The primary problem of Christine and her other team members is the social loafing of the team member Mike. He is clearly missing most of the meeting nor completing the assignments fully. His personal obstacles are definitely unproductive to the team. In the group meetings, Christine is discussing his designated sections of the project. A secondary problem with the team is there appear to be no clearly defined guidelines or expectations for the group.
Dana and Henry saw themselves as strategic contributors to the business strategy of MGI, whereas Sasha perceived them as interns and business plan writers, while Igor saw them as helping with vision and strategy. When Dav was added to the team, it confused Henry and caused him to question Sasha’s decisions, and the roles he expected the students to have. The case states “Feeling overburdened, Henry realized that his and Dana’s role on the team had become increasingly muddled” Having never completely resolved their interpersonal conflicts, we can say that the group never reached the Norming Stage. They were technically still stuck in the Storming stage, with each
However, the implementation of GGOL faces huge resistance. Individual Sources: Firstly, there is fear of the unknown among the employees and the top managers. The outcomes of GGOL are uncertain, employees feel like their safety and job securities are threatened, especially resignation of plant managers has already happened. Secondly, individuals have habits. They prefer to work in their accustomed ways.
Mike has presented himself as unreasonable and was acting very foolish which allow him to lack of focus. During the forming stage, Mike chose to joke around about meeting before class, he’s ways constantly late to class, he presents so many excuses and when the group meets up, on informal bases, he was offended that he’s left out. Part II: Problem Identification The primary issue is they lack of communication. Christine is a bit scared and frustrated that her team member Mike is slacking on the assignment but she has not verbalized her concern with the group. Instead she is taking his drafts and notes and putting it together with the rest of the groups work.
This created confusion of reporting responsibilities, political tension, and reluctance to take responsibility and action. To address the main problem Erik Peterson is inexperienced and this shows in his incapacity to handle various situations in the case. He lacks the support of the upper management (Jenkins and Hardy), and does not reach out for help among his peers( Green,Cantor) He also has to face insubordination,Curt Andrew being the prime accused in this case. He also faces the Turn on Deadline 1) Lack of communication from frontline workers to Curt Andrews (and thus Erik) in providing tower building status, updates, or needs. Erik seems hampered at quickly knowing exactly where the 21 towers stand.
He most likely felt like an outcast or forgotten. If Christine understood the stages of team development, she could have addressed the situation at hand to get Mike up to speed with the rest of the team. Christine did not immediately address the primary issue with Mike and grew concerned in the middle of the semester. She needed to figure out how to deal with only the rough hand-written submitted notes of ideas, while the rest of the team developed into the "Performing" stage with their part of the assignment completed. Part II: Problem Identification The primary problem is Christine's lack of experience as a leader.
Since Janet couldn’t make it to meetings they gave her what was “left over” and didn’t even keep her in mind. Janet was a hard worker and wanted to contribute to the group, but since she had been pre classified by her group she couldn’t fit in the way she wanted to. Life was basically a struggle for Janet and being in a group that did not consider her struggle made her feel more alone than ever. She finally snapped over the cafeteria incident. She stopped to get something to eat and saw her whole group meeting without her, she felt extremely unappreciated and knew the group members didn’t respect her contributions.
MGMT E-4000 Henry Tam Case Study October 22, 2011 Henry Tam Case Study Answer 1: Understanding what went wrong during the Henry Tam case requires adopting a holistic systems thinking approach because of the complexity and multi-levels of conflict involved. One person or one facet of the MGI group was not solely responsible for the conflicting tensions that brewed, ultimately threatening the productivity and completion of the project. Instead, a hybrid of strikingly different backgrounds, clashing personalities, lack of agenda, absence of assigned tasks, mutual disrespect, and conflicting self-perceptions permeated to morph into a team that struggled from the business plan’s conception to completion. Whereas some conflict may be considered healthy or even encouraged within an organization, the conflict that developed within the MGI group was highly counterproductive because it involved, “poor listening, one-up-manship, power-plays for resources, perceived putdowns, and over controlling comments,” (MIC 1985: 3). Members of the MGI frequently cited a lack of communication based on clashing parties’ reluctance to respectfully listen to one another’s ideas.
However, the model also affected Cisco in many negative aspects. * Customized tools did not provide the desired output, because functions underestimated the training and change management requirements of new software. * Multiple databases and fuzzy definitions from different groups resulted in conflicting data circulating around the company. * Cisco had several applications that performed similar functions. Such redundancies led to a waste of money and human resources.