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 high-
performing 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:

 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.

 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.

 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”.

 REWARDS—Other than “keeping their jobs”, there were no rewards or

recognition systems in place for either team success or excellent individual
performance.

 TRUST—No trust between team members. “Every man for himself”

mentality. Randy personality/style brought friction and defensiveness to
other team members.

6. 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 Carl

Mo Eric Ray Mo Eric Ray

Randy 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 long-
service 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 re-
integrated as a full-time team member.