Written Assignment

Unit 5

BUS 5113, University of the People

1. Why is this case about team conflict? What conflicts do you see developing?

The vigilance project is formed to migrate the legacy system of the pharmaceutical company to

the vigilance system. The team is formed where the team members include both the USA and

France-based companies operating individually before the merger. This case is about a team

conflict between France and the USA team. The communication lead, validation lead, and

training lead are based in France, while the Project manager, the global user lead, the global

information system lead, and the quality and compliance lead were based in the USA. Their sub-

teams and their leads are based in both countries. It is clear the conflict has emerged among the

teams and sub-teams located in two different jurisdictions. So, it is a team conflict.

In this project, the conflict developing is multifaceted. A few of the distinct pieces of evidence

are distance, lack of collaboration, the unclear role of the core team, and incomplete

collaborative hours during merging, which resulted in the perspective on hold, the waned

enthusiasm of team members, following the chain of command rather than collaborative decision

process. Physical distance, cultural differences, and poor communication are roots of developing

conflict. The consequences of these conflicts have grapevine effects and build mounting stress

and confusion among the team members. 

2. How is distance affecting team dynamics and performance?

The distance is affecting the team members and performance. Lack of enough time for a face-to-

face meeting during the kick-off meeting did not provide an opportunity to get past the

formalities of the project in-depth discussion about the plan of work. The weekly teleconferences

were also canceled without notice by Didier Amrani, the project manager based in France. These

activities restricted the team member from discussing the issues that the team has perceived.

Didier also strongly controlled the way meetings were run by restricting the kinds of information

that was exchanged and the ways in which it was exchanged. His being too autocratic to be

practical avoided the inputs from other team members in the meeting agenda. The limited time of

10 minutes to put issues was too short for an in-depth presentation of the issues. Frank Lanigan,

the communication lead from the USA team, was frustrated, angry and withdrawn, and excluded

from the team as his discretion and expertise were being undermined. Little or no consideration

was given to the ideas of the USA team in the discussion if it happened. Mike Powell, the core

team’s training lead in the USA, suggested his team members not to provide their opinion unless

they were asked to do so. Mentioning of perspective by the members in France was almost taboo.

This all happened due to a lack of one-to-one communication among the leads, subteams, and

individuals. 

3. What do you think about the decision to appoint sub-team sponsors? What problem can

it solve? Which problems might it not solve?

When the tension spread to the subteams and performance was dwindling day by day, Lance

Paulson, the Drug and safety director from the USA team, wrote an email to the entire division

under his and deputy manager Francine D’ Aubigne from the France team. The email reflected
the lack of collaboration in the vigilance project, which was expected to develop some best

practices at the end. So, he took another approach to minimize conflict by considering ideas

fairly and ultimately act in the best company’s interest. With this goal, they appointed Halina

Ducret and Teo Reynard as subteam sponsors. This decision was rational and crucial. 

The sponsor subteam can provide additional conflict management mediation and decision-

making authority. The expectation is their involvement to be the exception rather than the rule.

The sponsor team might not solve the problems if all the team members do not abide by the

majority rule and opinion including Didier Amrani. 

4. In addition to technical skills, what does this case say about the kinds of skills that must

be considered when staffing important projects?

Other than the technical skills, this case study says the following kinds of skills that must be

considered when staffing important projects.

1. Clear and timely communication among the team members

2. Proper team composition and structure. 

3. A comprehensive plan of work and productive project kick-off discussions, in person, if

possible.

4. Compatible leadership is needed that can coordinate the entire team.

5. Respect, integrity, and shared responsibility among the members of the project.

5. What conflict negotiation skills are most appropriate for this case?

The team requires training in selecting and using appropriate conflict management strategies

(Metcalf & Urwick, 2004). Especially in this case, the root cause of conflict is Didier Amrani.
So, conflict negotiation skills like integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising

can be used. Sponsor subteams are assigned to incorporative collaborative initiatives. Proper

training to the team members during project kick-off and when necessary. 

References

The Vigilance (University of the People Library, n.d.). Retrieved on May 10, 2021

form: https://web.stevens.edu/ses/documents/fileadmin/documents/pdf/The_Vigilance_Project_S

tudent_Workbook_Final.pdf

Metcalf, H. C., & Urwick, L. (2004). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary

Parker Follett (Early Sociology of Management and Organizations) (Vol. 1). Taylor & Francis.