Case 2: Satera Team at Imatron Systems Inc.

Group C - Mariano Bonilla, Shira Cohen, Liis Hallisk, Chen Su

1. How would you describe the cognitive styles of Ira Lovas and David Bennet? How would
you describe their personality in terms of the Big-5 factors?

2. What team malfunctions is being caused by the individual differences between Lovas
and Bennet? Which of those individual differences are key to the conflict?
Individual differences between Lovas and Bennet affected Satera team significantly as it was
challenging to work as a team and at the same time witness the intellectual debates that on
regular basis turned into nasty and unproductive bickering. The relationship between the two
Senior Mechanical Engineers resulted in slowing down the Satera teams productivity and
progress. Since Lovas and Bennet could not find common ground and work together on
designing the support structure for the imaging system, they were asked to create competing
designs separately. As a result, the team did not complete the mechanical design phase of the
project on schedule which meant that the time window for completing the prototype
development needed to be reduced. Being on time was incredibly important because the whole
mechanical design of the system was dependant on finalisation of the support structure. This was
a major concern for the team as well as for the management considering the fact that the project
prototype deadline was fixed with a specific date in the contract between ISI and US
Government. In addition, the contract included a penalty clause that called for reductions in
payments for delays in delivery, meaning this could have a serious financial impact on the
profitability of the company.
On the other hand, the dysfunctional relationship between the two Senior Mechanical Engineers
reduced the team collaboration and communication between the other team members of the
Satera project. Although the team was highly skilled and motivated, the lack of cohesion and
abundance of conflict made it impossible for them to effectively collaborate, create a supportive
team environment and progress towards the common goal. The disagreements between Lovas
and Bennet only divided the team further and resulted in important design issues not being
addressed on time. For example, Pinto realised that the electrical engineers had only a vague idea
of what the mechanical engineers were working on and vice versa. Furthermore, the lack of
communication and trust between the team members contributed to their fear of speaking up and
expressing their opinions to Lovas and Bennet. Satera team members were reported to ‘holding
their breath’ when decisions needed to be communicated as they were scared to pick sides and
witness the reaction. Consequently, the team spirit of the Satera team was low and they did not
feel enthusiastic about their contributions to the team. They never developed mutual trust and
therefore could not work together effectively as a team. The outcome of the company survey
emphasised the dysfunctional state of the team even further as Satera reported considerably less
work group support than other RID teams at ISI and rated their individual work higher in both
quality and creativity over the team’s work as a whole.
Although both Lovas and Bennet were highly qualified and experienced, the conflicts between
them two came down to their clash in personalities that caused them to have very different
working styles. In addition, they were both too proud and competitive to let the other one ‘win.’
Lovas could be described as having the ‘Type A’ personality and Bennet the complete opposite
with ‘Type B’ personality. For example, Lovas was methodical, detail-oriented and tended to
focus on applying tried and true methods of solving a problem. Bennet on the other hand was
highly innovative and approached problems from several different angles at once and was
interested in the ‘big picture’. Bennet’s unique problem-solving completely overwhelmed Lovas
and Lovas’s approach left Bennett exasperated. These individual differences resulted in Lovas
and Bennet speaking two different languages and failing to find common ground to embrace
each other’s ideas and work effectively together as a team.

3. Present three possible options that manager Gary Pinto has to address the situation and
evaluate them. What is your recommendation for him?
As the manager, Gary Pinto has a difficult decision on his hands that would affect the dynamics
of the team. With two talented engineers who don’t support each other’s work, Gary must decide
if he wants to choose Lovas’ safe but functional design, or Bennet’s unproven but innovative
idea. Another factor to consider is Bennet’s decreasing morale each time that one of his bold
ideas doesn’t get selected.
One solution would be to select Bennet’s idea on a trial basis. Gary would need to establish a
deadline for when he needs a finished prototype, and both engineers would then work together
on the one design. This would teach them how to work together in a team, rather than the
individualistic approach they typically take. Should it fail, Lovas’ design is available and has
been proven to deliver the desired results. Although it’s not as lightweight as desired, Lovas’
design is a suitable alternative. This solution would greatly reduce the risk of losing Bennet from
the team, as it’s giving him an opportunity to put one of his designs to the test.
The second solution would be to select Bennet’s idea, fully commit to it, and have both Bennet
and Lovas work on finding the solution. This would be a strategic decision for Gary, as it could
determine the direction he wants to take the team. The engineering team is more inclined for
ideas such as Lovas’ because proven methods and techniques are used. However, as Bennet
pointed out, if the company wants to advance and become a leader in their field, they would need
to produce fresh ideas that have never been seen before. Committing to solving the defect in
Bennet’s idea will broaden the team’s perspective and prove that even new ideas with
malfunctions can be transformed into reliable and dependable products.
Lastly, Gary could split the team of engineers in two groups and have each one work on the
opposite’s project. This would mean that Bennet and his team would be working to make Lovas’
design more lightweight, and that Lovas and his team would be working to make Bennet’s idea
more durable. This option would teach the two engineers to appreciate the work of the other.
While they don’t agree on each other’s methods, improving the design would open their mind to
another point of view. A lot of value could be gained from understanding the different
techniques, and would inspire the two to reach a middle ground for future projects.
In all three scenarios, Gary would be making a big step towards uniting the team and inspiring
creativity. However, to encourage long term partnership, we would recommend that he organize
a quarterly team building activity. As previously mentioned, the team takes a very individualistic
approach to not only their work, but their social interactions as well. They have a difficult time
speaking casually and recognizing their peer’s achievements. By engaging in a team building
activity, the team will be forced to work together and it will also allow for everyone’s strengths
to be utilized.
Additionally, Gary has a very impactful developmental opportunity with Lovas and Bennet.
Every time that there is a team meeting, it often leads to disagreements between the two
engineers. In turn this makes the rest of the team uncomfortable and reduces their desire to
participate. These types of meetings aren’t productive and bring little to no value to any
members. To develop Lovas’ and Bennet’s leadership and soft skills, he can empower each one
to take a turn at running the team meeting. Over time, the two engineers will learn how to
respond to the team member’s concerns in an effective way, as well as encourage their team to
provide feedback and ideas. This will create a more collaborative working environment that
would allow the company to develop bold and innovative strategies.