Good five dysfunctions of a team a novel case study example

Why the team is ineffective

The prime purpose of any business corporation is to make a profit. For a company to make a profit, several factors have to come into play such as congruency and team work. Decision Tech is a technology company that has been on the summit of financial success for two years. All of a sudden the morale of the employees dropped. The company found itself in a leadership crisis. Leadership is an integral part of an organization. The quality of leadership is directly proportional to the final output of the company. The top leadership is supposed to espouse the values and business acumen that is supposed to be practiced in the company. There was incongruence in the operation of affairs, in the Decision Tech. A vice had cropped in the team at Decision Tech of executives backstabbing one another. It is a portrayal that the executive’s members do not trust each other. Backstabbing among the top officials of the company resulted to unprecedented conflicts between the staff members. Backstabbing causes a member of the team to feel devalued. The staff member is likely to lose morale and feel that he or she is not an integral part of the team. Since negative emotions are contagious, the whole staff will end up acquiring a negative attitude of the few members who are being backstabbed. The dissonance in the team affected the productivity of the team resulting to low sales in the Decision Tech.
The executive members are not passionate about their job. During the meeting, some of the executive members are browsing on the internet. The actions of the board members can be termed as non-cooperation. Martin the chief Technologist did not participate in most of the staff meetings. Hid non participation was replaced by constantly checking emails. He drifted into the meeting when he heard catchy topic being discussed. It was evident that there was dissonance in the operation of the team. As a result, that caused the entire staff to lose morale and perform poorly in the company.

Behavioral norms

Before Kathryn took over as the Executive Director of the Decision Tech, there was much mistrust in the way the member of the staff related to each other. They viewed the company as a hostile place where the executives had to wage war against each other in order to climb the career ladder. Kathryn encouraged the members of the staff to communicate their opinions. Before Kathryn took over the board meetings were always tense and as the members were constrained on the manner in which they could communicate their opinions. Staff meetings were used as venues for the power play. Kathryn era brought a new change in the mindset of the employees. There was increased communication. People started taking responsibility for their actions and mistakes. The sales of the company soon skyrocketed as a result of the cooperation between the members of the staff members did not feel a restraint n disagreeing with the company head and, therefore, the productivity of the employees increased. Kathryn did not want to disappoint the chairman of the board. She knew she had to perform in the company having successfully fought in the military. To encourage openness in the team she encouraged the members of the team to share their personal stories.
Kathryn makes it part of the agenda for the meeting to discuss their personal lives and their memorable childhoods. At this stage of norming in the team, the team had completely accepted the role of the chief executive in the company. The anticipated power dynamics struggles had subsided. Kathryn was the first member of the staff to disclose her personal information. She talked about her kids and her personal life including marriage. The team was amazed by the fact that the chief executive had some background in volley ball. The rest of the staff followed suit and talked about their personal experiences and hobbies. After forty minutes of sharing their personal experiences, the team felt closer and more united than before. Kathryn used that strategy to build trust in the team. Having built a strong foundation upon which the staff can begin trusting each other.
The major decisions were handled by the Board of Directors for Decision Tech. Kathryn made the major decisions that affected the company. Minor decisions were handled by the staff or the department head. The team was united and committed after a series of meeting and retreats. Instances of juniors trying to usurp the responsibility of the seniors were reduced considerably. The staff began to respect the chief executive officer for the outstanding task she was performing at Decision Tech. The team was enjoying the social activities that were prosed by the management. The managerial norms that were formed in the team to increase it effectives. There was a clear cut procedure of solving disputes within the company and, as a result the executive team focused on the important issues affecting the company. With well-articulated patterns for the distribution of honor in the company, the team was motivated to work and achieve the goals that had been set by the company.

Four stages of team development

When Kathryn took over at Decision Tech, the team was in shambles, and it was difficult to outsource a chief executive to take over such a messed up company. Kathryn was met with a lot of opposition. It appeared that it was only the Chairman of the board of directors supported her. The rest of the staff was surprised by the decision of the chairman of the board to appoint Kathryn. Kathryn was also surprised. She did not envision at time when she would be heading a major technology company such as the Decision Tech. She started her career from the business board rooms. Kathryn had worked as a teacher as her first job. She had some background in the military and it was apparent that she had little experience in the business world compared to the former chief executive.
During Kathryn first days in office the staff tested her tolerance on the issues that arose in the office. The first challenge was when a potential customer arranged for a meeting with the company officials. The marketing manager was quick to inform Kathryn of the clash between the two meetings. Kathryn argues that the retreat should go on as it had been planned. It was quite difficult for the team to understand why the chief executive had made that decision. The issue was later resolved during a staff meeting. At the initial stage all the decisions were made by the chief executive. The management team was not aware of their role in the new administration. Their duties and functions became crystal clear in the new administration.
The forming stage occurred as soon as the roles of the executive team had been well outlined. He staff openly disagreed with the chief executive. In contrast with previous managements she allowed the opposition to continue as a way of encouraging dialogue. The norming stage took place after the members of the team was in synch with each other. There well defined goals and the roles for all the member of the team were motivated to perform their duties. Under the team management of Kathryn, the team quickly moved to the next stage of performance. The team at decision tech was motived to achieve the goals.

Leadership tools used by Kathryn

Kathryn Petersen encouraged accountability in the team and attention to results. Tools for team development that Kathryn used the most include getting the members of the team to open up on their personal lives. She encouraged openness to eliminate the artificial peace in a bid to avoid conflict. Kathryn used sharing of information to create congruence in the team. Kathryn created positive energy in the team by encouraging an environment that encouraged the team members to communicate and share their opinion without experiencing criticism. She encouraged the sharing of information in the team. The members felt free to share personal information and that trickled down to business information.

Three roles in the team

Jeff Rawlins the head of sales in the company performed the blocking role in the company. He constantly disagreed with the opinions that he thought would derail the company. Michelle Bebe played the relationship building role. She encouraged growth and peaceful coexistence. Nick Farrell was on the forefront of ensuring that the all the tasks had been performed to their level best. Under the leadership of Kathryn the Decision Tech became successful once again.