Mgmt 2383 Case Study Sample

Arctic Mining Consultancy Analysis

Introduction
In the case of Arctic Mining Consultancy project with Tom Parker at the head of affairs, there are a number of issues and matters that are necessary to be examined and critiqued in order to draw reasonable and logical conclusions on how to improve the team’s performance and also enhance the results of the group or team. The main issues relate to Communication, Critical Thinking, Information Sharing, Team Work and Knowledge/Competency in Functional Affairs.

Problem Statement

Team Work
Team work refers to the situation whereby people work together to achieve a stated goal and a stated end. In this case, there is a project led by Tom Parker to create a certain number of lines and as it is required, the work is divided up and there are different obligations for all the members of the team to achieve. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that some elements and aspects of the interaction between Parker and the rest of the team is flawed. And clearly, the team members were not able to get over some important set of differences that culminated in so much conflict and disagreement from the initial stages of the project.

Leadership

The leadership of Parker was neither perfect nor appropriate on some occasions. As a leader, it is apparent that his formation of the team came with major issues and problems as the team was poorly constituted. The team members were somewhat poorly constituted. There were personal loyalties and individual connections and the team did not really gel nor work together as a unified entity. This shows question marks related to the unity of command in this situation. Also, it is apparent that Parker was selective in his attempts to deal with underperformance. He spent more time critiquing and getting Miller to perform and did not show the same level of rigidity with Boyce. This shows some degree of selectivity in his meting out of discipline. This comes with some elements and aspects of prejudice.

Communication

There was no channel of communication and there were serious limits on the way and manner within which they all communicated. Communication was never formal in the entire process. The closest they all had to getting a formal communication was the hastily planned pre-project meeting. This was carried out quickly and there was little they all did in terms of communication and interaction. All other interactions were informal. Other forms of communication were inappropriate because the parties involved in the communication were various forms of confrontations and other private talks that were done with little or no effort to ensure that communication was coordinated or promoted proper conduct.

Knowledge/Competency

It is apparent that both Parker and the team members had knowledge or competency relating to organised work and coordination. Rather, they focused on doing things in the way and manner they deemed fit and most appropriate. Miller for instance felt victimised when asked to do more work and to meet the targets as it was planned. On the other hand, Parker himself lacked leadership tact and could not do things as he was supposed to do it. This means that the team’s members lacked an orientation towards organised work and organised effort and the contribution of team dynamics to the achievement of results and objectives.

Commitment

Commitment to task was a major problem and a major issue in the entire matter and situation. From the onset, it is apparent that Miller and Boyce were not committed to the achievement of group objectives. They were rather interested in what they were going to get and what they were going to gain from the project. And there is evidence that Miller was spending more time on the Internet and doing things other than achieving the group’s project objective like posting online and doing other things that kept him away from doing work. This means there were issues with commitment and the team members put their individual goals ahead of the goals of the entire group or team. On the other hand, Parker also seemed to be concerned with results. He did not connect the individual goals and the individual expectations of the other members of the team to the team’s activities. It is apparent that things could have been better if there was an approach through which the team members would have cooperated and sought to match their personal goals and personal aims with the aims of the team as this would have led to the achievement and attainment of better results by the members of the team.

Analysis

This section will evaluate the problems with the teamwork and team activities and provide an insight into the implication of the choices that were made. From this section, there will be the identification of potential alternatives that could have been employed by the team members and their leader.
Obviously, there was a problem with the organisation of the entire project. This is because the division of work and the work breakdown system was not clearly defined as there was no conscious plan to define anything that could help to divide up work. The casual meeting that occurred was so poorly planned and poorly prepared. Hence, it would have been much better if there was a proper breakdown of work and this should have been discussed even before the first day of work. On the first day of work, a proper and an appropriate measure should have been taken to confirm the work of the team members and proper communication should have began at that time. This would have included the discussion of the needs and expectations of the team members
Leadership is expected to be constructive and transformative in the 21st Century. From the leadership approach used by Parker, it is apparent that he was seeking to get all the team members to work together as individuals and each person was individually accountable. Rather, there could have been some kind of cooperation and there could be other methods that would have made up for better results. Leading the group could have been done by connecting the needs and expectations of the team members to the objectives and goals of the team. There should have been a system through which the different team members should have been reminded that their goals could be achieved by symbiotically working with the team to achieve those results. And secondly, picking on one or a few members of the team was not appropriate. This led to major problems and major divisions that did not help with the team. Also, allowing individual members who were clearly not up to the task to complete projects independently contributed to the problems and issues. This led to major lapses that delayed the entire team in their attempt to meet their goals and objectives.
Prejudice and disrespect of team members is a major problem that causes issues in teamwork and team dynamics. This is because when some members of the team feel they are being treated negatively and unfairly than others – as Miller felt, they are likely to become more isolated. And this leads to a shortfall in the motivation and results orientation of the team members. Leadership must rather be responsive and it must be done through objective and open ways and means that will lead to good and strong results.
Communication is meant to promote interaction and bring members of a team together to achieve specific results and objectives. Communication must be done in a clear manner and there must be rules to the communication system that will be employed by a group or a team. Communication must be in response to team dynamics and the development of the team and it must be changed and varied in order to meet the requirements of the team. However, in this case, the communication system used was akin to a fire-fighting approach where Parker only spoke in a way and manner that was meant to get the team members to meet the objectives and goals. This was a destructive contingency method of leadership that came with major problems and issues. This is because they were designed to hurt and provide limits to the team members and this went further to single out certain members of the team for negativity.
The lack of knowledge amongst the members of the team was also apparent and there would have been better options and better methods that would have come to force if the team members had been trained about cooperation and coordination. Also, good leadership could have improved output and the team members would have worked better for the achievement of better results.
Based on these issues and problems, it is apparent that some options could have existed and they could have improved the results and the activities of the team if they were done well. The next section will look at the alternatives that Parker and his team could have employed to achieve better and improved results.

