Team Case
Karen, the New Manager
Karen was recently promoted to her first leadership position (as a first level supervisor). Karen was promoted into a position in which she would manage coders, engineers, systems developers and a clerk. In all, the group numbers 14 plus the clerk. Karen was looking forward to this opportunity. Although she was used to working with programmers and systems engineers in a software development company, this would be her first opportunity to work as an "official" manager.
She was anxious about her first day at work, because she had worked for this company for 10 years but was moving into a new department and didn't know anyone in her new group very well. She had a nodding acquaintance with some of the members as she passed them at the water fountain, going to lunch and getting coffee, but knew that she had to effectively start over in some areas and establish herself and her leadership. She knew from casual conversation with other employees that there were questions about ethics and issues with morale and job satisfaction, partly attributed to the previous supervisor.
Prior to her promotion and based on the company grapevine, Karen heard the previous supervisor of her team had moved on because of something that happened in the group. Employees who knew about an event that had precipitated the departure of the supervisor were few, and there were multiple stories circulating about why the previous supervisor left. However, Karen understood that information from the grapevine can be unreliable, so she cannot and will not rely on any of the rumors or stories. She understood that her responsibility was to develop a team that worked together well, successfully completed assignments, and contributed to the goals of the company.
Once she became the supervisor, Karen noted that some of the team consisted of a few people close to her age (34), but they were mostly older. While the clerk is in her 20s, everyone else was older than Karen, including for the four employees brought in recently. She knew she was looking at employees with different priorities, because they were at different places in their careers. This would provide a challenge to Karen because she needed to focus their diverse skills, interests and abilities toward team goals which had not been effectively accomplished in the past. The group included an even mix of men and women. Most were US citizens, and some had lived in the US for many years. More recently arrivals included a man and a woman from India, and one arrival from the UK and another from China, both of whom were men who had been brought in on visas for specialized work within the last year.
In the first two weeks, Karen held one-on-one discussions with each team member so she could get to know each of one and ask them about what each person felt the team did well and what areas needed improvement. This helped her focus on each employee’s specific skills and areas in which they could contribute as well as giving her a full picture of problem areas. She felt positive this was the right approach after the interviews. However, when Karen asked in a meeting, few were aware of the existence of a company mission. While others on the other team members heard there was a company mission, they didn't know what it was.
Karen established weekly team meetings to review goals, discuss the relationship between the work assigned to the team and the mission of the company, review the projects status, and improve communication in general. Karen noticed the first week there was little conversation between the team members. She attributed this to the fact that she was new, and they had to get to know her. When this continued in weeks two, three and four, Karen decided there was something else going on, because she had no sense of "team" from the members or that they supported each other based on the conversations in the team meetings. Not only this, team members appeared to have little understanding of how their work fit into the "big picture" of the company and even less information about how their projects contributed to the company goals. As Karen observed how the team members interacted in the first few weeks, she also discovered there was no consistent way to make decisions, resolve conflicts or solve problems. Some team members did not speak up and others dominated the conversations. Generally speaking, there appeared to be a lack of knowledge about how each team member can contribute as well as a general lack of trust.
Foremost in Karen's mind is the need to improve collaboration and cohesion and to develop a team that is capable of performing at high levels because of the contracts and deadlines looming within the next 12 months. Part of this task includes the need to share information about how the team supports organizational goals. As a result, she is determined to make sure team members understand their roles in the company's success. Karen is also intent on improving group processes and building trust and cohesion, both of which will enhance morale and job satisfaction according to some of the articles that she has read. She wants to lay out a plan to help coach her employees into becoming a high performing team based on information she obtained in the individual interviews to identify skills, abilities and developmental areas for each team member. Karen also needs to emphasize information about the mission and the relationship of the teamwork to the goals of the company. However, Karen wonders how she is going to accomplish all of this without sacrificing productivity. Karen has obtained permission from her manager to hold two training sessions, one day each, and the rest of the developmental/training time will be included in weekly team meetings, not to exceed 30 minutes of the meeting time.
