Leading Organization Case Study: 5

Leading Organization Case Study: 5 Heads Are Better than One

It is amazing when teams work well together. Yet. At the same time, this can become an issue when group pressure silences the innovation and creativity of the individuals within the team itself. This is exactly what occurred in the case study "Are Five Heads Better than One?" Essentially, what happened was that the group got caught up in the sociability of the dynamic, and failed to take a stand against group consensus out of fear for interrupting the flow of the work environment. This lead to the eventual failure of the project. This could have been adjusted by a number of potential strategies, the best being reducing the team size in order to create a more intense and intimate work environment that would have invoked more appropriate decisions in the path of the project.

Definition of Problems

The team worked incredibly well together, yet this dynamic was so friendly rather than innovative. Working within a team is supposed to facilitate a meeting of the minds, where different opinions are brought together to be molded into an incredibly innovatively blended final product or decision. Work groups are supposed to work together to share different opinions, and work teams are supposed to let each individual shine within their own performances that are integral to the overall completion of the product. In this structure, every team member should be active in the creative process and the execution of the initial design.

Yet, it was clear in this case that the team failed to pronounce their individual opinions which would have guided a more appropriate final product. Rather, the other individuals within the team sat back and let Conner take more responsibility in the creative licensing while drowning out other potentially good ideas for more appropriate directions for the project to progress towards. There is first the notable example of Derek, who had the most past experience with the client, did not speak up about his reservations for Conner's idea. His initial idea of a more sophisticated advertisement was what eventually won much later when the client turned to a different team; "classical music played in the background as the camera swept through a modern home. The camera slowly rose up behind a tan leather sofa seating a couple enjoying a bottle of wine and watching a new 60-inch plasma television," (Robbins & Judge 2008 p 702). The ad which the client did eventually match more of Derek's concept -- he just didn't voice his opinions loudly enough in fear of disrupting the group's vibe. When Conner's idea continued towards a path of targeting specifically a young, and predominantly male audience, other members of the team beyond Derek began to harbor some concerns regarding the advertisement's direction. Thus, the case study reads, "there were a few hesitations here and there as members expressed other ideas, but each team member, enjoying the group's solidarity, decided that it would be better to keep the team in good spirits rather than risk loosing the team's morale" (Robbins & Judge 2008 p 701). Conner's leadership was not questioned, although the entire purpose of the team itself was a mutual progression, not the unquestioned leadership of one of the individuals. Essentially, the team members were being pressured towards uniformity, and therefore silenced within the wake of Conner's plan above all potential ideas that could have come to fruition in a more mutually beneficial environment. The team was essentially chosen for its ability to work in synergy and its ability to use this synergy to facilitate a blended creativity. This was not what resulted, and instead the project was too one sided, with no other team members stepping up to embody their own leadership roles in directing the project to a more appropriate route. According to the Attribution Theory, this was a case where a consensus was established because of a high level of external influence; yet, the project lacked distinctiveness because there was a low level of internal decision making within each of the five team members. Allowing five heads to be active in the design process would have been better than focusing the project just on one. The project was assigned to a team, but was executed only by an individual -- and this is the primary problem that occurred in the execution of the project.

Moreover, there were a number of smaller issues which augmented the overall failure of the project as a whole. Part of this was a result of the team members not wanting to obscure the fast paced frequency the project was being created in. There was essentially too much of a focus on getting the project done fast, rather than allowing the opportunity for creative differences to become a part of the process in order to mold the idea into a more appropriate direction for the client. Yes, the fast pace strategy completed the project a month ahead of schedule, but it failed the team by rushing an idea that was not properly matched to the client's needs and approved by the client before progressing further towards a final presentation. The client was not properly informed of the decision before the shooting process began. This created a situation where the team could be wasting money in the event that the client is completely unsatisfied with the final product.

Potential Strategies

There are a number of strategies which could have been implemented here to increase the overall success of the project and to meet the client's vision for the product more appropriately. The first strategy to be examined here would have been to use a "programmed conflict" strategy to implement a devil's advocate within the team in order to criticize and question proposals in order to test their viability against other alternative ideas thought of by the other members of the team. Each team member should have played the devil's advocate role in order to continually test the concept to push it towards new heights and closer towards the ideal representation of the client's vision for the product. This strategy facilitates a healthy competition within teams that pushes individual members to strive towards greater innovation and creativity within their design ideas for the representation of the client's product. Yet, the strategy could create more conflict than what would be healthy, thus also decreasing overall group productivity.

Additionally, the team could have focused on using a leadership strategy to motivate the other member of the group, rather than influencing them to simply go along with one member's ideas. There will be more natural leaders within a team group, and thus they should be able to exhibit their leadership skills. Yet, this process must be within a positive context, thus motivating other members of the team to participate with their own ideas and creativity. If Conner would have practiced this level of leadership, the team would have not been influenced to remain silent in their concerns, but rather to voice them proudly, as they are motivated to succeed within the project as a whole. Still, the fact that Conner was of the same rank as his fellow team members, some might have been uncomfortable with him taking on such a strong leadership role.