Question 1
As noted with the Australian goose, members of an effective team must be interdependent (Whetten and Kim, 493). This implies that the works of the entire business depends on the interactive efforts of the whole team. However for the Decision Tech, this was not the case. Decision Tech kept looking for someone to blame in case a failure was noted. For an effective team this shouldn’t have happened. Instead they should have assessed the efficiency of the whole team and look at the gaps and inadequacies that was making the team to stumble. However the board at Decision Tech was so quick in making decisions and reaching conclusions on who to blame in case a failure was noted. The board, not the team at Decision Tech was ready to take blame or to look for collective solution. And this is one of the potential sources of ineffectiveness of the Decision Tech. additionally; the board in Decision Tech was always ready at segregating positions and roles when failure was noted. However, effective team as is the case with the goose should encourage and support one another so that they work together and not letting the other person work alone. This is because the leadership positions have got challenges which are better addressed as a team instead of being left in the hands of an individual. However, the board’s decision to demote Jeff so that he accounts for the mess that was noted in Decision Tech was not the right way to go. Additionally, the decision to demote Jeff and then replace him by Kathryn simply because Kathryn was more trusted by the chair was not a good example for an effective team. Instead it was a shear example of how the chairman and the board devalued Jeff. In addition, the board and the chairman of the Decision Tech never appreciated Jeff’s works and contribution, a typical character that sailed through their course of management. However, a good and effective team must always acknowledge and appreciate one another because without unity and appreciation, the team is not going to be encouraged and sail in one accord.
Question 2
The four stages of team development, forming, norming, storming and performing are very essential for an effective team. A miss in any of the team development stages will lead to misconceptions and formation of ideologies that are not consistent with the organizations expectations. Most importantly the culture that a team establishes during the forming and norming stages is very important and essential in shaping norms and values of the company. Decision Tech had a culture of group thinking and this is what contributed to the behavior of not trusting Kathryn capabilities and potential. Their lack of trust contributed to their doubt of Kathryn’s experience and age. According to the executive Committee in Decision Tech, Kathryn was not leader enough to take the new position. In fact their norm of doubting and failing to embrace a potential leader based on her inexperience hurt the company. When Kathryn tried to fit in, she found it unbearable because the executive team had already doubted her potentials. Indeed when they looked at her resume, they could not avoid but to wait and see what Kathryn was going to deliver. Thus during their forming stage when bringing in Kathryn into the executive position, the executive team felt that Kathryn didn’t conform to their standards and expectations. Additionally, their inability to face disagreements and end up issues hurt the company. This is because after Kathryn was brought on board, the executive felt that it’s the time to heighten their interpersonal attraction (Whetten and Kim, 500).
Question 3
Decision Tech went through the four stages of the team development. Kathryn realized that the team needed to become acquainted with the staff. She noted the problem that existed with the team and tried to look for the solutions. First she understood why the executive team had lost the tract, why the staffs referred to the executive team as the staffs themselves. Kathryn came up with the workable strategies that helped the organization to understand and appreciate each member. Here she realized that the team was competent with very brilliant persons on board. However they lacked coherence which made the executive team to lose focus and purpose. She changed this culture by showing Jeff how much trust she had in him. First she accepted Jeff’s invite for lunch amidst busy schedule and this was an opportunity that she used so well to ensure that forming process is met.
She confronted the chairman with the need for a change and brought everybody with the new expectations and culture change. She brought this in a style by organizing for a retreat in Napa, yet this time the staff was tight with very busy schedule. Kathryn change of business was very essential in starting a new process of employee relationship building and establishing trust within employee. Indeed this is the best recipe for a team work, a fact that Kathryn understood so well. Also Kathryn won the staffs hurt and promoted the culture of change by not pointing fingers on any person for the lack of team coherence as well as unity within the team. She took off the hook from Jeff and courageously embraces to the team the need for ones. Indeed this was one of the steps towards ensuring that the forming step, one of the four development steps is achieved. After the team building, Kathryn went ahead to heal the wounds that the team had.
The disagreements and the confusions that were faced by the Decision Tech were addressed by Kathryn. Kathryn recognized the need for clarity and oneness in work, and because of this she increased the number of times the staffs at Decision Tech spend so that there can be enough time for addressing the company issues, addressing the disagreements and accepting the reality. Indeed Kathryn managed to move the team through performing stage, which is the last of the four development stages. Here the Decision Tech managed to increase their sales and marketing beyond the competitors reach. With the consistent meetings, Kathryn was able to ensure that the company ensured continuous improvement, and the team was able to pull through. As noted by Lencion (182) “with substantial improvement in the performance, the company saw the turnover among employees subside, and morale rise steadily, with the exception of a slight and temporary dip when the company missed its numbers”. This is a clear proof that Kathryn was able to propel the company through the Decision Techs expectation and created a culture which ensured sustained performance, since the number of employee turnover reduced remarkably She also managed to increase the sale and marketing and in the long run making the company to be where it was expected. Indeed she successfully managed to lay plans for the company’s sustained development, thus making her successful in the management of Decision Tech.
Question 4
Kathryn succeeded in managing the agreement and disagreements within the team members. She excelled in using the two sided agreements without any flows (Whetten and Kim, 508). To start with Kathryn could engage the staffs and the executive team in a two sided agreement and finally end up meeting her objectives and addressing the point she intend to put across. She managed to bring coherence in the team by just using the technique of agreement and disagreement. For instance when she first invited members in a team building session, she engaged them in agreement and disagreement situation by intimidating their thoughts and letting them conclude for themselves. This is the same technique she employed when she changed the roles of Jeff. She agreed with Jeff to start reporting to Martin, a position that left almost all board executives in questions. They could hardly understand how Kathryn who has propelled them to those great heights could change roles for Jeff and let him report to Martin and not her. This was heard to decipher, and Kathryn had also faced the challenge of explaining. However, by welcoming the agreements and disagreements technique, she was able to use the two sided argument effectively, and at the end she convinced the executive committee with great gusto. Indeed, this technique worked for her and contributed to most of her successes and the organizations performance improvement.
Question 5
Jan succeeded in the role of task facilitating. She was always quick to build on the ideas raised by others. Every time Jan could push forward an idea provided it deemed fit. Additionally her role in urging and ensuring that team members stay on course was remarkable. A good example is when they were at the poolside and she realized the team was getting off track, and urged all the members to come back on board and stay in focus by discussing issues that directly affect the business. Jan was also the role facilitator because of her persistent drive and the desire to ensure that all objectives are created and met. This is why she was always the first to respond in terms of reality testing, and ensuring that every idea that is presented is workable. Mickey on the other hand played the blocking role in the all process. She was always skeptical of ideas and always ready to resist any development ideas put across. She was very negative on all progresses that were being made by the executive team. On the other hand, Jeff was the best in ensuring that the relationship facilitation role is achieved. He was very supportive and always ready to praise any good idea that was noted by the team members (Whetten and Kim, 515). Additionally, Jeff was very good in mediating differences and his role in establishing networks was magnificent. Jeff was ready to accept the demotion just to ensure that the relationship between him and the executive team remain instant. For instance, in the model Jeff emerge as the greatest energizer, pushing others to reach consensus. He was also empathetic making him accomplish the role of relationship building (Lencion, 200).
Work Cited
Whetten, David and Kim, Cameron. “Development Management Skills” Upper Sadddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011, pp. 492-518.
Lencioni, Patrick. “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”. CA. A Wiley Imprint. 2002, pp. 1-227.
