ISM UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATION ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR BACHELOR
STUDIES
2nd year students Simona Gudmonait Monika Kundelyt Sandra
Pakalnikyt Asta Zaveckait Gintar elionyt
Henry Tam and the MGI TeamCASE ANALYSIS
Supervisors: Vida kudien Olga tangej
VILNIUS, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION
...................................................................................
3 SITUATION ANALYSIS
.......................................................................
4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
...........................................................
8PROBLEM ANALYSIS
.............................................................................................................
9
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION
...........................................................................................
13DISTINCTION BETWEEN GROUP AND
TEAM.................................................................
13 TEAM DEVELOPMENT MODEL
.........................................................................................
17 BENNE AND SHEATS' GROUP ROLES MODEL
...............................................................
21
EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
..................................... 24ALTERNATIVE 1
...............................................................................................................
24 ALTERNATIVE 2
...............................................................................................................
26 ALTERNATIVE 3
...............................................................................................................
28
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
..................................................................
30 CONCLUSION
......................................................................................
34 REFERENCES
......................................................................................
35
2
INTRODUCTIONBeing a strong team of specialists, having a common
vision and working hard to achieve companys goals without thinking
about effort and energy required, that is what lots of businesses
desire to attain. However, there are a lot of difficulties and
obstacles to overcome in order to be a successful and well
performing team; one has to have theoretical knowledge as well as
practical skills to be able to manage the team and guide it towards
the right direction (the same is required to work effectively in a
team as its member). In our case analysis we will try to understand
the differences between a group and a team and how it relates to
the successful companys existence. Analysis problem: a group of
talented and motivated people failed to work effectively as a team
and use their potential. Analysis aim: to identify reasons why the
MGI Team did not work successfully and to provide the appropriate
solution that they would be able to finish the business plan on
time. Analysis tasks: analyze the situation in the case and
identify the main problem, provide theoretical framework that could
be applied to the analysed case and suggest the best solution to
the problem examined. The analysis was carried out in the following
way: situation analysis is presented by discussing the case
context; problems are identified and one main is chosen;
theoretical framework related to the case problem is presented;
three possible alternatives are suggested; the recommended decision
is chosen and the case analysis is concluded.
3
SITUATION ANALYSISOrganizationMGI (Music Games International) is
a small start-up company which was founded by Alexander (Sasha)
Gimpelson, Igor Tkachenko and Roman Yakub in 2000. It was formed
with an idea to produce original music and sound effects for Web
sites. The co-founders: Sasha was from St. Petersburg. He graduated
from Columbia University and has a degree in MBA (Master Business
Administration) from HBS (Harvard Business School). He had lived in
the U.S. for 20 years. While Sasha was working with IBM, Eli Lilly,
Alcoa and ProNetMusic, he got marketing, sales management and
business development experience. Roman was from the Ukraine but had
moved to the U.S. and graduated from Boston University, reached a
doctoral degree in Musical Arts in Composition. He was learning
computer and electronic music and had experience in both areas.
Also, Roman was known in USA and Europe for his symphonic and
chamber music. Igor was a composer and pianist from the Ukraine who
had lived in the U.S. for 20 years and already had international
recognition. He performed in a lot of concerts and festivals in
Europe and USA, won the best music and audience choice awards in
France. Igor was already a founder of other companies 21st Century
Duo and ProNetMusic.com. He had produced 7 CDs of original music so
far. In 2001, the company released its first commercial product
Tchaikovskys Nutcracker: The Music Game for youth. The first
attempt did not bring the desired result. The MGI product was
evaluated well for quality and originality but the company did not
have enough experience and resources to market and distribute it
effectively. The company needed a clear business strategy to make
things work. They decided to participate in a business plan contest
but for that they needed people with education and knowledge
necessary to write a business plan. Sasha wrote a letter for HBS
students who would be willing to join the company and write a
business plan together with them.
4
ContestThe HBS business plan contest started in 1996. It was
created for students to help them better prepare for their future
careers. This contest was a chance for students to present their
business ideas to experts and receive the feedback. In each team,
there had to be at least one secondaryyear HBS MBA student.
Therefore, the MGI needed some students from the HBS. They invited
Henry and Dana to join the group.
