale, promotion, etc.). Develop means of providing recognition for team members to the rest of the firm. Trust—Utilize team building exercises (Outward Bound, group outings/dinners, etc.). Develop a climate of openness and ability to present all ideas without fear of ridicule. Make certain all team members communicate all ideas in an open forum format vs. “behind the scenes”.
9.
Describe the level of trust on this team. What caused this level of trust to be present? Initially, there was a very low level of trust both individually and within the team. However, until the 4th meeting, trust was beginning to build until it was “shot down” by the attitude and ego of Randy in that meeting. His condescension, intimidating tactics and disdain for the team destroyed the team’s cohesiveness and trust causing members to walk out of the meeting.
The Team That Wasn’t Case Summary Page 4 9.
Describe the level of trust on this team. What caused this level of trust to be present? (Continued) Team Dynamics related to trust: Jack Derry (CEO)—Appeared to trust Randy only. Eric (Team Leader)—New to company; unproven; prior experience in consulting, not line management; hadn’t earned trust with longservice members of the team. Randy-0nly trusted himself. Maureen—Upset, due to perceived lack of respect for her department. Ray—lacks self-confidence when among peers citing his “lack of formal education”. Carl—fairly new to company; quiet; doesn’t know who to trust.
10.
What should the group do about Randy? Is he essential to the team? Should he be “fired” from the team? How could they “manage” Randy to help the team meet its goals? Randy is absolutely essential to the team—both for the knowledge he has and the support he has from the CEO. You can’t fire him and you can’t kick him off of the team. Properly led, he is essential to the team’s success. Eric should attempt to understand Randy’s rationale for his actions (Rational Man Model). From the case data, I would suspect that one of the drivers behind Randy’s behaviors is that he views the rest of the team as a bunch of losers and, as such, feels that they will fail in their mission. He does not want to associate himself with a “losing team” and as a result, withdraws himself both emotionally and intellectually from the effort. Randy needs to feel that he has a stake in the outcome (one that is important to him), he also has to feel that this team can “win”—that is, succeed in their mission. To the extent that Eric can appeal to what drives Randy’s behaviors, he will be effective in channeling Randy’s obvious talents. After having the CEO attend a meeting to re-assert his authority as Team Leader, Eric should take Randy out of direct contact with the rest of the team and assign to him a “consultant” role. In this role, Randy could use his abilities to develop new sales and marketing strategies and, in general, brainstorm new ideas. His proposals would be referred to the rest of the group for discussion and implementation
The Team That Wasn’t Case Summary Page 4 as appropriate. Eric could use this period of time (while Randy is not directly involved in the group meetings) to build trust, cohesion and momentum with the rest of the group. Gradually, as the group begins to move forward towards success, Randy will want to be part of it and Eric can then re-introduce him to the rest of the team. The benefit of waiting for Randy’s re-introduction is that (by then) the group will have “jelled” around Eric’s leadership; he (Eric) will be more confident in his abilities (as will the rest of the team be in theirs); and, both Eric and the team will be in a better position to “handle” Randy when he is reintegrated as a full-time team member.
