IIM KOZHIKODE

LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROJECT

HENRY TAM AND THE MGI TEAM

GROUP 1

AAYUSH SAHA PGP/23/001

GOPIKA RADHAKRISHNAN PGP/23/016
NIKHIL S PGP/23/033
SHALU SINGH PGP/23/048
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………....…3

PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS……………………………………………………………………………………3

LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………………….4

Traits………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Skills…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5

Leadership style………………………………………………………………………………………………6

Big five………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6

Leadership behaviour……………………………………………………………………………………..…6

FOLLOWER ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………………...7

Leader member exchange…………………………………………………………………………………...7

Role played by members/followers using Benne and Sheats Model………………………………………8

TEAM ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………………………...9

Group dynamics in meetings………………………………………………………………………………...9

Team development stage – Tuckman’s framework………………………………………………………..9

Determining the type of team……………………………………………………………………………...10

Team diversity Model………………………………………………………………………………………11

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………...12

RECOMMENDATION………………………….…………………………………………………………13
 INTRODUCTION

Music Games International (MGI) was a start-up company founded by three immigrants from former Soviet
Union to United States, Alexander Gimpelson (Sasha- founder), Igor Tkachenko and Roman Yakub, with an
innovative idea of producing original music and sound effects for websites via CD-ROM music game
product for which they needed some business acumen to table the business plan. Henry and Dana, HBS
graduates joined the MGI team through HBS Business Plan Contest platform to gain experience with a real-
world problem. Later on, Dav and Alex joined MGI team assuming the role of a technical expert and music
industry consultant respectively. The team could not agree on a fundamental aspect of the plan, due in just
three weeks – such as target market for this product i.e., education market or bigger entertainment market. In
addition, progress on business plan had been slow due to interpersonal conflicts

I) Problem Diagnosis

Four major problems were identified in the case study which cramped the team bonding, though they
were a group of talented and motivated people but they couldn’t use their potential to work effectively as
a team.

1. Lack of vision

Though the Co-founders of MGI had a good creative instinct as they came up with a disruptive idea of
making an innovative product, CD-ROM music game, but there was a lack of structure and no road map to
implement the idea. Their concentration was on the promotion of the product but they didn’t define the
vision, mission and values of their business. Consequently, they also failed in delegating tasks and
responsibilities efficiently and work as a team in order to become a successful company. There wasn’t a
common vision even when new members joined the group. Incoherent structure to perform any task was
followed at the MGI group. The company lacked the ‘glue’ that could pull together every individual in the
team to provide a solid unified result.

2. Lack of decision making and work procedures (processes)

The co-founders of MGI were unable to attract talented pool of people from outside and also
failed in retaining them in the long run. Another reason, as stated before, is a lack of structure and clarity
in defining roles and responsibilities. It is unprofessional to not set the goals and define roles and
responsibilities for new joinees in the company. There was an unstructured brainstorming without even
knowing what the final deliverable should be and how it would be achieved do not consider it to be
professional or perspective. For example, the launch of the first edition of the Nutcracker music game
was quite chaotic. According to Roman, “Sasha was our production manager, business manager, and
fundraiser, and he had no time left for selling”.
 3. Lack of shared mental models

It was quite clear that there was a lack of communication among the team because during all the three
meetings, there was not any constructive dialogues between the co-founders of the company and Dana and
Henry. On one side, the co-founders were brainstorming without any architecture and agenda, while on the
other hand, Dana and Henry were focusing more on the implementation of their idea by clearly defining
objectives and goals. For instance, MGI founders visioned their company’s future in the entertainment
industry whereas the students suggested to enter into the education sector. This lack of communication with
no agreement on common grounds resulted in lack of team members that are “on the same page” (shared
mental models)

4. Different backgrounds

After Henry and Dana had joined the company, they started to actively participate in the work and decision-
making processes. There was a confrontational stance among the group about "Henry and Dana versus the
founders of the MGI". Cultural factors like nationality, age and experience, functional backgrounds played a
role in this.

MAIN PROBLEM:

A group of talented, diverse and motivated people failed to work effectively as a team and use their
potential. Diversity may look good on paper but reality may be otherwise if not properly channelled.