HenryConcentrated Take up leader role
DanaFocused
Calm and softspoken
MBA students
Persistent
Creative and analytical
Motivated and hard-working
Goal-oriented
Even though Henry and Dana were only HBS MBA second-year
students, under particular circumstances they both acted as leaders
of the group (there was no progress with the business plan
development). Henry was calm and self-controlled and able to find a
compromise. He was also a responsible and reliable person; he
proved to be trustful for doing his work in time. Henry was able to
listen to any part of an argument and find the optimal solution. He
was very creative but also analytical and business-oriented. The
HBS student did not take critics personally. He was very committed
to his work (always brought written material to the meetings,
devoted much of his time to the business plan project). Henrys
confidence and dedication kept the group from breaking apart. Dana,
herself, was stricter than Henry. She was very business-focused and
approached the issues from a financial perspective. That was why
conflicts with Sasha arose he was more driven by creativity, his
own experience and intuition. Henry and Dana were able to balance
their differences which let them view things from various
perspectives and cooperate in order to succeed in writing the
business plan for the MGI. 5
Three meetings1st meeting 2nd meeting 3rd meeting
Problems began: Unclear roles and responsibilities Different
attitudes towards the students Disagreements between Sasha and
Dana
Unstructured brainstorming continues Alex Sartakov joined the
team Unclear direction of the company Conflicts between Sasha and
Dana Dana and Henrys cooperation
The unexpected member Dav Clark joined the team Tension in the
group increased Observations of the newcomers
First meeting There were no particular roles and
responsibilities assigned or defined. It was not clear what each
individual was expected to do. Different attitudes towards the
students showed up. Sasha, as it seemed, perceived Henry and Dana
as business plan writers who joined the company temporarily. Other
co-founders believed that they could be useful in shaping the
vision and strategy of the company. Sasha and Danas attitudes began
to contradict. Sasha did not agree with the students ideas as he
thought they are too young and not experienced enough. Sasha
believed own experience and intuition were more reliable and
worthy. Second meeting Alex Sartakov, a student from Bostons
Berklee College of Music, joined the team. Alex offered his help to
the MGI in marketing the Nutcracker game. He had also served as an
informal advisor for a several months before Sasha invited him to
the meeting. Group could not decide on various relevant issues, for
example, no one wanted to make a compromise about what market the
company should enter (Henry and Dana offered to enter education
market while the owners saw the future in entertainment field).
They had heated debates most of the time. 6
Negative attitudes between Sasha and Dana towards each other
became stronger. Sasha claimed that "business students think they
know everything". Sasha always disagreed with Danas opinion. He
perceived her as too strict and too general, talking without
knowing, while Dana underestimated Sasha to be just a salesperson.
Dana and Henry decided to work as a unit and play good cop/bad cop
to deal with Sasha. Their strategy was that Dana would take an
extreme position which Sasha would definitely oppose and then Henry
would come up with other position, which they really wanted as a
compromise. It seemed at this point that Sasha was one of the main
obstacles to further progress with the business plan. Third meeting
Dav Clark, an MIT graduate student who had software development
experience, joined the team. Sasha introduced him as a person who
would be working with the MGI for MITs business plan contest.
However, a new member joining the group came as a surprise to Henry
and Dana Sasha did not bother to discuss this openly. Tension in
the group increased. After Sasha brought Dav in, it raised a lot of
questions and doubts to Henry and Dana. They were not sure about
Sashas motives and intentions and what role Dav would perform in
the team. After observing the atmosphere in the group, Alex and Dav
pointed out the cultural distinctions and a clash of different
"civilizations" (business people vs. creativity) which, to their
opinion, dominated the most. They saw as a result that the group
had debates almost on every issue.
NowThe deadline for the business plan contest was coming closer
and closer. It was less than three weeks left but no significant
progress was made, there were a lot of jobs to do. Henry felt a
great determination to complete the work and participate in the
contest. He felt committed to the group. Henry was wandering what
could be done in order to save the situation.
7
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATIONWe have identified four problems (no
mission, vision, values; lack of effective communication; lack of
HRM and different backgrounds) that might be seen as the causes of
the main problem in this case study. The main problem that we have
identified is the following: a group of talented and motivated
people failed to work effectively as a team and use their
potential. The explanations and reasoning are given in the table
below.
NO MISSION, VISION, VALUES
LACK OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION LACK OF HRM
DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS
8
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
No mission, vision, values
From the very beginning the co-founders of the Music Games
International were driven by a creative idea and enthusiasm but
they lacked structure and a clear path to make this idea real. They
concentrated on creation and promotion of their product but did not
define the common vision, mission and values of the whole business.
Consequently, they failed to succesfully organize their work,
efficiently divide tasks and responsibilities and form a good team
to lead the company to success and recognition; when new members
joined the group, no common vision was made clear and incoherent
structure continued to accompany the activities of the MGI group.
The company lacked the "glue" that would pull together the
potential and knowledge of each individual to produce a unified
result. That glue would be a clearly defined common goals and
working practices. From the perspective of experience and working
style, we can distinguish two sides in the company: creative side
and business side. During all of the three MGI meetings, the two
sides did not mantain a constructive dialogue the co-founders of
the company (the creators) were happy brainstorming with no
structure and agenda whereas the business side (Dana and Henry)
wanted to focus on the implementation of the ideas and defining
clear goals and objectives. Both sides may be compared with two
trains that go in two different directions. For example, the MGI
founders saw the companys future in the entertainment industry
while the students were suggesting entering education sector. A
lack of communication and agreement resulted in a dead-end with no
progress even after the three meetings of the group.
Lack of effective communication
9
Lack of Human Resource Management
The co-founders of the company, as Roman himself admitted, were
"not easy to work with". All the previous attempts to attract
external talents ended in failure no one stayed in the company in
the long-run. One of the reasons was that Sasha did not get along
with the new members (lack of his interpersonal skills and
willingness to cooperate). Another reason is, in our view, a lack
of structure and clarity in defining roles and responsibilities.
People who come in a new company and see only 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. One of the best examples of the chaos
in the company was launching the first edition of the Nutcracker
music game. According to Roman,Sasha was our production manager,
business manager, and fundraiser, and he had no time left for
selling. These words prove that the company did not manage its
human resources effectively.
