MANAGING A

TEAM
THROUGH
SETBACKS: THE
MOST VITAL
RESOURCE
Sarah Brasher

Arizona State University

OGL 321 | Module 3 Paper 2

Introduction

Team members are the most vital resource in a project, arguably more important than

the project manager. The focus on employee stress is a relevant topic in our changing corporate

world. Especially with millennials entering the workforce, adapting between the “old-world”

and “new-world” styles of management have come to find that a change is needed. Knowing

how to manage people as a whole is vital to project management, which can often be referred

to as conflict management (Northouse, 2013). Mediating expectations and reality while shifting

views in traditional hierarchal corporate strategy means a project manager must know how to

create a team atmosphere and resolve conflicts in a team. Many factors can hinder the process,

such as labor cuts, a slim and inflexible budget, or as well as negative attitudes in employees.

However, knowing how to prepare for and accurately predict setbacks in your team can help

alleviate certain problems that can cause projects to fail.

Harvard Simulation B

This week’s Harvard simulation reflected an overall need for preparedness for setbacks.

Around week 5 of the simulation, there was a labor cut and we needed to lose a person for a

total of three weeks. Immediately, in every scenario, employees were stressed or frustrated.

This reflected the real-life situation of labor cuts I’ve experienced with Starbucks. It’s a popular

correlation that the current labor cuts that were especially prevalent in 2019 have caused

morale to drop dramatically (Prater, 2019). Drive through stores that should, in theory, always
be continuously staffed with at least four people are having to deal with two-man teams during

busy times of day. This doesn’t even factor in that during these times employees need to have

breaks.

When I ran through this simulation several times, after the first time I was able to

anticipate this setback. The first time it happened I was flustered and felt that I needed to make

up for it dramatically when it was over. It was disappointing, yet realistic, how the deadlines

remained the same in opposed to reflecting the incident. This is true to real life scenarios, such

as the Starbucks labor cuts mentioned. The only thing that managers can do in this scenario is

to be a part of it to the best they can to mitigate the team morale and to help make up for the

labor lost. This isn’t ideal for anyone, but even so, sometimes these sorts of things happen and

it’s the project manager’s job to maintain morale through their leadership.

Behavioral Excellence

Project Management Best Practices’ chapter 10 on behavioral excellence had many

good features in it that related to team morale and leading your team as an actual team. It

emphasizes Situational Leadership as an approach being recognized by corporations in order to

effectively lead teams that are seemingly growing larger (Kerzner, 2010). Situational Leadership

is to tailor your behaviors based on both the competencies and the motivations of your team-

members (Northouse, 2013). The biggest factor in this is “tolerance: tolerance of external

events and tolerance of people’s personalities” (Kerzner, 2010). To do this means to be

understanding of things that are out of your control, such as it was after a few run-throughs of

the Harvard simulations.

Another point brought up in this chapter that stood out to me was with regard to

rewarding project teams for their milestones. The most impactful point made was that teams

should be rewarded after a milestone is met, and without it being an incentive. This is due to

situations outside of your control that could change the deadline, such as stakeholders’

decisions or client’s decisions. Sometimes things in a project change due to new technologies,

and you wouldn’t want your team to bypass these factors with a bonus in mind. While there is

no factor of reward in the scenario for the Harvard simulation, this is something to note within

the changing world of corporations. Often-times, rewards (especially cash rewards) feel

miniscule like a “gift from your uncle”, without real significance or motivation (Kerzner, 2010). I

have found this to be true: whenever I attempt to help motivate my team through competition

and reward, usually there is no significant increase in the project I’m set out to do (increase

sales, etc.). However, showing appreciation after a goal has been achieved sounds like

something I’d like to try in the future. It makes me think of a hypothetical scenario: maybe your

friend needs help moving and says, “If you help me move, I’ll get you pizza”. Sure, that’s nice,

but contrast this to a situation where he asks for help and you deciding to because of the

friendship you already share, and then he decides to buy you pizza. To me, at least, this feels

better. This second scenario feels more rewarding, and like I’d want to help them again because

they’re appreciating my help, and not dangling it over my head.

Relatedly, and, to me, most importantly, this chapter goes over teamwork. Many

companies like to say things like “we’re all part of a team” when, in reality, it’s a traditional
hierarchal management style (Kerzner, 2010). This false mentality is what leads to a rewards

system that doesn’t truly motivate employees. The simple way of things is that in genuine

teaming, people naturally work together and “involvement just happens” (Kerzner, 2010). This

involves good relationships and behavioral knowledge. As a leader at Starbucks I relate to this

immensely. As mentioned earlier, certain incentives never entice my baristas to work harder

and reach a specific goal. What works the best, honestly, sounds so simple that it’s hard to

believe it works. I communicate it with everyone and set the example myself of what my

expectation is. This is what good leaders do: they set expectations and become what they want

their team to be.

