Scenario Testing Results

Scenario:

Reference the specific scenario.

Identify the team member conducting the test of this scenario.

Analysis:

How would a team use the Task Force Plan to work through this scenario?

Action Steps:

Recommendations for improving the solutions(s) within the plan to better address the scenario. 

Scenario #1 - (low performing team member – absence of trust)

The team is struggling with consistent communication – specifically, one team member is deficient in utilizing technology like ZOOM. Their attendance at team meetings is unreliable, and although the meetings are recorded, this team member is consistently out of step with the rest of the team in terms of information flow. Unwilling to ask for help, or be vulnerable, this team member is afraid of admitting their mistakes – resulting in the absence of trust.

The Task Force Plan does not directly address a low performing team member (absence of trust) but it does guide me in a direction that I can take to provide feedback to this scenario. The Task Force Plan mentioned how it will proactively strive to create “a company culture that truly values diversity”, while developing a process for forming and chartering global teams. Making sure that rapport is built, and everyone is being valued as a team player is a good way to open the lines of good, effective communication that will in return create an environment where the once team who was unwilling to ask for help, who was once vulnerable, who was afraid of admitting their mistakes which resulted in the absence of trust, will now be open to asking for help, not feel vulnerable, will admit their mistakes and own it, and build that much needed trust that will allow them to show up and learn from other group members.

In the plan it was stated on Action Step Nine that in order to host successful virtual meetings the task force will take all initial and course corrective action to ensure our virtual meetings “build engagement, trust, and sincerity among teams” (Ferrazzi, 2015). I would recommend that it is enforced and stays enforced. As soon as a situation has been identified that has possibly caused a team member to behave in that manner, it needs to be immediately addressed before moving on.

Scenario #2 - (Alpha leader)

There is an ‘alpha’ person on the team. Although their role is not formal (yet) in terms of functioning as a team lead, they do. They are a taskmaster and often forge ahead without full buy-in from team members. They take little care over social niceties and are impatient with anything they see as a time-wasting distraction. This causes others to ‘check out’ because, well, Alpha will do ‘whatever’. One team member noted: “I have realized I am more hands-on in the project when one of the team members is less involved. This team member dominates the discussion. I tend to ‘sit back’ and contribute less when that happens.”

Within the Task Force Plan, there are two action steps that address the issue of an alpha leader. These action steps combined create an environment of psychological safety that enables the team to move past an alpha leader by actively ignoring and engaging other members of the team when alphas attempt to take over.

“In order to ensure everyone has a voice we will ensure clarity and alignment around “checking in often, finding a purpose or goal to unite around, having a balance of participation, and cultivating empathy” (Gavin, 2019).

“In order to ensure each task force member has bought in and is accountable the team will host at least two workshops with the goal of creating necessary psychological safety and “cultivating interpersonal relations” (Hastings, 2018).

In order to improve upon the solution as presented within the Task Force Plan, a revision can be made to further expand upon how balance will be achieved and maintained as well as provide clarity on the definition and understanding of psychological safety. The definition of psychological safety if not explicitly defined can be open to interpretation.

Scenario #3 – (impasse – Fear of Conflict)

In developing options for consideration, the team reaches an impasse. One team member gets into the weeds quickly and struggles with staying on ‘the main thing’. Although the team leans on their “Team Contract” for such situations, ultimately, they determine the Team Contract is not specific enough to provide remedy. These pauses add time to everyone’s already busy schedules and has happened more than once. The end result is a fear of conflict which in turn results in team members incapable of engaging in debates.

In anticipation of issues such as this the team contract states:

“The priority of Backlog items (tasks / action items) will be reviewed at the top of the meeting to ensure we are dedicating our time to discussing only items of utmost importance when considering magnitude of the problem we are attempting to solve or the business value we are attempting to create.”

However, the contract doesn’t specifically detail how to handle disagreement on priority or refusal to follow the priority agreed to by the majority. Furthermore, the contract doesn’t specifically have a conflict resolution clause.

If and when there is a measure of disagreement on the priority of tasks and lack of clarity around the importance of the “main thing,” a “Backlog Grooming Session” will be held with the sole goal of aligning to the importance of the main thing and gaining agreement on order of priories.

Whenever there is conflict or disagreement a third-party arbitrator / mediator will be brought in from the respective team’s senior leadership. A meeting will be held to determine, without question, what is the priority and reaffirm the importance of focusing on “the main thing.” The conflict resolution clause will have verbiage to address how to handle a second infraction of this policy which would likely result in dismissal from the task force.