After Dana and Henry joined the MGI and started to actively
participate in the work and decision-making processes, the group
started to develop confrontational stance of "Dana and Henry versus
the Russians (founders of the MGI)". These different "fronts" were
also noticed by the other group members Dav and Alex. "The
Russians" were described as quite stubborn and would go into debate
on almost every issue. Also, the co-founders of the company were
more into creative brainstorming (although Sasha was the business
person, he lacked an ability to concentrate and be more
consistent). Meanwhile, the HBS students had a more pragmatic
approach and were focused on the long-term strategy of the
business. In short, Dana and Henry might be characterized as
ambitious American entrepreneurs. However, the contoversy in the
group cannot be fully explained by different cultural backgrounds.
After all, Sasha also originated from the former Soviet Union and
so did Dana but they ended up on the "opposing sides". 10
Different backgrounds (culture, experience and
personalities)
This may be explained by specific personality traits and
distinct experiences. This is best reflected by the conflicts
between Sasha and Dana. Sasha (one of the most highlighted
characters) was very americanized and he emphasized it by refusing
to talk in Russian even with Igor and Roman. Also, he had poor
interpersonal skills and thought that he "knows better" than
others. Sasha had a very diversified business experience,
therefore, he felt that he knew at least something about
everything. He viewed Dana and Henry only as the business plan
writers, so he did not accept them as equal business partners
(especially Dana because she often challanged his ideas and
behavior). Dana saw a big potential in the company but she realised
that the group should be more focused and consistent in order to
progress. She opposed Sasha not because she felt that she knew
better (in contrast to what he thought) but because she believed
that performing the role of the "bad cop" was the way to have
decisions made and progress achieved in the meetings. Summing up,
this situation shows that failure to identify and tolerate
personality differences causes conflicts and disturbs the works of
the whole work team.
After observing the three meetings concerning the MGI companys
business plan, we can identify a group of people that failed to
work as a unified team. What, in this case, distinguishes a group
of individuals working in the same company from a well-functioning
team is as follows: first of all, we cannot determine the clear
roles and responsibilities of each member of the group. The roots
of the problem lied in the fact that the companys founders did not
define the overall mission, vision and values of the business and
therefore there was no consistency of actions from the very
beginning. This was very obvious after Henry and Dana joined the
MGI: "Henry also felt 11
somewhat uncomfortable, in part because he and Dana were unsure
of their roles and about where their participation would lead". We
can see individual contributions of talented and motivated people
who cannot coordinate their actions as a team. MAIN PROBLEM: A
group of talented and motivated people failed to work effectively
as a team and use their potential. Secondly, each person in the
group seemed to be concentrated on his/her individual outcomes.
Igor and Roman cared about the creative ideas and brainstorming;
Sasha felt that he was able to lead the company into the big and
very competitive entertainment business; the HBS students wanted to
gain experience, test their knowledge in the real life but at the
same time they became really attached to the company and were
thinking about staying in the long-run; Alex was a silent observer
who appreciated the creative idea to teach music and he was able to
share his knowledge about the music industry; Dav wanted to have a
business plan prepared for the participation in the MIT contest. No
common goals and commitment to the common purpose. The individuals
act on self-imposed demands rather than on the demands of the
company. Finally, lack of effective communication, cooperation and
unity was evident. The people in MGI seemed to be very
individualistic "experts" (they were recognised and successful in
their fields) who did not want to see "a bigger picture" (what is
best for the company). Their points of view often collided and they
did not try to go into constructive dialogues. They rather engaged
in heated discussions. Working as a team means listening to other
peoples opinions and selecting the most effective solutions that
would help attain the overall goals of the company. In the MGI
company, this was not the case. Personal ambitions seemed to come
first. Lack of common direction among co-workers causes tension,
dissatisfaction and makes individual contributions useless because
they do not serve the same goal.
12
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE SITUATIONDISTINCTION
BETWEEN GROUP AND TEAMIn order to proceed further, a distinction
should be made between what is perceived to be a group and what is
considered a team. We also add comments on how the proposed
distinctions are apparent in the case analyzed. There are a lot of
ways how one can define a group. Kurt Lewin (1948) stressed
interdependence among each other that group members possess, or
more precisely, interdependence must exist in the purposes of a
group. Groups gather in order to achieve something, and that
something must be discussed (from this point of view, people
working on MGI project failed to some point even in this stage even
though their common goal seemed to have been defined (to cooperate
in writing a business plan), there were some differences in each
members expectations and objectives how this should be carried
out). Other researchers emphasize communication: "a number of
persons who communicate with one another often over a span of time,
and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate
with all the others, face-to-face" (George Homans; 1950). As there
may be a lot of different perspectives one can look from at a
meaning of a group, it is possible to identify a list of common
characteristics: there should be s set of people (in the case,
there were 7 people working on the MGI project), interactions and
communication must exist among those people (there were
face-to-face meetings and communication through the Internet, BUT:
some relevant aspects were not discussed together, such as Dav
Clark joining the group), there should be a reason (a common
purpose) group comes together to work for (the business plan
development was the aim of the MGI project group), norms, values
and beliefs should be shared (a mutual vision failed to develop in
the MGI group).
13
Following such descriptions, we can conclude that those working
together on the MGI project qualify as a group. But they fail to
proceed further and develop into a team. It is this definition and
explanations that we turn to next. A team is something more than
just a group of people. A definition of a team, such as this one:
"a group of individuals, all working together for a common
purpose", seems in no way different from how a group was defined.
