A) (25%) In the case study "The Team that Wasn't" (copy attached) Randy (the Sales Manager) was

proving to be a difficult team member. Using the Group Performance Model elements included in
Organizational Context, Group Structure and Group Process terms, identify: a) 3 components of the model
that were not being successful with Randy and explain your reason (rationale) and b) identify what the
team leader could do about it (suggested solution) and your rationale. The Group Performance Model is
also attached for your reference.
1) Problem and Rationale:
Lack of Leadership by Eric of Randy Randy has taken advantage of Erics poor leadership by inserting
himself in as the informal leader and through his disruptive behaviors and actions .Eric has not shown to be a
good team leader he has not led the establishment of objectives, norms, or decision making processes.
More importantly he has not stepped in to resolve conflicts as they occur, instead allowing them to fester and
build. Eric is the formal leader, he was named as the team leader, and so has the responsibility to manage
the group and its dynamics.
Suggested Solution and Rationale:
Eric, the team leader, needs to become a leader he needs to go back and re-look at group dynamics and
team performance models and identify what needs to be done to lead this team back on track. He
specifically needs to establish the leadership role with Randy he should have a special meeting with him to
establish their roles and position on the team, encourage Randy to share his brilliant ideas, and ask how he
(Eric) as the team leader can help Randy to meet his personal goals while helping the company be
successful. By understanding Randys motivations and desires, he can create a good solution.
If Randy does not want to be part of the group, another alternative would be for Eric to have Randy work
separately from the team as an individual, with Eric as the integrator of what Randy comes up with and what
the rest of the team does. The team may be able to be reassembled once some ideas get created by the two
groups and things get on a more positive note. Randy would be able to express his ideas and also see what
good ideas the group came up with (hopefully proving that groups do work)..
2) Problem and Rationale:
Lack of Group Norms there have been no strong group norms established by the group
informally or formally. This leads to many disruptive behaviors and hurts the groups performance.
While there are no norms for anyone in the team and so several team members have trouble,
Randy with his outlandish behaviors would benefit most with a set of norms and group reenforcement of those norms.
Suggested Solution and Rationale:
Eric as the leader should meet with each member individually and discuss their perception of the team
problems, behaviors and norms, and the need for team performance to save the company. He should get
agreement from each that they will hold a meeting to specifically discuss how the team can better perform,
agree that they need to establish group norms and agree on how we will proceed (and re-start). Then he
could lead the team in establishing the group norms and reviewing them periodically to see if they are being
adhered to or if they need to be changed.
3) Problem and Rationale:
Status Randy has a perceived higher status in the group, both from his position as well as from his past
successes . He is held in high regard by the President (Jack). Randy knows that he has this higher status
and so acts with disregard for others opinions and emotions, and the team leader, Eric, also fears this higher
status.
Suggested Solution and Rationale:
Eric, the team leader, can take several actions he could get Jack involved by having him come to a
meeting and have him both observe Randys behaviors and reinforce Erics status. Eric could encourage
Jack to say that he brought Eric in especially because of his past expertise and experiences to help the
company be more successful and is counting on Erics leadership along with the entire teams creativeness to
help make the company successful as it takes on the new competition. Eric could also establish that the

team members are all equal in this room and that we need to draw on the best and brightest from everyone
and build on each others ideas and feedback.

