Paper 3 MGT -Team Situation

.docx

School

University of Cincinnati, Main Campus *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

605

Subject

Management

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by PrivateMink497

1.) Team Situation A. The team put together and implemented at work was a six-sigma team created to oversee the installation of a new robot arm in our plant. B. The purpose of the team was to collectively have input to how the new robot arm would produce a return on investment (ROI) through manpower cost savings. The goal was to reduce manpower headcount by 2 people and increase production output by 30% through speed achievement. C. This project took place from February 2, 2023 to August 1, 2023 – 6 months total. D. 5 people were on the team – plant manager (Joe), production manager (myself), production supervisor (Gilbert), production supervisor (Chris), production supervisor (Ray). Install staff and supporting functions only supplied auxiliary support and did not directly participate on the team. All first names are made up to protect the identities of the real team members. E. Myself - Team Leader F. Joe – Team Engineer G. Joe was hired in 2020, Ryann was hired in 2022, Gilbert was hired in 1980, Chris was hired by Ryann in 2022 and Ray was hired by Ryann in 2022. H. Details will be included in the explanations 2.) "The Five Dysfunctions" In a nutshell, all five of the dysfunctions were present in our team: Absence of Trust (Lencioni & Stransky, 2002) – One of our supervisors, Gilbert has been on the team since before anyone has been hired. His knowledge of how the processes work manually have given him an edge to the business that an outsider would not know. Further, due to not wanting to reveal his knowledge and become vulnerable, he became an outsider to the group, while working within the group. Also, the other supervisors did not trust each other because everyone was afraid to be wrong and vulnerable while submitting project suggestions. Instead of working together, everyone gave the politically correct answers without creativity and substance to them. Fear of Conflict (Lencioni & Stransky, 2002) – During team meetings, a lot of ideas were brought up but were not rebutted. Very few times would feedback that an idea would not work, be brought up and argued. Because of this the meetings would be long, boring, not inspiring and would lack creativity. Also, the supervisors had suspicions that if they did bring anything contrary to me or Joe, they would somehow be retaliated against and their jobs would be in jeopardy. This was not revealed until after the project completion. Lack of Commitment (Lencioni & Stransky, 2002) – The fear of failure was probably the biggest factor for our team having a lack of commitment. Since none of us including the team leader wanted to fail, we all had a lack of commitment to branching out and trying new ideas and processes along with the implementation of the new robot arm.
What’s worse is we all encouraged each other not to fail and submit creative ideas which in turn bred lack of confidence and an ambiance of failure. Avoidance of Accountability (Callibrain, 2013) – Our leader Joe is not an alpha leader. He does not gravitate toward accountability if it involves confrontation. Due to this, the undue burden of discipline on him alone made the teams accountability non-existent. He allowed the project deadlines to be missed and relaxed on the time we allowed contractors to work in the plant, ultimately costing more money in overtime and contractor fees. Intention to Results (Callibrain, 2013) – Because all four of the other dysfunctions were present, it’s my belief that this created an inattention to results. We did not have a results- oriented plan, the meetings did not have concrete milestones to achieve and overall, we were more worried about failure that we could not see the results we were trying to achieve. We failed to grow as a team in the meetings that were designed as a tool for us to have healthy conversations about how to get results! 3.) More Team Problems There were two other issues that were present in our team. Groupthink (HeroicImaginationTV, 2012) – Part of the robot arm project was for us leaders to get together with the install contractors and go over the blueprint plans of installation and timelines. What’s interesting, was when the contractors would bring up an idea (happened about 5 times that I can remember) that was contrary to the written plans, we all would agree with them. One example was the where to put the motorized conveyors to align the products correctly. All five of the contractors suggested a different spot, laid out their arguments, but this did not align with the original blueprints. Although, all of us leaders were looking right at the blueprints and knew what they were saying was wrong, we all just agreed. Groupthink (Innovation, n.d.) – Another example was when us leaders were all gathered and did not have a plan that would be enough, we used shortcuts that saved time, but did not have the balance of profitability in mind. We all knew that the shortcuts would be wrong, but we all agreed to go along with them anyway. Cognitive Biases (Psychology, 2016) – Along with the group think issue, we all would participate in the bandwagon effect. It seemed like each time a statistic or excel chart gave us information, we all agreed if at least 3 or more people agreed. I confess that I did this a couple of times too. Each of us were responsible for supplying some numerical statistic about the failure of the project, future budget or potential ROI. I submitted mine and me, Chris and Joe were in agreeance and it seemed like since we were in agreeance
the rest of the team just agreed. Also, I agreed when Gilbert submitted a projected financial and Joe and Chris agreed with him although I did not fully trust his numbers. 4.) Leadership to turn this around To help alleviate absence of trust , I would recommend 360-degree feedback anonymous surveys and meetings to openly admit weaknesses and mistakes (Lencioni & Stransky, 2002). The anonymous surveys would give us all a chance to critique the project and each other and implement team recommendations that would help us perform better. From the surveys, if we openly admit weaknesses and mistakes, it would allow all our defenses to come down and we could worry about success rather than focus all of our efforts on failure. To persuade us that conflict is a good thing, I would encourage members of our team to argue without destroying the abilities of each other and remaining to work together positively (Eisenhardt et al., 1997). I believe that conflict is only unhealthy if there is no agreeance that the purpose is to come to common ground. This way we can work out differences, but still know the goal is to settle for the better good of the project. To increase commitment, I recommend creating clarity around direction and priorities (Lencioni & Stransky, 2002). With good milestone and achievement parameters, we would feel good about the objectives that need to be met and would be able to change direction without any guilt or hesitations (Lencioni & Stransky, 2002). To make our team more accountable, I recommend taking steps to reduce conflict before it begins (training, 2022). These steps include speaking to each person of our group separately, bringing two members together privately, posing questions that build understanding, help each other compromise, help all of us implement solutions that work (training, 2022). I believe by working with each person individually and in teams, it lowers the anxiety about conflict and helps to eliminate it before it begins. To improve results, I recommend having empathy , using facts and not emotions , and saying what I need and not what is politically correct or right (Studies, 2017). These conflict resolution measures help to cut to the root of the project deliverables and turn negative emotions that are tied to anger and frustrations: turning them into affirmations of a team goal. To avoid groupthink , I would like to look out for my team to build trust through vulnerability rather than being critical. Since team members are not towels and we cannot wring them out to get the most out of them, I need to make sure I treat them like people and encourage mistakes through support rather than criticism (Sinek, 2023). I would also encourage engagement and build rapport through a cross vertical innovation approach
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help