Some important aspects need to be added to that first simple
sentence. The individuals should not only have a common objective
to work on but also, ideally, share common goals and about the same
thought processes. People should be compatible in regard to their
interests, attitudes, perceptions, or personalities to be able to
form an efficient and productive team. It is best they possess
similar traits. But what is more important, especially when
personality distinctions are significant, members should be able to
adapt, tolerate and appreciate individual differences exhibited by
each person. This was not apparent in the case. Personality
clashes, as well as cultural ones, occurred. Sasha and Danas
characters were incompatible, they did not get along. What is far
worse, they did not try to solve it by communicating, compromising,
or tolerating individual differences. The way members were
thinking, coming with new ideas and making decisions was also very
different. They were not able to harmonize their opinions Dana was
taking quite strict, financial way of seeing things; Sasha was
quite absent-minded, he usually would jump from one subject to
another; Igor and Roman were musicians and composers, and their
creative personality affected the way they perceived the world.
Also, nationalities of the persons may have had influence on how
things conspired. According to Dav, maybe its a Russian style of
consensus to stand ones ground and stubbornly hold ones position
without wanting to compromise. Americans, on the other hand, are
considered to be more relaxed and easygoing. Next, team members
must not underestimate other members. As in the case, Dana
perceived Sasha as a salesperson and sometimes did not pay
attention to his opinion much; Sasha had a bit negative view on
students: they were perceived to have less knowledge and experience
as he did. He thought that Henry and Dana were too confident about
themselves; maybe, Sasha pondered, it 14
was their age that made them think they knew everything. Also,
Sasha perceived Dana as too general [and that she] talked without
knowing anything. Henry also had some negative preconceptions about
Sasha. Latters unconventional background worried Henry he thought
that Sasha may be too absent-minded or impatient to finish what he
started. Furthermore, in a team, personal interests must be set
aside. The good of a team has to be the priority. Even though it is
quite reasonable that everyone gathered to work for the MGI had
their intentions (such as Henry and Dana were looking for
experience and future opportunities), this usually did not
interrupt with the whole process. But some things were unclear.
Sasha and the students did not explicitly agree about future
prospects of being involved in a business. Doubts arose about
whether Sasha was using them to get to the Business Plan Contest.
The whole system was not demonstrably discussed even between the
co-founders: Sasha, probably, was looking for someone to complete a
business plan; Igor and Roman understood a need of business
management skills and welcomed the students while considering about
their future prospects. This might be because the roles and
responsibilities were not defined. Expectations should be made
clear in a team. In the case, Henry and Dana were left quite
unaware of what exactly is expected from them: Henry also felt
somewhat uncomfortable, in part because he and Dana were unsure of
their roles and about where their participation would lead. The
relevant role of a leader was also missed. Teams must possess some
kind of a leader not necessarily the relationship between members
and a leader must be I command, you do but the team should be
directed, encouraged, focused and unified by someone. Roles,
including leadership or guiding, also may be shared or rotated in a
team. In the case analyzed, the leader role, to some extent, was
shared, or at least it was tried to lead the group towards a common
objective. Both Henry and Dana tried to take up the leader position
but this was more of a struggle to put things into order, to
control the situation because the deadline was coming and the
business plan was far from completion. To sum everything up, the
following scheme may be useful. The following table depicts the
main characteristics of a group and reveals what the corresponding
situation in the case looked like. 15
GROUP Several people working together Interactions between
members Common purpose
IN THE CASE 7 people were working on the project Face-to-face
meetings; Internet Business plan developed
The scheme below depicts what is required to be a team. It shows
why we think that people working on the MGI project qualify as a
group but not as a team.
TEAM Compatibility of interests, thought processes, objectives
(Or) Tolerance and adaptation
IN THE CASE Personality clash; contrast between
creative and business nature Disagreements between (mainly)
Sasha and Dana
Defined and clear expectations
Henry and Dana were unaware of what is expected from them
Shared/rotated roles
Roles not defined explicitly (leader role missed)
Appreciation of other members
Dana and Sasha underestimated each other; Sasha underestimated
students
Teams good as priority
Bad intentions of Sasha
16
TEAM DEVELOPMENT MODELIt would be useful now to look at how
teams form (or are formed). One such theory Bruce Tuckmans (1965)
team development model will be discussed further. The four-stage
process of forming, storming, norming and performing will be
described. What we are going to do is try to apply the particular
theory to the analyzed case and see what was good and what was bad
in the process of gathering the MGI project group.
The first stage is called forming. This is where basics are put
in place for a team to develop. At this point in time, a leader
must be existent to help define common goals, to direct the
discussions on the objectives that will be tried to be reached
while working on a team. Individual roles and responsibilities are
unclear. Expectations should be established at this point. This is
the stage where members must lay down the objectives, goals,
guidelines, norms, mission statement or vision. This is the stage
of getting to know each other, learning how to adapt and work
together, analyzing each personality. In the case analyzed, the
first stage of teams development was not fulfilled completely.
There was no clear leader. Igor acted as one in gathering the
members. He made appointments with Dana and Henry. Sasha joined
them in the first meeting. Roman perceived him as a leader in the
perspective that they would not survive without his organizational
skills. Each of the three co-founders possessed certain skills that
made them special and relevant but no one was officially assigned
to the leaders position. Individual roles and responsibilities were
not clearly defined. Everyone joining the group was aware of that
their final goal to reach is a development of a business plan for
the MGI product. But some details were left out. Every member
possessed certain characteristics and skills that made him or her
important to the activities of the group. But what exactly was
expected from Dana and Henry were not made explicit. The vision was
not established, the future prospects were ambiguous. Dana and
Henry wanted experience as well as considered about possible
employment opportunities.
