You are on page 1of 35

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 Team


CASE ANALYSIS

Supervisors: Vida kudien Olga tangej

VILNIUS, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 3 SITUATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ........................................................... 8
PROBLEM ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 9

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION ........................................................................................... 13


DISTINCTION BETWEEN GROUP AND TEAM................................................................. 13 TEAM DEVELOPMENT MODEL ......................................................................................... 17 BENNE AND SHEATS' GROUP ROLES MODEL ............................................................... 21

EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 24


ALTERNATIVE 1 ............................................................................................................... 24 ALTERNATIVE 2 ............................................................................................................... 26 ALTERNATIVE 3 ............................................................................................................... 28

SUGGESTED SOLUTION .................................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 35

INTRODUCTION
Being 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.

SITUATION ANALYSIS
Organization
MGI (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.

Contest
The 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.

Henry
Concentrated Take up leader role

Dana
Focused

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 meetings
1st 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.

Now
The 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.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
We 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

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

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 SITUATION


DISTINCTION BETWEEN GROUP AND TEAM
In 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 MODEL


It 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 MODEL


One 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 ALTERNATIVES


ALTERNATIVE 1
Remove 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 2
Hire 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 3
Sell 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 SOLUTION
After 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

CONCLUSION
Team 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

REFERENCES
http://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

You might also like