II) Leadership analysis

a) Traits
Founders

Sasha was high on energy, visibly passionate, motivated others, but he was not focussed and did not handle
stress well. Sasha was very high on self-confidence at times he did not let anybody else contribute, which
created tensions between him and Dana. Sasha was less on emotional stability, highly self-centred, highly
impulsive. When it comes to power, he exerted some power on the graduates. However, it was not referent
or expert power as Dana or any other graduates doesn’t seem to give him the respect that comes unless
exerted. He had a very low need for affiliation as we can see across the case him trying to pick up fights
with Dana on her opinions and views. Even though he wants to get things done, concern for task objectives
were neglected, though achievement orientation was there, it was not effective since power orientation was
more personalized rather than socialized.

Igor was a workaholic and worked for long hours. He was high on energy and could tolerate high levels of
stress. He is a very creative person and was high on self-confidence when it came to music. He was high on
emotional stability and maturity. Even when he had fights or disagreements with the founders during the
meeting, they had no problem working together after that. He was low on Narcissism and low on power
motivation as well. He identified Sasha to be the leader and gives him power to take decisions when it
comes to any decisions that are not related to music. He had a moderate need for affiliation. He works hard
on making the product and is achievement oriented.

Roman was more creative and did not take stress well, he considered himself to be bad promoter, bad
managers but a creative when it comes to music. He was high on self-confidence on the music that he had
created for the company and about his connections in Russia. He knew he didn’t have managerial skills and
accepted the vies of the team on that area. They were high on emotional stability as they never get the
disagreements between them affect them beyond the meetings. Roman was moderate on narcissism and was
low on need for affiliation. He had more socialised power orientation as all the new entrants in the team
respected him. He was moderate on achievement orientation.

HBS Graduates

Henry and Dana were high on energy. Henry could handle stress well but Dana at times could not handle
stress in the team well. They both took extra effort in creating the business plan. They both were high on
self-confidence as well. Even though they were unsure about the team members having different visions,
they both worked hard to achieve a common ground. They were high on internal locus of control. They
always prioritised the company’s future and the business plan. At times they collaborated before getting to
the meetings in order to move ahead and get some progress in creating the business plan. When Henry was
high on emotional stability and accepted criticism well, Dana at times tend to get agitated during meetings
when putting her opinion forth. Dana also had disagreements with Sasha about almost everything. They
ended up fighting showing the lack of emotional stability. Henry and Dana wanted to know what their roles
and responsibilities were with the company and they were worried about the future after they graduate, and
all these shows their need for need for power. Dana was high on integrity and always stick to the point even
if she had to go against the founders. They had some elements of narcissism; they tend to manipulate Sasha
to get what they want during the meetings. They both were high on orientation towards achievement, they
were result, progress and goal oriented. Need for affiliation was low for Dana and moderate for Henry, with
Henry trying to bring ideas together. Their focus was to drive the business plan creation. They monitored
progress in each of the meetings and thus highly achievement driven.

b) Skills

Sasha was low on the Technical Skills when it comes to the product. He was very low on Interpersonal skills
which even he accepts. He had very good conceptual skills and had energy to execute them as well. When it
comes to political skill, he was high on apparent sincerity and Social astuteness as well, but very low on
Interpersonal influence and Networking ability.
Henry was low on the Technical Skills when it comes to the product, but had good managerial skills. He was
very high on Interpersonal skills which gave him ability to handle criticism well. He had very good
conceptual skills when it comes to making business plan, he prepares a ppts before attending meetings.
When it comes to political skill, he was high on apparent sincerity and Social astuteness as well, high on
Interpersonal influence and Networking ability as well.
Dana had knowledge on the product, but not enough to contribute. She had skills when it comes to creating
business plans showing Technical skills. She often had conflicts with Sasha and other founders, indicating
low Interpersonal skills. Conceptually she had a clear-cut idea on how to proceed with the business plan.
She was low on political skill.
Roman had the ability to handle the product and the music, but did not have the managerial skills necessary
to run the company. He was moderate on interpersonal skills, he often had conflicts with other founders on
the direction the product should proceed. He was moderate on Political skills, tend to work on the product
with a lot of compassion and enthusiasm and also networks well with the team.
Igor being a composer had the skill to work on their product, but lacked any sort of managerial skills. He
was moderately high on interpersonal skills. The conflicts in the meetings with the founders did not affect
their work after that. He was high on political skills. When it comes to working for long hours, Igor was a
workaholic and also convinced the team that he is one. He observed the interns and understood the company
needed them and mentioned the same to HBS students as well.