17
Meanwhile, Sasha looked like having invited the students just to
have a plan written. Other co-founders recognized the need of
managerial skills in the group and agreed on possible collaboration
in the futures company.
The second stage is storming. People in a team may possess
different attitudes, varied interests, thought processes, opinions,
thus bringing a lot of different, sometimes even incompatible
ideas. Proposed ways how to achieve certain goals and objectives
may differ and contradict. As a consequence, conflicts may arise,
tension increases. Differences might be more visible than any
similarities in this stage. That is why communication is relevant.
Meetings must be held face-to-face communication would be the best
choice. Each opinion must be heard, listened to and valued.
Differences must be appreciated. In the case analyzed, the
differences in personalities were sharp. Dana and Sashas way of
thinking and approaching things differed. Dana was considered to be
too strict, too abstract and pragmatic. Sasha was perceived as
absent-minded, hardly concentrating on one subject. They
underestimated each other to be "just a student" or "just a
salesperson". Also, there was some incompatibility between the
style of creative musicians and business side. Even though
everyones skills were highly needed and relevant to the groups
work, they approached problems and decision-making differently:
Henry and Dana were not used to extensive brainstorming and
disorganized discussions on various topics that musicians liked.
Those differences were not appropriately attacked. The members did
not engage in direct communications about the disagreements. No
efforts were made in trying to solve the issues arising, except for
one conversation depicted when Alex tried to explain the
differences in how creative people engage in discussions and calm
Dana down. Meetings were held, there were face-to-face
communications in the group. However, the topics discussed were
related to the final objective of developing the plan and not to
the process of making decisions or avoiding disagreements and
dealing with differences.
18
Next, a stage of norming follows. At this point, conflicts
should be resolved. More cosy and friendly environment forms up.
Roles and responsibilities should be clear by now. Agreement should
be reached when making decisions. The team should develop its
working style and processes by which the common goal is planned to
be achieved. Team members should feel more interdependent, involved
and feel committed to the team. In the case analyzed, the MGI group
could be said to have failed in achieving this particular stage.
Conflicts were not resolved. The environment was not very friendly,
disagreements and dissatisfaction still existed. The members did
not learn how to deal or how to tolerate and appreciate individual
differences (what would have been even better how to use those
differences for the good of the project). Roles and
responsibilities were not clear until the end of the case. Even
though Alex thought he understood what role each member played in a
group ("Dav was brought in to handle the technology side", "Roman
had ideas about teaching music and had music connections in
Russia", "Sasha did the business and marketing and Igor was the
creative partner"), as Dana said when only about three weeks were
left until the deadline, "there was no clear leader" still. Henry
also noted about the same time that cohesiveness among the three
co-founders was not as strong as he initially believed. According
to Henry, Sasha and Igor did not always take the same position and
there were some conflicts between Sasha and Roman. Henry did feel
committed to the group and did feel a great desire and
determination to deliver the plan in time. However, this could be
linked more to the personality of Henry and not to the cohesiveness
in and commitment to the group.
The last stage is performing. The team should be mature at this
point. The team must know why it is doing the things it is doing.
There should be a common mission and vision established,
agreed-upon and committed to. The team makes all the decisions in
co19
operation and collaboration. Conflicts and disagreements arise
all through the existence of the team but they are resolved
positively by discussing, compromising, making sacrifices,
prioritizing the teams wellbeing. In the case analyzed, the
characteristics of the fourth stage were not apparent. Even though
their goal was in place and understood by all the members (what we
have in mind is the basic one the development of the business
plan), they still were not able to make decisions jointly, in
collaboration. The progress with the business plan was almost not
visible as well as not visible was any change in the way the
members communicated with other. The team of a seven-people-group
working on the project did not form.
20
BENNE AND SHEATS' GROUP ROLES MODELOne of the main traits of a
well performing group is its stable structure. Referring to the J.
Greenberg and R. A. Baron, a group structure is the pattern of
interrelationships between the individuals constituting a group. At
the moment, we will focus on one aspect of group construction role,
the characteristic and expected social behaviour of an individual.
In our case study, the MGI group consists of seven members, each of
them being a representative or a specialist of a different field,
having diverse level of experience and distinctive personalities.
Even though the roles were not specified and emphasised in this
case (the group members did not define or assign specific roles to
the individuals), we will use Benne and Sheats' Group Roles model
for identifying implicit roles in the MGI team and we will also try
to determine how these would affect the overall performance of the
group. The following, as well, may be considered a suggestion of
how expectations and responsibilities should have been distributed
in the group to make the whole things work more smoothly. Alexander
(Sasha) Gimpelson (co-founder)
Sasha was performing a dominator role as he was trying to
control the decisions made and exaggerated his knowledge and
experience by saying that Henry and Dana were only students and
that they did not have required expertise to do things in the right
way. Also, he had some features of an opinion giver: Sasha liked
expressing his own opinion about the discussed issue and created a
belief that this was what the team "should" do in order to succeed.
