Michelle Arzac

Jared Greenberg
Patrick Marchant
Ashwin Moorthy
Hannah Simpson
MGT 310 - Devils Scholars
Army Crew Team Case
50-point team assignment

Objective: Analyze the team in the case and make recommendations regarding what
actions should be taken. You should integrate specific examples from the case as well as
class material.

1 copy to class, and upload answers to safeassign.

Grading Criteria

m
er as
I. Properly integrates course material
II. Utilizes relevant, specific examples

co
eH w
III. Provides complete responses
IV. Clearly organized structured, and communicated

o.
V. Overall quality
rs e
ou urc
1) Identify the problem: What is your evaluation of the Varsity team’s outcomes?
o

What is your evaluation of the JV team’s outcomes?

aC s
vi y re

The Varsity team started out winning due to the use of pure individual talent and
strength. However, as the season progressed, team unity disintegrated. The initial
problem with the varsity team was that they lacked team cohesion and they didn’t seem
to share the same team norms and goals. The Varsity's lack of a leader was evident when
ed d

considering the outcomes. “Leadership is a process in which an individual influences the

ar stu

progress of group members toward attainment of a goal” (pg 166). Establishing a leader
from the beginning could have built stronger cohesion amongst the team members. The
frustration caused by this lack of leadership ultimately caused the boat to fall apart, which
is

in turn led to more frustration. This led to the distrust of team members and a feeling of
individuality within the team.
Th

The Varsity team’s poor outcomes were not surprising. Although the eight man
team met the qualifications of being the Varsity team, their lack of cooperation resulted in
them losing against the Junior Varsity team. It is “crucial for the eight individual athletes
sh

to synchronize their rowing” (Levi, Pg 3). The lack of trust between the members of the
Varsity team caused them to think more about individual bases work rather than the
collaborative. Upon the return to campus from their training session in Atlanta, they were
critical of each other instead of encouraging, while pointing fingers at who was
considered to be the weak link. Varsity was ““merciless” in their assessment of one

This study source was downloaded by 100000829791582 from CourseHero.com on 08-15-2021 12:56:56 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/7368811/Final-Army-Case-Questions-Answers/
 Michelle Arzac
Jared Greenberg
Patrick Marchant
Ashwin Moorthy
Hannah Simpson
another’s performance” (Levi, Pg 3). Correspondence between Varsity teammates was
harsh and did not harbor a sense of community or teamwork.
The Junior Varsity team was comprised of the bottom eight rowers that did not
appear as good as the Varsity team individually. However, because they were considered
to be the bottom 8, this did not have any affect on the teamwork of this team. As the
Varsity and the Junior Varsity teams competed against one another, it was clear that two
thirds of the time, the Junior Varsity team prevailed over the Varsity. The Junior Varsity
team wrote encouraging and motivating emails to each other as a way to continue
working with a collective mindset. Groups with norms supporting communication and
positive attitudes toward conflict are more likely to identify and discuss problems (Levi,
Pg 190). The emails did not point fingers at any weaklings as the Varsity had done, but

m
er as
merely what each one could perform better at their next race. This made for a stronger
team. In this instance, not only was teamwork important but the encouraging messages to

co
eH w
one another made for better cohesion. “Group cohesiveness encourages groupthink by
creating an environment that limits internal dissension and criticism. External pressure

o.
for a decision limits discussion time and encourages the group to support the first
rs e
plausible option presented to the members.” (Levi, Pg 156). It was noted that the JV team
ou urc
virtually had no disrupters whereas the Varsity team did. The JV results are impressive
and it goes to show how their quality team effort outmatched a stronger faster varsity
team.
o
aC s
vi y re

2) Identify the causes: Why does the Varsity Team lose to the JV Team?

The Varsity team lost to the Junior Varsity team because although they were
individually very talented, they could not work in unity. The Varsity squad had the eight
ed d

strongest members on the team but they could not work as one to complete their common
ar stu

goal. The Junior Varsity team performed at a consistent level, never getting worse or
better, while the varsity team continued to decline in performance. The article states that
teamwork, adjusting to imperfect synchronization, and trust are some of the keys to being
is

an effective rowing team. The Varsity team lost because there was no established leader
and there were multiple disruptors, while the Junior Varsity team had no disruptors. They
Th

started to vent their frustration by talking ill of other team members in e-mails and losing
trust in one another, in significant comparison to the “rowing for every guy” approach
that the Junior Varsity team took. We also saw the varsity team become more separated
through their post-race individual member critiques. This was in opposition to the Junior
sh

Varsity team, who looked at what the whole team could do moving forward.

This study source was downloaded by 100000829791582 from CourseHero.com on 08-15-2021 12:56:56 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/7368811/Final-Army-Case-Questions-Answers/
 Michelle Arzac
Jared Greenberg
Patrick Marchant
Ashwin Moorthy
Hannah Simpson
3) Evaluation: What should Coach P have done differently earlier in the season to
resolve this problem? At exactly what point should he have intervened differently?