c) Leadership styles – Overall there was a lack of leadership in the group (laissez-faire) with members
having little idea what they should be doing. Though Henry and Dana showed elements of leadership
in specific situations, it was not effective as there was not a formally declared team leader and hence
a lack of legitimate power for making decisions or influencing other members of the team
d) Big Five

Henry Dana Sasha Roman Igor

Surgency (Extroversion) High High High High Moderate
Conscientiousness High High Moderately Low Low
High
Agreeableness Moderate Low-Moderate Low High Moderate
Neuroticism Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate
Openness High Moderate Low Moderate High

e) Leadership Behaviours

Structure Consideration
Henry High High
He had a structure for tasks at hand or attending He was soft spoken and always valued the
meetings. He always prepared before attending the opinions of others, even when it was in the
meetings and had a plan to be set in motion form of criticism
Dana High Moderate
She was always going looking for the roles and Even though she valued the inputs form all
responsibilities which she might have to take up in the the other founders, she always ended up
 company. She also measured the progress that happens
in each of the meetings and wanted to conduct them in
an organised way and keep them within the time limits.
Sasha Low
Sasha did not conduct meetings to obtain a solution or a He was always strong on his opinions and
result, he just thought them as a brainstorming session
and did not give value to the time they went on for.
Every founder had a different vision. She tends to stick
to her vision and did not give chance to others to others
or manage them in a more
Roman Low
Roman had more creative knowledge than managerial
skills which often gave more ideas in the meetings. He
did not give importance to time taken for them to come
to a conclusion during the brainstorming sessions
which often led to conflicts of interest during these
meetings.
against Sasha. She collaborated with Henry
in getting the outputs and decisions that
they need to make.
Low
did not have empathy. He was always rude
with Dana when she had an opinion on
how to take things forward. He often had
conflicts with the founders on deciding the
target markets as well.
Moderately High
He acknowledged the need for the
company to hire the HBS graduates, and
thus gave importance to their opinions as
well. But he had conflicts with Igor and
Sasha on deciding the segments that
company should focus on

II) Follower Analysis

a) Leader Member Exchange

There seems to be a high-exchange relationship as the leaders (the founders) are conditioned to personally
interact with the subordinates. There have been instances where Sasha has openly shown her discontent for
Dana’s methods but due to the similar intensity of the relationship dynamics in the group, Igor has conveyed
the necessity for Dana and Henry to stick by no matter what. The leaders were, whether they like it or not,
investing a lot of time being influenced by what the students were expecting from them in order to make
things work. This means the relationship of subordinates was highly exchange oriented with everybody else
apart from Sasha.
Of course, this wasn’t seeming to work in this particular case as the high level of interaction wasn’t
translating into positive results.

b) Role played by members/followers using Benne and Sheats Model

Task Roles
1. Energizer- Dana and Henry took switched their roles as energizer when one became less
enthusiastic / energetic about the project
2. Elaborator – Henry brought it written material to each meeting which helped the team members a
better understanding of the issue at hand and also synthesized from Dana and Sasha into a coherent
piece
3. Initiator – There was an abundance of initiators in the group with almost everyone suggesting new
ideas especially the Russians, Sash and Ignor were wary about others brining in ideas (too many
people for each to have their own ideas)
4. Information giver – Alex and Dav played the role of Information giver, Alex gave information on the
music industry whereas Dav gave information on the technical product
5. Evaluator – Dana mainly played this role by evaluating ideas against practicality though she could
not effectively communicate it to others (except Henry)

Maintenance Roles

1. Encourager- Igor has been very encouraging of out of the box idea given by Roman (initial idea of
the puzzle)
2. Harmonizer- Roman describes Igor to be like that father who holds the company together. He was
seen appreciating Henry and Dana when Sasha was completely against them
3. Gatekeeper- Henry and Dana had devised a method for their brainstorming session. Each person’s
views would be considered before moving ahead. But this presented a bottleneck. Hiccups in terms
of iterations led to slowing down of the pace.
4. Compromiser- Henry, cunningly plans a good-cop, bad-cop style ploy with Dana to get a
compromise. This does seem to work.
5. Commentator- Alex is seen trying to unravel the dynamics of the group in the second and third
meetings. Dissecting cultural differences.
6. Standard setter- Sasha and Dana for their respective roles in the group. Though Dana might not be
able to overshadow Sasha, a senior, at all times. She does have a spark for seeing the bigger picture.
Sasha, for similar reasons is perceived as emotionally driven by Dana.
7. Follower- Dav was okay with being just a ticket to enter a competition

Some key roles are not fulfilled by anyone like orienter, opinion seeker/giver and recorder

III) Team Analysis

a) Group dynamics in meetings

In the first meeting the group did not share the same values and vision. There were differences between
Sasha and Dana, even though they had the same qualification. Sasha always seem to discourage Dana’s
opinions. The roles and responsibilities that Henry and Dana had was unclear to them as well as the
founders.