Igor Tkachenko and Roman Yakub (co-founders)
Igor and Roman together with Sasha (Gimpelson was representing
business side while Tkachenko and Yakub were on behalf of art and
creativity) were bringing direction to the group, therefore, they
all represented initiators as they liked discussing things and
having long brainstorming sessions. Dav Clark
This young man served as an information giver because he had a
software development experience and was providing the group with
information on technical aspects of product design and on the
patent application. In addition, Dav contributed to the business
plan writing part 21
because he was a graduate of MIT and had some valuable business
knowledge. He indicated himself as a quiet and calm person who did
not interfere in the discussion when he had nothing to say. This
also stresses his position as information giver. Alexander Jan
Sartakov
This team member was providing help to the MGI with ideas on how
to market the Nutcracker game, therefore, he was an information
giver. His "role" was seen as a music industry consultant. Alex was
very pleased with his position and was not considering trying to
put his opinion in other subjects. Alex saw himself as a "mediator"
and as "being a bridge" between the HBS students and the musicians,
therefore, he was a harmonizer in the group he smoothened
differences between individuals. He originated from the former
Soviet Union and also had an education in music field but was
almost the same age as Henry and Dana and also had studied business
these features made him close to both contradicting groups (the
Russians and the HBS). Dana Soiman
Dana was the only woman in the team and she was a very organized
person. She had experience in financial sector which influenced her
working and thinking style (usually Dana was engaging in a more
strict, financial approach). This characteristic gave her a mixed
role of an orienter and observer: together with Henry she prepared
notes and Power Point presentation for the meeting in order to see
how much was already accomplished and to keep a track on groups
functioning. Also, she wanted to direct or orient the group towards
the final objective of completion of the business plan. She liked
clear structure and wanted things to be done in an organized way.
Moreover, she encouraged the MGI members to take further actions,
to move forward with the plan and contributed to the wellbeing of
the group as an energizer (she had a lot of enthusiasm about the
work). Henry Tam Jr.
Henry was an information seeker and information giver at the
same time: he was seeking information about educational market
where he believed was the best place to start for the MGI
production and he did all the calculations to support his opinion.
He brought in written material 22
to each meeting and shared it with other members to give them
some understanding about particular issue. Also, Henry put together
Sashas and Danas information and systemized them into one coherent
piece; this made him into an elaborator. Finally, Henry took over
an energizer role from Dana when she became less enthusiastic about
the whole MGI idea. Benne and Sheats' Group Roles model helps
identify existing roles in a team. After this step is taken, one
can look closely at the functioning of a team and notice some
factors that should be improved or changed in order to increase
group effectiveness, for example, whether all the roles are
fulfilled in the right way, maybe some roles are not necessary
anymore and should be eliminated or maybe a new role should be
introduced. Also, it is important to remember that the roles
performed by the members of a team might differ depending on the
development stage in which the team is. If the roles in the MGI
Team would have been clearly defined, all the communication and
decision making process might have been easier and smoother.
Furthermore, this role allocation would have led the seven people
to a faster development of a strong and united team. The absence of
an apparent leader or guide also contributed to the difficulties
that the team had to cope with, such as the nonexistence of the
common vision, mission and values of the whole business or a
failure to identify and tolerate personality differences. All this
led to the situation with no visible results of the business plan
when less than three weeks were left for submitting it. This would
have been at least partially avoided if some similar model had been
applied.
23
EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE 1Remove Alexander
Gimpelson (Sasha) from the group The first solution we suggest is
to remove Sasha from the group. This alternative will probably
solve the basic problems of communication and working in team,
resulting from Alexander's poor communication skills, conflict
handling, and lack of thinking about possible painful consequences
of his words. As Sasha stated, he had never been shy about
expressing his opinion even then it can hurt other people.
Conflicts and dissatisfaction that arose in the MGI project group
were mainly caused by Sasha. Even though we do not consider him to
be the main problem in the case analyzed, and we acknowledge his
contribution and relevance to the team, his complicated personality
sometimes worked as an obstacle to the progress with the project.
However, we must admit that this is an extreme alternative. It can
have serious consequences to the work of the whole group. Sasha was
one of the key persons in the group and he played an important
role: apart from being one of the co-founders, he was quite
experienced as a businessperson and had useful skills (in
organizing things, marketing, fundraising, etc.), without whom this
project may fail to be implemented.
Improved members
communication
among
team
Loss of one of the co-founders Loss of a person with good
experience Loss of the only business person (with experience) and
fundraiser Possible negative reaction of other co-founders
Better working atmosphere Less conflicts Better feelings of
group members More consistency in the team work
According to the case, Sasha caused many internal conflicts but
he was also the one who motivated others and kept everything in
check. Despite some conflicts among the co-founders, 24
they were quite close and cohesive as a group. Many of the
biggest conflicts arose between Sasha and Dana. As is written in
the case, they had negative chemistry and they did not work well
together. Sasha was very aggressive talking with Dana and this hurt
her. Despite negative and aggressive Sashas character and poor
communication skills, the company would not survive without his
abilities. He dealt not only with things related to business
management but also he was involved in marketing and production. He
was not open to others but he had very strong ideas about things.
What is even more important, he was one of the co-founders and it
could be quite difficult to implement such a change (the idea
belonged to the three co-founders equally). Without Sasha, the
whole thing never would have happened and possibly would not
happen. Criteria for evaluating the alternative 1: time: not enough
time may be left to complete the business plan without one person;
it may last longer to progress with the business; effort: convince
to agree on eliminating Sasha; to persuade Sasha that it would be
best for the company; finances: money may be needed to compensate
Sasha.