Six Months Later
Karen implemented her training plan about four months ago, two months after it was proposed. She made all the necessary arrangements for time off from project work, met with an internal consultant from human resources and developed goals, review the content of the team building sessions and decided how she was going to measure outcomes. She used simple questionnaires containing three questions (What went well? What could be improved? What else should be included?) for the training sessions, comments were submitted anonymously. She received mostly positive comments related to people getting to know each other and observed a friendlier atmosphere in the workplace because people interacted more, ask questions of each other and offered solutions more frequently. She also noticed team members offer to help each other meet deadlines and believe this to reflect positive progress for the team. Karen plans to have the team members fill out the Team Effectiveness Questionnaire (TEQ) as part of her plans to assess their progress.
Assignment:
Your assignment is to develop a plan that identifies the issues based on your analysis and present your plan your manager to improve the team’s performance. As you develop your paper, do not write this in first person (that means don’t use ‘I’ or ‘me’). Instead, develop this assignment as though you are observing what Karen is doing. This means you will be writing in third person. Be sure to address the specific issues raised because of the analysis.
· There is a separate assignment to develop a SWOT analysis after reviewing the “how to” information in Blackboard, using this case; do not include the SWOT with this assignment. If this is your first time conducting a SWOT, take advantage of the videos and online information. Remember that strengths and weaknesses are internal to the team; opportunities and threats are external to the team and typically consist of areas that are beyond the control of the team such as state and federal laws, the economy, and competition.
· Based on the readings in class thus far, identify as many issues as possible using the categories specified in the Warrick model. Look at each one of the blocks (blocks 2-4) in the model and compare this to the information in the case. What information in the case fits in the specific components of the model? Be specific. Create a list of key issues based on the evidence in the gap analysis that the plan will address - this means noting what is positive or working well as well as at least 4 to 5 items that need improvement.
· For the positive items, explain why these are good and why Karen needs to keep doing these activities by finding literature to support her approach. For the items that need improvement, find literature that explains how to make those improvements and use these as you build your case for Karen’s team. Provide at least one article/reference for each positive item AND each item that needs improvement, using the items identified in Karen’s team (using the Warrick model). This means read through the case and relate as many specifics as possible to the correct block of the Warrick model. There are multiple opportunities here, it’s up to you to identify them. Use information from course materials we have covered so far including, but not limited to, text, articles, and even videos (as they relate to, for example, making decisions, trust and cohesion), and check the Library Guide for reading, or look in the library for other articles. Review what you have included so far: What else was mentioned that needs to be included in your plans/activities? Is this complete enough to satisfy the requirements of the assignment?
· Do not lay out a plan that specifies what to do for every minute of every training session or meeting. Instead, provide a broad proposal to address improving key areas identified in the analysis. These items must specifically relate to Warrick’s model as discussed earlier in these instructions.
· Your paper, at a minimum, should include a list of at least 4-5 positive items and at least 4-5 areas for improvement, specifically related to the Warrick model components (boxes) and supporting activities to make improvements based on the literature for each - designed to enhance team performance. I recommend that you include the Warrick model as an appendix to support your recommendations.
· Refer to the paper requirements document for sections, titles, and areas to be covered.
General Information to keep in mind: When working with teams, there is no "silver bullet" answer or one right way to do everything, because it depends on the leadership, the employees, the situation, and even what has happened in the past. Therefore, when a plan is developed, we need to rely on the literature for authority in determining what to do in a given situation as well as the culture of the organization, the style of the group leader and the culture of the team. For example, what appears to be a great idea may not fit with the style of the team leader or with the culture of the group or organization. Please keep in mind this is a proposal for Karen’s boss, and in this case does not require a detailed training plan, only a proposal about what she has accomplished and what else she wants to do and why it is important to develop her team into a high performance unit (according to the literature). Essentially, this assignment is building a case to improve team performance that will benefit the organization by identifying the key items noted in your analysis. Again, this is not a detailed training schedule!! This is only a proposal; no data is needed other than what is provided in the instructions and the case. Anything that discusses forming/storming/norming will be returned, ungraded because this “model” is not about leading teams, it was developed for a psychotherapy group and refers to internal team dynamics. Instead, we are focused on team leadership and improving performance in the workplace.
If you were to walk in to a situation such as this and take over a group and turn this group of people into a high-performing team, you would want to do your best work. Make it happen.