Rainbow Design Teambuilding for Effectiveness - Case Study Example

RAINBOW DESIGN CASE STUDY Introduction The case of Rainbow Design is a ic case of organizational behaviour with respect to teams and teambuilding for effectiveness. The situation includes a multifunctional project team, not yet fully integrated to realize full productivity, with several high performing members and one slower, maybe new, member who receives the brunt of criticism and unkind remarks. This case explores the dynamics among individuals and the essential requisite that make them into a team. Rainbow Design’s work organization Rainbow Design appears to be a rather fluid organization, considering that it is involved in supplying a highly creative, uniquely designed service product. Such firms cannot rely on organizational structures that are more appropriate for batch processing, standardized products. There are three general organizational structures: the functional, the divisional, and the matrix organizations. The functional organization, the most traditional of the three, is structured according to business functions, while the divisional organization may be organized along product, customer or geographic divisions. The matrix organization, on the other hand, has the flexibility of an overlap of functional and divisional forms. (Bateman & Snell, 2005, pp. 257-262). A diagram of the typical matrix organization follows on next page: Source: http://www.visitask.com/matrix-organization.asp In the Rainbow Design firm, it is apparent that persons each performing a separate function were grouped together to accomplish one web design project for a single customer. The group is composed of a junior content designer (Laura), and account manager (Teresa), a technical developer (John), and a creative director (Amber). In the above diagram, the group relationship could be exemplified by the lowest row, where three staff positions (Laura, Teresa and John) and one project manager (Amber) are grouped together to accomplish one project. The greatest advantage of the matrix organization is the exploration of synergies among creative individuals working at the same project such as in Rainbow Design, simplifying communication and enhancing coordination among them. Rainbow’s personnel work in groups, a group being “Any number of people who interact with each other, are psychologically aware of each other, and who perceive themselves to be a group” (Schein) and “who interact to fulfil a common goal” (Bowditch & Buono). Within the Rainbow Design matrix organization, groups called project teams become the vehicle by which the design product is created. The existence of a team in its early stage A team is simply a group with a specific work purpose, and for Rainbow the work purpose is the creation of a web design to the client’s liking. In this case, this writer contends that there is a team, though fledgling and still undeveloped, comprised of Laura, John, Teresa and Amber. At first this may not be evident, but teams are not formed overnight. There are several stages to team building. A theory by Tuckman (1965) on how groups developed lists these four stages: 1. Forming – The group members try to establish ground rules for what types of behaviour may be considered as acceptable. 2. Storming – When the group embark on their first project, there tend to develop hostilities and conflict, which signifies people are testing the turf, jockeying for positions of power and status 3. Norming – This is the stage when members agree on their common goals. Norms and closer relationships develop, and members begin to get comfortable with each other. 4. Performing – The group is fully integrated and reaches a stage of maturity. It channels its excess energies into performing its task. (Tuckman, 1965, p. 385). In the case of Rainbow Design, it is quite likely that the group appears to be in the storming stage. The apparent conflict seems the result of poor communications. The bickering appears to be due to the senior members’ frustration of not being able to convey their ideas to the junior member – in this case, Laura – and the junior member’s frustration at not being able to actualize what her colleagues are trying to tell her. It is a difficult time, but that does not mean that there is no team. Rather, there is at least the beginnings of a team, but it is still in its early, “forming” stage. It is useful, further, to view Rainbow Design’s problem as one involving a specific kind of task which is web designing. According to Hackman and Oldham (1975) there are four types of group tasks: 1. The Additive task, which depends on the totality of the collective efforts of all the group members, wherein they basically perform the same job (e,g, tug-o-war); 2. The Conjunctive task, depends on the performance of the group’s least talented member, and when one member’s performance depends on the successful execution of another of his own function (i.e., John’s, Teresa’s and Amber’s jobs’ success being premised on the success of Laura’s work (as the junior content writer); and, 3. The Disjunctive task, where the success of the group is dependent on the performance of the group’s most talented member (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The teams in the case of Rainbow Design are organized according to project, but with members having different functions. Since these is a web design project, the functions are most likely sequential (coming one after the other), and since the content developer’s job precedes the others, a poor job done here will inevitably lead to poor results in the succeeding processes. This may explain why the other members are particularly exacting with Laura’s work, because