In the second meeting Alex joined the team and started acting as the consultant to the team. The direction of
the company was unclear even at this point of time. The conflicts between Sasha and Dana continued. There
was great brainstorming but lacked structure. Dana worried about the lack of experience and need for
leadership. Dana and Henry started collaborating and work together toward building the business plan.

In the third meeting Dav enters the team and that heightens the already existing tension. The team begins to
suspect Sasha’s motivations in bringing Dav to the team. Dav along with working on the business plan also
contributed technically to the company. Dana and Henry started to work together and also avoided any of
Sasha’s contributions. There were cultural differences between the HBS graduates and the Russians and it
led to clashes between them as well.

b) Team development stage – Tuckman’s framework

The group did not go through the first stage of forming properly.

 There was no official leader and new members were taken into the team without proper consultation
with other team members
 The roles and responsibilities that was expected from the members were not clearly defined
 The vision of the team beyond making a business plan for the contest was ambiguous

Using the Tuckman’s framework for a team's stages of development, the MGI team can be identified to be
stuck in the storming stage and a pseudo team currently due to the following reasons:

 We can see a shift in focus from the tasks at hand to feelings of anger and frustration. The tension
between Sasha and Dana was evident, each saw the other as "just a student" and "just a salesperson"
respectively.

 There is an incompatibility between the style of discussion between the musicians and the business
members. The musicians were more interested in brainstorming extensively whereas Sasha and Dana felt
after a certain point, one should focus on structured discussions to get outcomes

 Groups within the group: HBS versus the Russians, each having separate discussions. Coalition between
Henry and Dana to handle Sasha

c) Determining the type of team

Basis* Extent
Autonomy to determine Low to moderate
mission and objectives  Even though Henry was taken in as an entry ticket to the HBS’
annual business plan competition, he along with Dana had certain
expectations from the collaboration
 None of them were willing to settle for anything less than having a
stake in deciding the direction for MGI. Dana, more openly so
Autonomy to determine Moderate to high
work procedures  Dana was open about her disregard for pitching their idea to HBS
alumni as there was a clear lack of plan
 Work was ultimately done but majority of it was given to Henry
Authority of the Low to moderate
internal leader  Sasha was the internal ‘leader’ as he was bringing in most students.
Despite that, differences were clear between the founders and the
subordinates
 Denial of Dana to abide by the methods suggested by Sasha
 Lack of clarity from the founders
 Enough authority held by Sasha to deny Dana and Henry to go
ahead with the Education market
 Still not enough for him to convince both of them that this is the
right thing to do
Duration of existence Low
for the team  From the moment Henry was contacted, Henry had a fair idea that
this team is being created primarily to enter the HBS competition
first, later the MIT competition of similar nature
 New additions were being made rapidly without any consultation
from the team members
 Upon asking Igor and Sasha about Henry and Dana’s role post-
graduation, they were told that possibilities were there “if things
worked out”
 Stability of the Moderate
membership  The job at hand of the team was to create a coherent business plan
for a critically acclaimed product
 The core team could virtually do nothing going ahead without other
members based on their previous experience
 They need members to stay
 Though as of now there is lack of clarity regarding who should be
staying
Diversity of members High
in functional  Different ethnicities (Soviet Vs. American)
background  Professional Backgrounds (MBA Vs. Non-MBA/Creative)
 Generation Gap (Dana, Henry, Dav and Alex Vs. Igor, Sasha and
Roman)

Based on the above information, the structure is roughly resembling a Self-Managed operating team.

d) Team diversity Model

Srikanth et al., 2016

Deep – level diversity characteristics like functional and educational backgrounds, personalities can increase
access to diverse information thereby improving group performance. But on the other hand surface level
diversity characteristics like status (age -older members having higher status than the young), nationality can
trigger a social categorization process – in which similar members identify with one another and
differentiate themselves from those who fall outside of their social category and such categorization leads to
decreased communication and increased conflict between sub-groups. In this case, it can be clearly seen that
the effects of surface-level diversity characteristics are higher than deep-level characteristics.
 IV) Conclusion:

Overall the analysis can be concluded through the team effectiveness model.