Case Study: The team that wasnt

In small groups, review the facts of the case, and answer the following questions:
Why is this team not working?
What should Eric do to remedy the situation?
Case Study What Eric should do:
Determine whether a team structure is optimal should it be a working group
instead?
Enlist the support of Jack, the CEO.
Set ground rules, and enforce them.
Insist that the group:
Identify joint work products.
Determine how they will hold themselves mutually accountable.
Complete work as a group as much as alone.
Case Study What Eric should do:
Take Randys word that he is not meant to be in a team he is a solo player.
Do not put team at risk.
Gain Randys input without requiring him to be on the team, such as:
input/report backs; or
occasional meeting attendance.
Case Study What Eric should do:
Need to better define problem assign this to Randy.
Enlist help of CEO in ensuring clear directives and support for the teams work.
Gain help of CEO in neutralizing Randy, such as by attending meetings.
Case Study What Eric should do:
Talk to Randy tell him he must play a full role:
Contribute, challenge and support ideas.
Clarify and take responsibility for his positions.
Accept Randys resignation if he wont agree.
Tell group he misunderstood his role, and what is required regarding communication.
Challenge Randy if he reverts.
Case Study What Eric should do:
Arrange training regarding team work skills.
Enlist Jacks support more support for team, neutralize Randy.
Jack should give Randy a choice to participate.
If Randy will not participate directly, he should be given a consultative role.
Change focus of group to developing cross-departmental solutions.
Develop team mission statement.

The case we read this week, The Team That Wasnt, presented a multitude of issues
that Eric Holts team faced when working together on strategic repositioning of Fire Art
Inc. These issues, while specific to the case, are often faced by leaders in organizations.
As a team, we believe there are certain aspects of Erics actions that directly affected the
progress of the team. In addition, we recommend a series of steps that Eric should take
to improve their progress.
To give a little background information, Fire Art Inc. is in trouble and the CEO, Jack Derry,
has hired Eric Holt with the solitary task of strategic repositioning. Eric Holt goes full
speed ahead with this directive and forms a team. This, as the reader can identify, is
where the first issue arises. To begin with, as the team began working, there was no clear
goal(s) set for them. Instead of clearly defining the actions that the team must take to
reach success, a vague task of strategic repositioning is identified as the plan.
Furthermore, no timeline for intermediate deliverables seems to have been set. Setting a
clear schedule of what the team must accomplish would have helped with timely decision
making.
The first problem we identified is the lack of clear group identity, definition and
accountability. A team that doesnt live by a sense of collective accountability in actively

solving problems is only a group of individuals, not a team. One can draw an analogy to a
football team or an ox-drawn plow when defining the characteristics of a team. A team is
like the ox or football players. They are equally yoked toward one goal and must perform
their function correctly in order to make progress.
An important criteria that distinguishes strong teams from their inferiors is the ability for
the team members to hold itself accountable as a team rather than as a group of
individuals. A Katzenbach notes, No group ever becomes a team until it can hold itself
accountable as a team. Like common purpose and approach, mutual accountability is a
stiff test (Katzenbach, 168). Thus, a key recommendation would be the adoption of
measures to ensure such common purpose is clearly understood by all members. Eric
Holt can achieve this by making several measures including creating a team charter,
mandatory team building seminar enrollment, and holding all members of the team
accountable for the final product.
The case analysis of Eric Peterson also can provide other clues into why this team is not
working. This is because there are many similarities between Eric Holt and Eric Peterson.
These include the fact that: Priorities have not been set, conflicts have not been
confronted, the agenda has not been clearly established, goals have not been defined,
trust has not been built, and Erics credibility has not been established with the team.
As Erik Petersons failure at GMCT showed, this is not a good way to lead a group of
people. Therefore, it would be wise for Eric Holt to consider what his members, especially
Randy, could bring to the table in order to function successfully as a team. In addition,
Eric Holt, like Erik Peterson, is fairly new to his role as team leader and his diminished
authority directly affects the success of the team. Consequently, his consultant mode
behavior and his aversion to conflict seem to be additional sources of the problem.
As mentioned before, timelines for deliverables are an integral component to helping an
organization succeed. In this case scenario, Eric has not set any intermediate
deliverables that would have helped with timely decision making. It would have also
served to foster a sense of success among the new team members, something that
would have helped build morale and team spirit. Katzenbachs article advises that teams
that set specific performance goals separate themselves from the rest of the company
far more successfully. Thus, the team can begin to set clear goals with clear timelines
from the onset.
Although focusing solely on one-on-one relationships is not recommended, it is
nonetheless critical to the teams success for Eric to meet with the team members
individually. This is a vital recommendation that we would give to Eric. This is so
important because it will not only prepare them for when they meet again as a group, but
also allows them the opportunity to relay any issues to Eric that they may not feel
comfortable doing so in front of the others. In addition, this is a great way for Eric to
define the roles the person should have as well as establish expectations.
Consequently, another problem we saw was that Eric failed to set clear expectations and
consequences early on to both Randy and the other team members. This lead to
noncommittal on the part of the team, lack of initiative from Randy, and an inability of
Eric to delegate effectively. As Peter Isenberg and Winona Finch both did, Eric could start
establishing his credibility by asking simple questions to his team members, especially
Randy. Isenberg notes that as he did this, the team members became more engaged and
eager to contribute. Finchs subordinates were committed to the teams goals because
they were empowered, not ordered, to achieve them. This process could lead to Randy
becoming more of an inside participant instead of the outside renegade he now is, allow
the team to become more cohesive, and definitely improve their chances of success. The
more power managers can share, the more influence they command.
Eric needs to realize that being passive and hoping Randy will come around may very
well be a lost cause. It would be wise of him to address the incongruity of Randys belief