Alternatives

The best way and the best approach could have been to do some kind of preparation before the first day of the project. This would have led to the creation of an appropriate system and an appropriate framework through which work could have been coordinated and this would have led to better results. Parker had the obligation of either drawing up a work breakdown structure before the first meeting or he could have drawn one in the early hours of the first day through brainstorming with the team members. This would have culminated in the identification of a system through which work would be done and they would have all agreed upon it and with such a form of clear framework of work, they could have achieved the goals of the team much easier. Since the current system imposed a choice and a desire on the team, a better method would have involved the utilisation and review of facts by the entire team. This would have created a sense of entitlement that would have caused the team members to work harder to achieve the results and cooperate for better results.
Parker could use one of two options for the attainment of better results – transformational leadership or positive contingency leadership. Contingency leadership would be one in which there would have been a proactive management process and system that would be used when there were issues. And this would have culminated in joint and cooperative methods that would have been used to deal with issues as and when they came up. On the other hand, a transformational leadership system would have involved the connection and linking up of the team members’ goals and objectives with the team work. And this would have included the connection of the team members’ need for payment and bonuses with the need for cooperation to achieve this collectively rather than individually. This would have helped to promote team work and partnership in order to achieve the relevant results.
There should have been a turnaround that would have been used to help the team members to deal with the initial signs of failures and limitations at the beginning. This would have involved the identification of major issues. There would have been options like synergistic work which would have included the partnering of the two efficient team members with the two inefficient team members in order to achieve the best results. On the other hand, there could have been a job rotation option that would have involved rotating the team members in order to get them to take turns in doing various activities and processes that would have caused work to proceed more smoothly and more appropriately.
In terms of leadership, Parker should have used a model of monitoring and managing team dynamics as opposed to the complete disregard to the development of the team. On the other hand, there could have been another method and another system whereby Parker could have promoted equality and egalitarianism. This would have been done through the identification of a set of objective rules that would have been applied to all the team members who failed to achieve certain stated end. This way, the team members would have felt the need to objectively work hard rather than focus on achieving individual ends.
Finally, it is apparent that some or all of the team members were not aware of group work and team work. There should have either been a conscious program that would have trained the team members in relation to team dynamics. Or the leader should have waited and pointed out the elements of team dynamics and how to deal with them as and when the team continued to proceed and carry out their activities. This would have caused the team members to identify their issues and problems and they would have worked harder to achieve group results rather than individual results.

Conclusion/Recommendations

It is apparent that the team failed to meet its goals and objectives due to the fact that there was poor organisation of work, poor leadership and communication, ignorance of team work and group dynamics as well as issues with objectivity of rules, equality and coordination matters and situations. All these came together to make the work difficult and this caused individual differences to be put ahead of group demands and group effort.
After evaluating all the options, it is identified that the following pointers below would have been better options for the achievement of better results for the team members and the project as a whole. They include:
The leader should have set up a work breakdown structure before the entire project commenced. And this should have been presented to the members of the team in a way and manner that would have led to brainstorming and the democratic acceptance of the division of work;
A transformational leadership should have been employed by the leader and the leader should have made a conscious effort to link individual desires and individual goals with the group goals and this should have been made clear to the team members. The entire process should have led to a form of leadership that would have allowed the team members to appreciate the fact that their contribution was more important than individual end.
Early signs should have led to the a synergistic approach that would have constructively used synergy and job rotation to get the team members who were performing to partner with those that were not performing. This would have led to the identification of better methods and systems of doing things and the strengths and weaknesses of the team would have been shared in a much better manner.
The team should have defined objective rules and objective standards that would have been used to deal with incompetency and failures. This should have been applied in an impersonal manner and the team would have been more efficient.
The leaders should have pointed out elements of team dynamics at all the stages and members of the team should have adjusted and changed as and when the need arose.