Context Priority
Adequate Company lacked resources and experience to effectively market their Yes
resources product among certain segments. Sasha was pressurizing Henry and Dana
to use alumni networking to get the required resources and expertise
Leadership and No formal leader, lack of structure in meetings, no method of conflict Yes
structure resolution
Performance Specific goals and roles have to be given first before any kind of No
evaluation and performance or evaluation system can be established.
reward system
Climate of trust Founders had trust in the capabilities of the HBS students and often Yes
acknowledged Henry’s and Dana’s hard work. Sasha’s motivations in
hiring Dav caused suspicion in Henry and Dana
Composition
Abilities of The members in the team have skills that are complementary No
members
Personalities Very low agreeableness and low emotional stability of Sasha is a problem Yes
Allocating roles Lack of clear roles and responsibilities. No one fulfilling orienter, opinion Yes
seeker/ giver and recorder roles
Diversity Surface level characteristics dominating over deep level characteristics Yes
Cultural Musicians Vs Business persons, Russians Vs others Yes
differences
Size of team The size of team is not too large (less than 10) No
Member Most members prefer working in a team, hence no need to exclude anyone No
preferences from team meetings. (Except for Dav but he is ok with being present)
Process
Common Current do not share a common purpose or vision. Future role for Henry Yes
purpose and Dana was unclear, Dav viewed it just as an opportunity to experiment
Specific goals No clear task objectives that are measurable and realistic to meet the larger Yes
goal of developing a business case
Team efficacy Team hasn’t enjoyed any prior success together, so probably on the lower Yes
side
Team cohesion On the lower side due to emotionally immature members, cultural Yes
and identity diversity, frequent changes in membership
Mental Models Team members have different ideas about have to get things done / Yes
 diagnosing problems (brainstorming vs structured discussions)
Conflict levels High especially between Sasha and Dana (relationship conflict rather than Yes
task conflict which is good)
Social loafing, These were absent, team diversity might have played a part No
group thinking

V) Recommendations (focusing on the priority areas)

A) Formal leader
i) Short term objective – Winning the Business plan contest

Henry should negotiate and win support from others to taken on the role of temporary project manager for
the business plan contest alone. Hiring someone from outside at this stage would not be a good idea as
he/she would need time to get acquainted with the group dynamics and there is time crunch as the date of
submission is nearing.

ii) Long term objective – Implementing the plan and launch of MGI products

Hire an external senior member (with high referent and expert power) as the team manager. However,
this person should be high on participative leadership as the other members are co-founders of the
company and Sasha, Henry and Dana have high need for power and they would expect their inputs to be
valued

B) Vision
Instead of everyone having their individual motives, the leader should communicate an appealing
vision of what the team can jointly accomplish.
C) Clarifying roles
In both the cases, the appointed leader should define a functional structure. For example, Strategy
formulation and Implementation – Henry and Dana, Marketing – Sasha, Igor – Product development
etc. Clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities will also ease the tension between Sasha and
Dana. In the short term, ensure their roles have minimum overlap.
D) Specific measurable goals
Right now, the team members are frustrated, the leader should set up some measurable goals that can
be easily attainable so that get a taste of success as a team which will also improve team efficacy
E) Differentiate meetings
Separate meetings should be held for action orientated discussions and brain-storming sessions (if
required). This would prevent the former from turning into long drawn out discussions without
achieving anything tangible. Have internal deadlines for meetings and different tasks
F) Team cohesion and identity
 Conduct team building exercises, periodic social activities and also use symbols and rituals to make
team membership unique. So that instead of team Russians or musicians, there can be team MGI.
This can reduce surface level diversity effects and increase deep level diversity effects
G) Impression management
The leader should use impression management technique like Ingratiation to influence key persons in
the team like Sasha

Additional note: - What actually happened?

Harvard website mentions MGI team as the runners up in the competition which means they experienced
significant success in the short term and got publicity and exposure to investors.

However, Henry and Dana did not take up any roles in the organisation after the competition (LinkedIn
analysis). Sasha and Igor seem to have left MGI and went into to other ventures. Hence long-term success of
the team is debatable.