Scenario #4 – (VBM/Staffing)

The team is tasked to create a Task Force to address critical business issues, demonstrate virtuous leadership, and implement the VBM model in its work. The team struggles with the resource aspects of ‘how to identify candidates for the Task Force that would implement the VBM model’. The right fit is critically important – essentially the difference between success and failure. What actions can the team advance to identify these candidates and achieve the right fit, right role, right time for the success of the project?

In the Executive Summary and under the section Objectives, it is identified that there are shared cultures and values of the company that need to also be reproduced within the task force. The first shared culture and value identified is virtuous leadership. If virtuous leadership was important enough to be identified first for the shared culture and values of the company, then if the task force is having problems identifying candidates who would implement the VBM model then there is perhaps a larger problem in the company. Call employees of the company should be adhering to the corporate values of virtuous leadership. Therefore this issue should not arise unless the company is straying away from its corporate values.

In the case that the company has strayed away from its corporate values, Action Step Ten should be implemented. This Action Step states: In order to ensure the proper leaders have been selected for the task force, and more importantly, these leaders uphold their role we will vow to tolerate nothing less than behavior exuding the values of “courage, respect, reconciliation, cooperation, and inspirer (Brooker & Boyce, 2017). Furthermore, this considering must live in perpetuity to ensure sustainability as indicated by Caldwell and Hayes (2016). Initial success will be far outweighed by long term success.

We could include the company’s value statement in the project.

Scenario #5 -- (lack of passion – Inattention to Results)

Part of the team is working overtime to make up for other members who do not feel as passionate or accountable about getting this project completed in an excellent manner. These team members tend to put their own needs (ego, recognition, career development) ahead of the team goals. This results in the team losing sight of the ‘main thing’ and the project suffers. As a team functioning to model the VBM, how do you balance grace and holding people accountable for their actions/inactions? How do you handle what feels like disengagement from team members?

LPKWW has clearly outlined the corporate values and policies and according to the Task Force Plan under the sections of “Keys to Success” and “Objectives”, the global task force must function within the guidelines of the shared, promoted, and expressed corporate cultures and values including virtuous leadership, servant leadership, ethical business practice, moral decision making, as well as with the respect of cultural differences and practices

As a team functioning to model the VBM, all team members should adhere to the corporate values to help balance grace when holding others accountable for their actions/inactions. Per Action Step Three, the team will host at least two workshops with the goal of creating necessary psychological safety and “cultivating interpersonal relations” (Hastings, 2018) in order to ensure that each task force member is brought in and held accountable. This will also help with what may feel like the disengagement from team members. Action Step Two will also assist with the mishaps of disengaged team members by ensuring that all task force members have a voice and will ensure clarity and alignment by “checking in often, finding a purpose or goal to unite around, having a balance of participation, and cultivation empathy” (Gavin, 2019).

For improving the solution within the plan to better address balancing grace and holding individuals accountable for their actions/inactions, I would recommend adding to Action Step Six with bulletins clarifying that all team members must contribute in some aspect during one of the two workshops. I believe formalizing that all task force members must engage at the workshops will also help with handling disengagement from team members.

Scenario #6 – (ESL)

As a global -based team comprised of colleagues who are not centrally located, the team is expectedly diverse – with members in different time zones, different language dialects, different norms. At times, it is difficult to fully understand what some members are saying when they speak (on ZOOM calls, or other telecom means). As a team that is modeling the VBM, what approaches or tools can be utilized to bridge any language or comprehension gaps? In the absence of this, what are the projected outcomes? Why is this important?

In order to bridge the language or comprehension gap we will first utilize Action Step Two: In order to ensure everyone has a voice we will ensure clarity and alignment around “checking in often, finding a purpose or goal to unite around, having a balance of participation, and cultivating empathy” (Gavin, 2019). Furthermore, the task force will proactively strive to create “a company culture that truly values diversity, developing a process for forming and chartering global teams, offering intercultural communication training, and offering conflict management training for teams are also ways in which one could handle conflict within a global team” (Curry, 2016). Then, when addressing the tools needed to meet this scenario, we would implement Action Step Nine: In order to host successful virtual meetings the task force will take all initial and course corrective action to ensure our virtual meetings “build engagement, trust, and sincerity among teams” (Ferrazzi, 2015).

This is very important because without open, honest, diverse, and trusted communications, the team will not function efficiently or to its full capacity. Communication is the fuel that makes the team perform. Without communication, you will lose performance.

Be more defined in how we address all aspects of team diversity and how it effects dialogue.