25
ALTERNATIVE 2Hire a team manager The group was dynamic but very
conflicted and lacking cohesiveness: even after all long
discussions, each person had a different vision and opinion. The
contest deadline for submitting business plan was in less than
three weeks, and the team still had a large amount of work to do.
If the team continued to operate in a way they usually did (using
only brainstorming in the meetings and not finishing their work),
they had little chance to finish what they had gathered for. What
we suggest therefore is that one more person is needed for the
company: someone with deep knowledge about how to direct all the
members to seek only one final objective, how to establish one
common vision, mission or values among the persons. It has to be a
person capable of solving conflicts among the group members,
dealing with different kinds of people (personalities, ages,
experience, nationalities, etc.), finding a way to pull the team
together. He would be responsible for helping members define their
responsibilities and roles, observing the process and guiding them
through to the final goal. We recommend that a team manager be
included in the group.
Formation of a friendly collective Improved communication among
team members Less conflicts Progress in the business plan writing
Objective assessment of the situation and problems Combination of
members individual goals
No money for recruitment Possible Sashas rejection and
disobedience More confusion with one new member Lack of time for
the team managers search
26
Definition of roles and responsibilities Fair and objective
evaluation of work done Clear business direction (mission, vision,
values) Team manager would be an external observer without any
prejudices and without any involvement in activities related to the
business plan itself. This person is not a leader or one of the
members of the group; s/he is only responsible for Human Recourse
Management, for conflicts solving, development of the main vision
and ideas, evaluation of work and allocation of responsibilities of
each member. However, we admit that some obstacles exist for this
alternative. Having in mind Sashas character, he may be not willing
to listen to the team managers suggestions. The entire group might
be more confused with one new member joining them: there were
enough disagreements and diverging opinions in the case. Also,
there is not much chance to find such a person for free, therefore,
financial question becomes important. Criteria for evaluating the
alternative 2: time: a lot of time is needed to find and choose
good team manager; also, time is needed for team manager to
integrate in the team; effort: identify and select appropriate team
manager will need considerable efforts; finance: money is needed to
hire the team manager, therefore, the company will have to search
for sponsors or investors.
27
ALTERNATIVE 3Sell the idea to another company The third
decision, possibly solving the problems in the case, is to sell the
idea of the product (or the whole business) to another company,
such as some existing records or entertainment organizations. It
would solve the problems that are noticed in the case, namely, the
ones related to communication, different personalities, culture,
age, experience, distribution of roles and responsibilities and
lack of time to finish business plan. The idea itself could be a
success. According to the case, when the first edition of the
Nutcracker music game was released, it experienced "a critical
success but a commercial failure". Selling the business idea would
be relatively easy to the co-founders, as "they established
relationship with world-class musicians in Russia". We think that
it would not be difficult to find a buyer for the idea.
Profit for the co-founders
Loss of possibly bigger money in case of opening up a
business
No need to improve communication and solve Loss of the ambitions
other problems Time saved Loss of opportunities for the students to
gain real life experience and finish their project
Buyer would have capital and expertise needed to Loss of the
company and control of the implement the idea development of
idea
This alternative would eliminate the need to improve
communication and solve all other problems, especially conflicts
with Sasha, as an existing group involving Henry, Dana, Alex and
Dav would be no longer needed. However, selling the business idea
to someone is an extreme suggestion, which would destroy all the
co-founders wants and ambitions. Even though the cofounders would
earn some money (either through a onetime payment or a regular
percentage of the profits), it would result in no opportunities
left for students to continue working in this area after the
completion of th business plan as well as a loss of possibly bigger
profits in case of starting a business on their own. 28
Criteria for evaluating the alternative 3: time: it is necessary
to search and deal with a company which would buy the idea; effort:
it is necessary to find, choose, and communicate with a company; it
is needed to negotiate on a share of profit or compensation for the
co-founders.
29
SUGGESTED SOLUTIONAfter considering all the possible
recommendations, their advantages and disadvantages, and evaluating
every alternative by certain criteria, we come up with a final
decision. Our suggestion is to hire a team manager, i.e., a person
who will be an external observer without being involved in the
operations of the company itself. S/he will solve the conflicts
among the team members, help define necessary roles and
responsibilities, identify personal goals, create a common one and
direct everyone into keep the same direction. What we emphasize is
that this person will not be a leader or a real member of the
existing group he will be just a manager, not attempting to gain
authority, not getting involved in ideas creation, work or
leadership. Each member of the MGI group can be called experts in
their own field (or, in less drastic words, having experience,
knowledge and skills in certain areas) meaning that they do not
need a strict leader telling them what to do. They need a guide who
could unify their skills and expertise to attain business success.
The responsibilities of the team manager would be as follows:
evaluate the personalities of all members in the group; objectively
assess the situation and problems; deal with conflicts and help
move forward with a plan; combine members individual objectives
into one common goal; identify and define necessary roles and
responsibilities; reveal each members talents and help develop
skills; help form a TEAM and build the bridge between a group and a
unified and cohesive team.
30
Requirements in order to hire the team manager are as follows:
effort and time to identify and select an appropriate team manager
as well as to find funding; time for team manager and group members
to adapt to each other; money for recruiting the team manager (from
personal budget or supporters).
