Analysis of MEGA Team Experience - Case Study Example

Analysis of MEGA Team Experience Analysis of MEGA Team Experience Introduction Reflective Practice refers to the capa to reflect on actions so that an individual or an organization can engage in a process of continuous learning. In our MEGA Team Experience that involved efforts to maximize the manufacturing and selling of several brands of cars, it was necessary that the team paid critical attention to theories and practical values that inform everyday actions. We constantly examined our practices flexively and reflectively (Canavan et. al., 2006). This led to development of insight that led to individuals of the management team to learn from their own professional experiences rather than the traditional formal knowledge transfer and teaching. Using reflective approach, we were able to view and label various schools of thought within the context of our management practice. Reflection enabled the team not only to look back at the past events, but to take a conscious view of the experiences, emotions, responses and actions to draw new knowledge and build onto existing knowledge. In the MEGA Team Experience, we used different models of reflective practices to optimize our understanding of management and stay ahead of our tight competition. The team acknowledged that it is difficult to place thoughts, emotions and events into coherent sequence when experiencing something. It is easier to categorize the events, ideas and emotions while retelling or rethinking the experiences. One of the theories that we heavily relied upon in resolving our management woes was the Argyris and Schon Model of Reflection. It enabled us make formidable problem solving and framing techniques, response to problematic situations, reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action (Martyn et. al., 2000). The other theory that came in handy in our management bid is Kolb’s Theory which aided us in transforming information into knowledge. The team was able to learn through this scheme after an event had occurred to prevent further damages in future. Further, John’s Model of 1995 enabled the team to forge ahead after crises by sharing experiences and mentoring. We found out that sharing and mentoring one another helped the team members to learn faster than situations where everyone had to reflect on their experiences alone. Critical Incidents Analysis Scenario 1 In the first month of the MEGA Simulation project, the management team had a problem making decisions on the types of cars to concentrate on producing. The team desired to make as much profit as possible. There was, therefore, the temptation to concentrate our production effort on luxury cars that reflected our client’s image. Upon making this decision, we realized that the market for Veblen cars was limited and the people who could afford these cars were numbered. There was the possibility that we would spend a fortune on producing the cars and end up storing them in our warehouse for unproductively long time. Given the limited resources that e had at our disposal, we could not support the production of the desired numbers of the luxurious car as well as cater for low income earners’ car needs sufficiently. We contemplated reducing the number of luxury cars in favor of low cost cars. This would have worked well if there was no consideration of eco-friendliness of the automobiles. The cheap cars did not meet the stringent environmental standards that the company envisioned for its operations. Incorporating the eco-friendly devices into the cars would increase the cost of our cars, pushing the price that we would recommend for our retailers above the market price and place our competitive advantage at stake. Additionally, producing family cars would require more production resources and make the cars a little more expensive than those in the market. This production dilemma set the team into a reflection of John’s Theory of Reflection. Johns Model provided us with a guide to gain greater understanding of the production dilemma. The design encouraged the team to share experiences and thoughts with colleagues and mentors. The decision on which cars to concentrate on producing was not left to the productions section of the management team alone. All responsible for the management of the MEGA project were welcomed to share their reflections and thoughts on the way forward for balancing production. There was an extensive use of empirical knowledge that the members of the management team had in matters concerning similar situations. We looked into our thoughts and emotions then looked at the situation that we were experiencing at the time. Johns Model proved comprehensive and looked into several crucial elements (Rushton et. al., 2012). As we used Jon’s model to solve our production quandary, we considered the fundamental ways of knowing to help exhaust all available options. Foremost, the team did a thorough empirical analysis of all factual knowledge in print media and the internet. It considered research findings of companies that had undergone the same production trouble and the stratagems they used to iron out their situation. Secondly, the management used personal knowledge and attitudes derived from empathy and self understanding. The team members imagined themselves in the situation of the clients and empathized with the needs of each clientele group (Stedmon et. al., 2009). There was also a concentration on ethical knowledge. This implies that the management considered knowledge and attitudes derived from ethical framework. These include the awareness of moral choices and questions. Finally, it considered aesthetic awareness; the awareness of the situation at hand and of the combined wholeness of the scenario. It considered that any decision it could make in relation to car production would affect clients differently ad uniquely. Upon considering the four elements of knowing; analyzing empirical knowledge, personal knowledge, ethical awareness and aesthetic considerations, the management decided to take a drastic and risky move that would make or break the company. We pegged our decision on ethical awareness above profitability or aesthetic experience. The management decided to produce cars that would observe eco-friendliness. To reduce costs of production and subsequently retail price of our products in the market, the procurement department was ordered to consider cheaper alternatives of materials and equipment. With a new tender notice, this was possible and the company was able to produce similar cars at affordable cost to suit both families and low-cost client categories. The reduced income in the two categories was compensated by a slight increase in the cost of luxury cars that had slight modification to convince clients of better performance and class. The management placed a lot of effort on advertising and endorsements. The simulation progress showed the company was back to its feet in six months. Scenario 2 Months into the simulation project, the MEGA Team management had a problem assigning specific management duties to specific management members. The resulting situation was that decisions taken on behalf of the administration of the company were haphazard and reflected negative operational outcomes on the company’s productivity. Decisions such as upgrading the assembly line to reduce reject rates would not lead to increased