system and the team spirit and mentality needed to run Fire Art Inc. As the John Delhorne
story indicates, Eric must, if necessary, involve the CEO in his efforts, since at the end of
the day, the teams success or failure are his responsibility. Establishing a good
relationship with his superior is often a great help for a leader that is struggling. For
instance, Eric could speak to Derry about some of the ideas the team has already come
up with and get his input. Its possible that Derry could propose related or other good
ideas, and in addition, could talk with Randy and secure his alignment with the mission.
Eric now needs to redefine his role in the group and assume the responsibility to act as
the teams leader. He needs to first develop and understand his art and threshold
capabilities and then define and develop his five components of emotional intelligence
(Goleman D., 95). With the skills of self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy,
and social skill, Eric will have the foundation to better understand himself, his true charge
and what the group and mission truly needs from him.
Further, Eric needs to understand and develop his approaches to issues and people
utilizing the Four-Frame Model. As our text book Reframing Organizations states,The
influence a leader exerts in altering moods, in evoking images and expectations, and in
establishing specific desires and objectives determines the direction a business takes.
With the Four-Frame Model, Eric can use the appropriate methodology and approach,
whether be political, structural, human resource or symbolic, in response to the need or
the circumstances of the specific situation.
Finally, Eric needs to define his own leadership style. This entails using some of the
talents of a Wizard and/or a Warrior to create a new attitude, rally the troops, and
encourage some healthy conflict among the team (Bolman L. & Deal T, 47-48). Then, and
only then, will Eric and the team have what they need: a strong leader who can inspire
and drive the group to completing its task at hand.
Katzenbach distinguishes a group from a team by defining a group as making up of
members [who] dont take responsibility for results other than their own (Katzenbach,
164). As Katzenbach further explains, the attributes of a working team are defined as a
set of values that encourage listening and responding constructively to views expressed
by the other, giving other the benefit of the doubt, providing support, and recognizing
interest and achievements of others. (Katzenbach, 164). These qualities, as the reader
can see, are missing within the Fire Art team.
While reading the case, we questioned, collectively, whether or not Eric and his team
members are really acting like a cohesive group. Eric and the others are so ineffective at
working together that at times it does not even seem like they are part of the same
team. Instead, they are individuals who have gathered together. The group is clearly
lacking a strong leader; someone capable of motivating them and also confronting
problems appropriately. The team does not live by a sense of individual or group
accountability. As a whole, they do not encourage active problem-solving skills, do not
measure their performance by assessing the collective work products and, finally, they
do not work well together. This, we decided, does not make them a team- instead, they
are a group.
In order to combat the issue at hand, we made several recommendations to Eric in our
analysis. To summarize, we believe it is important for Eric to meet with team members
individually. However, it is equally as important to meet with them as a group. In
addition, based on ideas from our reading, we identified a handful of steps Eric should
take to get the team on the right track. These steps range from defining his leadership
style to creating a new attitude. We firmly believe that all of the recommendations listed
in our analysis will allow Eric and the Fire Art Inc. team to reach success.