Project Scope, Schedule, and Resources- Pick Two

Throughout the Harvard simulations the most difficult part has been meeting all criteria

of project scope, deadlines, and budget. In all scenarios I’ve run, I’ve only been able to meet

(maybe) two of these factors. Usually I go out of budget to get the project completed by the

deadline, or I stay within budget and the project is completed late. In all of these my resources

regarding team morale is also tertiary compared to scope and schedule. In the simulation it’s

because it’s only worth 100/1000 points but also because it seems inevitable that the team

becomes stressed.

In Brad Egeland’s blog post Project Scope, Schedule, and Resources- Pick Two he states

that he almost always picks the project scope and the deadline to be his primary focuses

(Egeland, 2013). He picks the first two because he believes that people are generally able to
manage themselves (or should be able to) and that professionals that need extreme oversight

should be replaced (Egeland, 2013).

It’s interesting to me to hear that as a leader, especially one who is taking college

courses to better their leadership skills in order to manage more effectively. I understand his

point but for me I have to disagree on how much time should be directed to developing team

members. Team members are going to be what makes or breaks a project. In my opinion,

choosing the correct team members from the start, as suggested in Project Management Best

Practices, should be the measure you take against this (Kerzner, 2010). As far as budget, a team

typically has a financial element already determined. To handle the team members in charge of

this is to effectively stay within budget, communicating as often as necessary. Keeping

members on task also keeps the schedule on task. When I’m completing certain goals at

Starbucks such as raising our customer connection scores by the end of the month, I focus less

on the time it needs to be completed by and start working with my resources (team members)

in creating positive behaviors. With regard to scope, this is focused on through the team

members through active communication. Sometimes there are some employees who need

extra help in their motivation to complete such tasks. It’s unrealistic to think of replacing them

in the context of my specific scenario, and so the extra time is taken to ensure they can meet

the requirements. This is what leadership courses are for, to better manage expectations and

motivations of employees. While I understand Brad Egeland’s approach that the employees are

professional and shouldn’t need such coddling, I reject the idea that these people should

immediately be replaced.
Bad is Stronger than Good

While it’s previously mentioned that employees who need a little extra help should be

managed, there is a limit to how much work one should put in on one person before they need

to be replaced. Bob Sutton in his blog post Bad is Stronger than Good references many articles

and videos with regard to letting go of negative people on your team. He argues that “bad

apples do so much damage, and more broadly destructive emotions and incompetence

undermine performance and well-being so much, that the first order of business for any boss is

to eliminate the negative rather than accentuating the positive,” (Sutton, 2011). Essentially,

good is always outweighed by bad. No matter what good you do or how many positive people

you bring on board, the negative people will always affect them and the productivity of a team.

I’ve seen this at Starbucks multiple times. Unfortunately, it often shows up in someone

you didn’t expect when they were hired. When they were hired, they were positive in their

interview, seemingly a team-player, but ended up without motivation from the start or the

slightest interest in working in a team. When I was new to my leadership role there was a girl

who I was overseeing who noticed me make a mistake. It happened. I was new. After this

happened, she began to bad-mouth about me to everyone, even questioning other aspects that

I’d never made mistakes on. The damage she did by doing this hindered my ability to lead my

team on a day-to-day basis. In my case, I documented and reported every rumor I heard that

was spread about me. It was unfortunate, but we had to let her go, because she was so toxic to

the environment that we wouldn’t be able to complete daily tasks and in return couldn’t

complete larger goals of the organization.

 From my personal experience and from the blog post, it shows me that some people are

bad for your team. This can be personal differences or motivational let-downs, but these people

who spread negativity are toxic to the team environment.

Conclusion

The biggest take-away from these readings for me was the Behavioral Excellence

chapter that described rewarding team members after milestones are complete and how

people who are in a genuine team atmosphere will naturally accomplish goals. When relating

this to this week’s Harvard simulation, I believe that having this sort of positive team-culture is

vital for getting through setbacks such as labor cuts and other holds on resources. To me, the

biggest emphasis on a successful project is by having an effective team that works well

together. This way, you can bounce back from these issues that will always occur. To be a good

leader is to anticipate these setbacks and to accommodate the team as needed.

 References

Egeland, B. (2013). Project scope, schedule, resources- pick two. BradEgeland. Retrieved from:
http://www.bradegeland.com/blog/project-scope-schedule-resources-pick-two

Kerzner, H. (2010). Project management best practices. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Prater, J. (2019). Starbucks, lack of labor is killing morale. Coworker. Retrieved from:
https://www.coworker.org/petitions/starbucks-lack-of-labor-is-killing-morale

Sutton, B. (2011). Bad is stronger than good: Why eliminating the negative is more important
than accentuating the positive. Work Matters. Retrieved from:
https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/bad-is-stronger-than-good-why-
eliminating-the-negative-is-more-important-than-accentuating-the-posit.html