profitability of the company. Decisions by random members of the management team to increase the company’s credit rating by paying outstanding loans would not improve the company’s image despite improving the credit rating. Decisions to improve our company’s profitability by repurchasing some of our shares would not result in actual improvement of net revenues. Stock prices would not improve. Other strategies to maximize profits of the company by reducing advertisement costs, expenses on research and development and eliminating some bonuses and incentives for workers would not lead to substantial increase in revenues and profits. The random decision making by the management team called for a close dissection of the company’s decision making strategies using Argyris and Schon Model of reflection (Swartz et. al., 2002). The two pioneered the idea of double loop and single loop learning. The theory helped the management team to recognize and amend the perceived fault of error. Single loop learning helped the company correct its strategies in decision making. Using the single loop, however, the management team was not able to correct the problem as we concentrated on the decisions that did not yield good returns instead of the manner in which the decisions were taken. Whenever a situation came to light, our company would rely on the same decision-making stratagems that involved random people taking actions. Single loop learning did not work for the company. We ended up incurring the same mistakes and losses for we had failed to reflect on possibility of changing the outcomes by using alternative policies, objectives and tactics. We thereafter decided to reflect on the second loop of reflection. It involved the modification of personal objectives, policies and strategies of making decisions in the company. A new framing system was used every time there was need to improve profitability and productivity of the company (Taylor et. al., 2009). Using the strategy, the management team considered reflection in action and reflection in action. In the reflection in action plan, the management team had the ability to ‘think on its feet’. Decisions revolved around the ideas within any given moment when faced with professional issues. Every member of the management team connects with their feelings, prior experiences and emotions. Their actions and decisions taken at this moment are based on the feelings and prior experiences of the team member (Cox, 2009). The decisions were based on emotions of the team members who made them. Reflection on action was the ideas that came after the management team analyzes their reactions to the situations and explores reasons and consequences of their actions. The management conducted this through documented reflections on the actions that members of the management team took. Reflection on the actions revealed that there was lack of proper decision making framework to enable the company’s actions be sustainable. There was a general consensus that each member of the management team be assigned specific tasks and be held accountable for their actions (Bruce, 2013). The management team went beyond merely looking back at the flawed actions that the members of the management team took. They explored the reasons behind the actions. The framework provided us with the opportunity to develop a line of thought that got us thinking and questioning problems out our actions. Through careful planning and coupled with systematic elimination of possible situations, we settled doubts and were able to affirm knowledge of the situations we were facing. We were able to think of possible scenarios and their outcomes. The management team was able to deliberate whether it carried out the right actions (Bulman, 2009). The scheme enabled the management team to frame its actions into problems, respond to the problematic situations discovered and then look at possible real world solutions that could have undertaken to solve the doubts and problems it created. Scenario 3 Management team of MEGA project had a problem of miscommunication within the team. The members of the team were unable to settle on crucial issues concerning its management. Managers had a number of challenges communicating to one another. We acknowledged the fact that among us, people hailed from different backgrounds and upheld varied views on life. The cultural differences among the managers caused quandaries in understanding one another. Communication is an important asset in management of any organization. The management team recognized that this was an enormous problem that the company had to solve. Kolb’s Theory of reflection helped the management team solve the problems associated with lack of communication among the managers. The model highlighted the concept of experimental learning and centered on transformation of information into knowledge (Beirne, 2007). We considered ad understood the cultural differences among us and came up with knowledgeable ways of dealing with the challenges that surrounded us. The reflection took place after the situation had occurred and entailed the management team reflected on the experience. It then gained a general understanding of the concepts encountered during the experience. The management team then tested the general understanding of the team members on new situations. In this way, the management team was able to apply the knowledge gained from the situation to build on the prior experiences and improve knowledge of dealing with cultural differences affecting organizational communication. Conclusion From the discussion of the scenarios in the MEGA Team, it is evident that reflective practice is a reliable way of providing solutions to organizational challenges. Contrary to learning in the formal system, reflective practice enables management team members to learn from experiences that are specific to their situations. The theories of reflective practice are helpful in attaining expected objectives of businesses. References Beirne, M. (2007). Empowerment and innovation: Managers, principles and reflective practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bruce, L. (2013). Reflective practice for social workers: A handbook for developing professional confidence. Bulman, C., & Schutz, S. (2013). Reflective practice in nursing. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Canavan, J., Dolan, P., & Pinkerton, J. (2006). Family support as reflective practice. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Cox, J. W. (2009). Critical management studies at work: Negotiating tensions between theory and practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Martyn, H., & Atkinson, M. (2000). Developing reflective practice: Making sense of social work in a world of change. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Rushton, I., & Suter, M. (2012). Reflective practice for teaching in lifelong learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Stedmon, J., & Dallos, R. (2009). Reflective practice in psychotherapy and counselling. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Swartz, L., Gibson, K., & Gelman, T. (2002). Reflective practice: Psychodynamic ideas in the community. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council. Taylor, B. J., & Ghaye, T. (2010). Reflective practice for healthcare professionals: A practical guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Read More