Analysis of "The Team That Wasn't" case study and organizational dynamics

¶ … TEAM THAT WASN'T

What would you say to Randy (or someone with opinions similar to his own) to try to persuade him that "groups are [not] useless"? Provide a detailed argument.

The main fallacy of Randy's point-of-view is that he defines the entire concept of teams by only one very narrow aspect of teamwork: decision making authority. To Randy, the only relevance of teams is that decision-making authority vests in the group instead of in a single decision maker. Meanwhile, Randy is completely ignorant of the tremendous potential value of teams and of effective collaboration (i.e. teamwork) within well-designed functional teams. His belief that no good ideas ever emerge from teams is highly inaccurate and reflects nothing more than his own self-centered projection of something that may be true of him onto others and onto the concept of teamwork.

In fact, the opposite is true on all counts. First, decision-making authority is only a small aspect of teamwork; moreover, the main benefits of teams and of teamwork manifest themselves long before major decision-making points. Teams provide a means of maximizing the productive value of a wider range of knowledge, skills, and abilities contributed by all team members. Second, the team environment provides much greater opportunities for individuals to generate productive ideas because (ideally) the team framework allows every individual to focus on his or her greatest areas of potential strength and contribution to the overall effort.

However, in order for teams to reap the benefits of teamwork, it is essential that the teams be constructed in a manner that is conducive to motivating every team member to contribute. Once the team is constructed, it must also reflect fundamental shared understanding among its members of the respective contributions expected of each team member as well as of the protocols by which issues will be addressed and resolved.

2. Please use the "Integrated Model of Teamwork" (discussed in our debrief of Words in Sentences) to analyze the top management team at FireArt, Inc.

According to Thompson's Integrated Model of Teamwork (1999), the essential conditions for successful team performance are: the knowledge, skills, and abilities of team members, their motivation and effort, and the effectiveness of the team's coordination strategies. Thompson (1999) also emphasized that the performance of teams depends on specific criteria such as its potential for productivity, team cohesion, learning, and the degree of integration of all team members into the team. Unfortunately, the top management team at FireArt, Inc. does not fulfill any of these essential prerequisites for effective teamwork.

The respective knowledge, skills, and abilities of the team are not available to the team in any substantial or productive manner because there is no coordination or integration of their individual areas within the team concept. Instead of providing motivation for each department to contribute maximally, the current state of the management team is characterized by the failure of the team to acknowledge the specific contributions available from each department. Maureen Turner must fight just to have the potential value of her entire department acknowledged (let alone appreciated or maximized). Meanwhile, Ray LaPierre's contributions to the team are largely barred by the lack of the team cohesion that could obviously provide a safe environment for his maximal contribution of the value of his knowledge, skills, and abilities.

However, the most serious problem is that Jack has ordered Eric to rely on the concept of effective teamwork while simultaneously requiring that the team's efforts revolve around the one individual who is incapable of and unwilling to participate productively in an integrated team. Eric must have the authority to dismiss Randy from the team and to retain his valuable contributions in the context of external consultations instead. In principle, Jack must decide whether he wants an integrated team-based structure or leadership from Randy, because he cannot possibly expect both since they are mutually incompatible.

3. What should Eric do next? Your recommendation(s) should be grounded in your analysis (in question 2) and should be specific and actionable. Please provide the rationale for your recommendation(s).

Eric must explain to Jack that Randy might be a valued asset within the organization but that he is not capable of contributing to the development and effective functioning of an integrated team. The current team is merely a collection of individuals who have not been provided with a framework detailing where and how they are expected to contribute to the team's objectives. Instead, one potentially productive team member is in a position where she believes the knowledge, skills, and abilities of her department are unappreciated by the team. Another potentially important contributor is intimidated and unable to benefit the team in a manner commensurate with his abilities because the team lacks a developed team culture and any cohesiveness that could provide an environment conducive to his contribution.