How to deal with the disadvantages of the suggested solution? It
might seem that Sasha would be against the decision to employ a
team manager because he likes conducting everything by himself. We
believe that it would be possible to convince him that this could
be a perfect solution in the existing situation. Sasha should leave
his personal priciples behind and make sacrifices in order for the
whole MGI group to achieve the common goal. His disobedience may be
mitigated by emphasizing that a person invited would not interfere
with the activities of the business and the ideas for the business
plan development. Money may be drawn from personal budgets based on
mutual agreement and trust among the members of the group; even
though it might be difficult to find supporters quickly, contacts
with more senior graduates may prove valuable. This would also
eliminate a disadvantage of time limit (many calls may be made
during one or two days; this activity may be performed along with
other, business plan-related works). Confusion and more chaos may
be avoided by making the distinction between a team manager and
other members clear. Everyone should realize what the
responsibilities s/he would hold. The usual activities would not be
disturbed. It would be useful for the whole group to have such a
person around as the progress would be evident. The expected
consequences of the suggested strategy would be the following:
31
each members inputs into the work are evaluated objectively;
clear roles and responsibilities are defined and assigned (this
would help everyone concentrate on particular activities and direct
to the final goal); progress in development of the business plan
(cohesiveness in the group is vital if they are to complete the
task); formation of the strong, cohesive and efficient team (what
we want to stress here is the word team not cohesiveness or
efficiency but the team above all); less conflicts among team
members which would make it possible to make faster decisions and
agree on relevant issues (such as what market they should target);
common goal is defined and followed (not only the business plan
development itself but also objectives that would lead to that
final goal).
A way the suggested solution should be implemented is discussed
in the next paragraphs. As a complicated situation (close deadline
and almost no progress with the business plan) is perceived to be a
problem to be dealt with as quickly as possible, one of the group
members should come up with an appropriate solution. Henry, who is
dedicated to solve the issues and successfully finish the MGI
project, is likely to take responsibility for inviting a team
manager to join the group. He is likely to get Danas support when
introducing this alternative to the other team members. Although
Sashas opposition is very probable, other participants of the
project are likely to support this proposal because the previous
way in which the work was organized (anarchy; Henrys and Danas
attempts to take over the control of the work) did not work out.
The team manager may be found by making calls to senior graduates
(it was mentioned in the case by Sasha that, in his experience,
alumni are much more willing to help students). This would not
require much time because Sasha already has a list of alumni
students. In case of a successful agreement of collaboration,
easier conditions may be defined for the compensation for the
managers services (or even voluntary services). Clear expectations
must be communicated by the MGI group: the manager is welcomed to
help in dealing with personality and cultural differences, with
different decision making and problem solving methods, with
different (or not existent at all) conflict management techniques.
S/he
32
would participate in every meeting but not influence the
decisions made but rather how they are made. Despite the fact that
the team manager needs time to adapt and determine problems in the
collective, it may be said that the disagreements are so obvious,
strong and visible that the team manager would not have much
difficulty in analyzing the situation. The information may be
gathered quite quickly by the manager. Individual conversations
with each member of the group may be held in order to clarify their
needs, expectations and vision about the project. Also, the manager
may deal with the problems in the group by managing the meetings so
that it would be made sure that the agenda is kept, long
brainstorming sessions with no final deliverable are prevented and
tension in the group relieved. Next, seminars related to tolerance,
cultural awareness or effective communication may be conducted.
They also might be used in the long run to ensure continuity of the
company. The team manager would take up a role of a mediator who
would unify very different and strong personalities in the group,
teach them to work together, tolerate different opinions and put
the overall success of the project above personal ambitions.
33
CONCLUSIONTeam management is such a complicated and broad topic.
It encompasses so many areas, such as diversity management,
conflicts solving, decision making, leadership or motivation. That
is the reason why special attention must be paid to it. Nowadays,
work teams are becoming more and more popular, they are used all
over the world by small and large companies, businesses, schools,
universities and other organizations. A team usually can do more
than a single individual (a concept of synergy, pulling together
everyones talents and ideas to produce more than each individual in
a team is capable of, has been known for a while). That is why it
becomes vital to be aware of the theories concerning team
development or applying roles and responsibilities models. The one
who was assigned or who has decided to form a team must know what
steps should be taken in each stage of team development (when to
assign roles, when to define common strategy, how to solve
conflicts or critisize constructively). A person must understand
the significance of guidance, of definining common objectives and
goals, of sharing a mutual vision and establishing effective and
open communication system. The analysis of the case helpt us
realize how important it is to know both: how to manage a team and
how to work effectively as ones member. After examining the case,
we have developed a clear understanding of what is a group and what
makes that group of people into a team. What we consider to be the
most important (even though we wrote about compatible interests and
thinking styles which is usually a rare case) is the ability to
adapt, make compromises, communicate constructively. A person must
have flexibility and tolerance to function as an efficient member
of a team. Currently, as the world is converging into one global
network, the diversity is large as it has never been before. In
such a diverse environment, it is necessary to appreciate
individual differences in personalities, ages, experience, culture,
or nationalities. For a team to function efectively and to extract
the best results, these differences must be understood,
appreciated, and unified. Only a real TEAM, and not just a group of
people, is desired and only a real TEAM is so hard to form.
34
REFERENCEShttp://www.infed.org/groupwork/what_is_a_group.htm
http://www.managementstudyguide.com/understanding-team.htm
http://www.managementstudyguide.com/team-development.htm
http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_85.htm
35