There are a multitude of things that Coach P could have done differently earlier in
the season in an effort to resolve the problem. One example occurred during the Atlanta
retreat, where he conducted a series of intense “seat races” to determine who would be on
the varsity and junior varsity squad. Instead of focusing solely on individual skills, Coach
P could have focused on improving team compatibility and technique with the strongest
rowers. In turn, this would have strengthened the group cohesion that they evidently
lacked. Younger team members felt discouraged by older members who would not listen
to them, signifying that Coach P should have focused on team building rather than solely

m
er as
on individual strength and conditioning. “Team building programs typically focus on
improving teamwork skills, developing social relations, and solving problems that disrupt

co
eH w
team performance” (Levi, Pg 295). Examples of team building could have included a
team trip, volunteer work as a team, and various other activities to help the team avoid

o.
any faultlines from developing. Doing this is important because on the water, there is too
rs e
much pressure and not enough structure in the event for the team to work as a proper
ou urc
team building exercise.
By not allowing the team do spend enough time in the forming phase of team
development and thus unable to move out of the storming phase, the team was
o

dramatically hindered. By returning to the forming phase, Coach P could have seen a
aC s

drastic change in the team’s outcomes. He should have taken action when he could
vi y re

clearly interpret why the junior varsity team performed better than the varsity. The team
morale, goals, and overall outlook of the junior varsity team were in clear contrast to the
varsity team. The Junior Varsity team acted collectively while the varsity team had an
individualistic approach.
ed d
ar stu

4) Identify potential solutions and recommendation: At the end of the case, what
action should Coach P take on Tuesday? Why do you recommend this action? How
is

should he implement this action. Please be specific.

Th

On Tuesday, Coach P should become more involved with the varsity team to help
them find “team unity”. It does not make sense to switch the Junior Varsity and Varsity
boats, as the Varsity team has a clear physical advantage. It also does not make sense to
switch individual members of boats as they have expressed “dread” towards the idea.
sh

Intervening to improve the varsity boat’s performance is therefore the action plan that
Coach P should take because the athletes are capable of performing at a high level, but
currently have individualistic mindsets.
The first thing that Coach P can do to implement this action is make the rowers of
the Varsity team speak up when conflict occurs. By engaging in discussions and being

This study source was downloaded by 100000829791582 from CourseHero.com on 08-15-2021 12:56:56 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/7368811/Final-Army-Case-Questions-Answers/
 Michelle Arzac
Jared Greenberg
Patrick Marchant
Ashwin Moorthy
Hannah Simpson
willing to compromise, conflict can be resolved through common agreements (Levi, Pg
192). Once team members are able to communicate in this manner, trust must be built in
order for the team to be able to move forward and build group cohesion (Levi Pg 63-64).
Being able to rely on each other, and have a common goal that everyone is working
towards is very important for the Varsity team. Finally, once all teammates are able to
trust each other and work through conflicts, they can row on the water as an effective
team.

5) Final Evaluation: How would you compare the Army Crew team to other types of

m
er as
organizational teams? What are the key similarities and differences? What lessons
can we learn from the Army Crew team?

co
eH w
The Army Crew team can be compared to organizational teams including sports

o.
such as baseball, basketball, hockey, and football. The key similarity of this is that you
rs e
are as strong as your weakest link. A collective group effort must be stronger than the
ou urc
individual effort. Another similarity is that you need to be able to rely and trust your other
team members. When there is no foundation for a trusting relationship on a team, they are
more likely to experience a loss in their processes and outcomes. The key difference from
o

organizational teams is that on a boat, the smallest mistake creates an immediate impact
aC s

on the team. Because this immediate relay of information is available, rowers are more
vi y re

likely to become extremely dissatisfied with the efforts of their team while trying to
complete their objectives.
One important lesson that can be taken away from the Army Crew team is how
having a poor attitude and a lack of leadership can be catastrophic to the group’s
ed d

outcomes. This was evident by the varsity team having no established leader and the way
ar stu

they mercilessly critiqued each other after a practice or race. Another lesson that can be
taken away from this is the need for group cohesion in order to be successful. Without
group cohesion, a team is more likely to fall apart and this results in a snowball effect,
is

which can ultimately ruin a team that is comprised of exceptional individuals (Levi, Pg
64). The foundation of group cohesion occurs during the forming stage (Levi, Pg 40) for
Th

teams, and neglecting to spend adequate time in this phase can render the team’s future
outcomes subpar to their capabilities.
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000829791582 from CourseHero.com on 08-15-2021 12:56:56 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/7368811/Final-Army-Case-Questions-Answers/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)