The document provides an evaluation of different perspectives on how to address issues within a dysfunctional team. It analyzes perspectives proposed by Jon, Richard, Genevieve, Paul, Ed, and Michael. Key issues identified are the problematic history among team members, lack of clear communication protocols and structure, and preferential treatment of certain members hindering team spirit. The document concludes that due to time limitations, the team failed to properly form according to stages and a rogue member emerged, substantially debilitating the team leader's control and resulting in dysfunction.
The document provides an evaluation of different perspectives on how to address issues within a dysfunctional team. It analyzes perspectives proposed by Jon, Richard, Genevieve, Paul, Ed, and Michael. Key issues identified are the problematic history among team members, lack of clear communication protocols and structure, and preferential treatment of certain members hindering team spirit. The document concludes that due to time limitations, the team failed to properly form according to stages and a rogue member emerged, substantially debilitating the team leader's control and resulting in dysfunction.
The document provides an evaluation of different perspectives on how to address issues within a dysfunctional team. It analyzes perspectives proposed by Jon, Richard, Genevieve, Paul, Ed, and Michael. Key issues identified are the problematic history among team members, lack of clear communication protocols and structure, and preferential treatment of certain members hindering team spirit. The document concludes that due to time limitations, the team failed to properly form according to stages and a rogue member emerged, substantially debilitating the team leader's control and resulting in dysfunction.
The document provides an evaluation of different perspectives on how to address issues within a dysfunctional team. It analyzes perspectives proposed by Jon, Richard, Genevieve, Paul, Ed, and Michael. Key issues identified are the problematic history among team members, lack of clear communication protocols and structure, and preferential treatment of certain members hindering team spirit. The document concludes that due to time limitations, the team failed to properly form according to stages and a rogue member emerged, substantially debilitating the team leader's control and resulting in dysfunction.
Evaluation of Jons perspective: Team formation despite having mentioned
the importance of having a metamorphosis, the author has not recommended a course of action which would facilitate its occurrence, an alternative for dealing with the problematic history amongst the team members could be administered through having personalized initiation conversations that are followed by structured understanding conversations. Structure and process the accountability principle which the author lists, can indeed enhance the collaboration amongst the team members, provided that routine and accurate performance conversations are conducted . Team communication- the ground rules according to which, the commutations ought to be performed have not been set , this limitation could obstruct the formation of trust among the team members , because the existing animosities amongst the team members cannot be regulated without proper conveyance of the personal view points . Evaluation of Richards perspective: The author recommends placing Randy on the pedestal and allowing him to present his recommendations in a unique manner, this element would greatly hinder the formation of a team-spirit. The conduct, communication protocol and operational structure within team should be clearly defined and applicable to all. The dual-structured preferential approach which aims at controlling the debilitating effects of Randys conduct, will
create a sense of dissatisfaction amongst the remaining team members,
hence preventing the ascendance into an effective team status. On the other hand, the understanding conversation that the author suggests having with Randy, may align the objectives of the team with those of randy. Since the clarifications would be provided discreetly, Randy would not be forced to respond in his usually defensive manner and might be susceptible to internalizing the conversation. Evaluation of Genevieves perspective: The three problems that arise from this recommendation are: the preferential treatment problem and its repercussions ( mentioned above ) , the advice for Eric to assume the helm and implement a course of action ( without having conducted an understanding conversation with the CEO ) , and lastly the expedient call to advance to the performing stage without having conducted any of the forming , storming and norming stages in a satisfactory manner . On the other hand, the affirmative leadership styled conduct that the author recommends for Eric to adopt, could inforce structure and facilitate an enhanced level of collaboration amongst the team members. Evaluation of Pauls perspective: The author has suggested the optimal methodology to deal with the destructive fusion /influence that Randy exerts on his peers. Through implementing Pauls perspective, we would be able to harness the analytical horse power of Randy, whilst enforcing the rules of engagement within the team. By administering this system, we would
insure that all members interact in a professional, respectful and supportive
manner. While the formation of an effective team depends on a large number of elements, this approach constitutes a crucial step for both the formation of trust and effective communication. Evaluation of Eds perspective: The authors suggestion to immediately remedy the faulty team formation stage that has already occurred (through both involving the CEO, and actively training the team members on how to interact with one another), and to promote cross-functionality and cooperation amongst the team members, is well aligned with our objective to create structure, generate respect and facilitate effective communication. However, the special consultant status that Randy assumes through this perspective , is bound to hinder Erics efforts to formulate an effective team . Since the formulated agreement with Randy will likely be confidential, a violation of the Managing agreements aspect of team creation will be incurred . Hence both the structure and communication mediums within the team will be affected . Evaluation of Michaels perspective: The intensive team facilitating workshops, accompanied by the understandings conversations that will be conducted by the CEO, will greatly remedy the faulty dynamics of the team. The members would have a better understanding of both the scope of the project, and the practices that ought to be used for sharing insights and information. The unique strength of this perspective, is clearly realized through the pursuit to demote
Randys Superstar status , to that of a contributing team player ( facilitated
through personalized understanding conversations with the CEO ) . Final conclusion: Due to pressing time limitation, the team has not evolved according to the forming-storming-norming-performing stages. This fact has substantially debilitated the team leaders attempt to control a rouge team member, and a dysfunctional team had emerged.