their jobs are dependent on the quality of the first process. Where the problem lies and what is its likely cause. There are, without a doubt, problems in the present team in Rainbow Design. There appears to be a clash of personalities which is made more intense by the peculiar circumstances of the team discussed earlier (i.e., that it appears to be relatively new and that the jobs are interrelated). It is the case of a junior member who may lack experience, and at least two senior members who are not disposed to tolerate her inadequacies. It is a situation that happens at least once in every team. There is a theory of intergroup conflict developed by Thomas, which seeks to explain how so-called conflict management strategies may be used to address different causes of intergroup conflict. The theory is encapsulized in the following diagram. Source: K. Thomas, “Conflict and Conflict Management.” Cited in Management Function & Strategy, T.S. Bateman and C.P. Zeithaml, 1993. In the above diagram, based on the combination of different levels of cooperativeness and assertiveness, five unique strategies may be used to deal with intergroup conflict. These strategies are competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating and compromising. From the point of view of Laura, around whose work the conflict appears to be revolving, Laura herself appears to be the combination of cooperativeness and unassertiveness. Thus she chooses to be accommodating almost to a fault. She tries to adjust to the comments of her colleagues, trying to satisfy everybody despite having worked on the task for a long time, and despite their comments being contradictory themselves. Because she is forced to accommodate to the (almost whimsical and capricious) preferences of her teammates, while at the same time forcing herself to maintain a cheerful disposition (she smiles through it all), it is easy to see that this will inevitably lead to demotivation and poor self-esteem. The “playful” – a better description is “mocking” – way by which John prepared her tea the way he knows she does not want it, and shouting “Revenge”, adds a mean barb to the already tense relationship. This exemplifies a finding of the Asch studies (1955), which concluded that “More conformity is observed from a person who is of lesser status than the other group members or who is attracted to the group and wants to be part of it.” Laura, the person the lower status, is forced to conform to her team’s wishes, however, unreasonable. What I would do to improve the team’s performance. As Amber’s replacement, my most imperative job would be to integrate the group, build up the teamwork and initiate motivational measure. According to Hackman and Oldham (1975), Motivation and team task involve developing team autonomy, task variety, task significance, task identity, and task feedback. Above all, there is a need to develop esprit de corps. There appears to be an element of one-upmanship among the team members. The team must realize that there where the team’s work is concerned, there is no demarcation among members, no attitude of one considering himself better than the other, or, as John put it, helping Laura “even if it is not his job”. They must be made to realize that the success of the group is the success of all, and failure of the group is failure of all, to no exclusion. Further, as group leader, the best method is by example. The new team leader should not do as Amber did, severely critiquing the work of one member without sitting down and working out a solution as a team, in a positive and optimistic manner, with results, not criticisms, as the aim. REFERENCES: Alvesson, M, and Willmott, H eds. 1992, Critical Management Studies, Sage Publications, London Bateman, TS & Snell, SA 2005, Management: The New Competitive Landscape, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin. Bateman, TS & Zeithaml,CP 1993, Management Function & Strategy, 2nd ed. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Boddy, D 2008, Management: An Introduction, 4th Ed., Pearson Educational Ltd., Essex. Bowditch, JL & Buono, AF 1990, A primer on organizational behaviour, 2nd ed. Wiley & Son. Clegg, SR 1990, Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World, Sage, London. Economic & Social Research Council 2009, Work & Organization. ESRC/Society Today. Accessed on April 16, 2009 from http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/research/WorkOrganisation/ Hackman, JR & Oldham, GR 1975, "Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey", Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, pp 159-170. Heathfield, SM 2009, How to Build a Teamwork Culture: Do the Hard Stuff for Teams. Accessed on April 16, 2009 from http://humanresources.about.com/od/involvementteams/a/team_culture.htm. Matrix organizational chart, Accessed on April 16, 2009 from http://www.visitask.com/matrix-organization.asp Marcuse, H 1969, "Repressive tolerance", In R P Wolff, B Moore, & H Marcuse eds, A critique of pure tolerance (pp. 95–137), Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Parker, M 2002, Against management, Cambridge, Polity. Schein, EH 2004, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons Stevenson, WJ 2003, Operations Management, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Stowell, C 2009, Teamwork in the Workplace. Accessed on April 16, 2009 from http://ezinearticles.com/ Thomas, K 1993, “Conflict and Conflict Management,” cited in Management Function & Strategy, TS Bateman and CP Zeithaml, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Tuckman, BW 1965, “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,” Psychological Bulletin 63, pp. 384-99 Read More