Team Activity

OGL 300
Keanna Spencer
9/1/2021
Case Study: Starts with a Bang, Ends With a Whimper

After reviewing the case study “Starts with a Bang, Ends With a Whimper,” we
found there were multiple characteristics of excellence that were lacking in the task
force responsible for planning the mission for the university over the next twenty years.
Many of the eight characteristics were present in the beginning of the project but as time
went on, they dwindled off one by one.The team was only provided one question: “What
should the university be like in the year 2020? This is not enough information to provide
a clear, elevating goal. Without more details and guidance, the team members could not
seem to agree on what the charge meant to the team.

Results-driven structure was lacking because no clear roles were established for
the team members and there weren’t any methods of assessing individual performance
or establishing productive norms. This allowed team members to do whatever they
wanted such as show up late, leave early, and continually putting off the project. It was
also clear that this team was not measuring results or holding each other accountable.
Accountability or lack thereof started with the President; it dwindled with the team
leader; and shriveled and died within the task force.

Composed of senior faculty members and administrators from across campus, it

is easy to assume these members were well-educated and competent team members.
However, there isn’t enough information to conclude if the team itself had the right
combination of knowledge, traits, and skills competent at creating a mission for a
university, or if care had been taken in considering if the team members complemented
each other, provided diversity, and would work well together. It is clear the leadership
was not competent at leading.

Unified commitment was nonexistent because there wasn’t any careful planning
that had taken place when building the team and the leadership did not help the team
develop a sense of unity or identification. Working as a group of individuals rather than
a cohesive high functioning unit caused the team to argue about what they were
supposed to accomplish, and they resented the time they were wasting. We can
conclude that the collaborative climate was not one of psychological safety, wasn’t
supportive, and the ability to integrate everyone’s ideas was low considering the team
only had a weekly meeting to work together and as soon as they didn’t agree on
something, they did not work together to find a middle ground.
 The team was void of any standards of excellence. Having no clear norms of
conduct established and zero concrete standards, they continued to be at a loss of any
required results or expectations for the team. In need of feedback, guidance, and
rewards the team was desperate for motivation to perform at the high standards a
successful team would expect. There appears to be no external support other than the
ability to use the President’s office. The president’s enthusiasm when announcing the
importance of the project promised great recognition, however none was offered by
anyone in leadership. Dr. Sulgrave wasn’t present past the announcement of the
project. The team chair, Kim Green, seemed to have no real interested in the
committee after it was initially put together.

All the above would have had a slight chance had there been principled
leadership. In this scenario, there appears to be a complete lack of principles of
leadership, and every change to rectify the team’s problems were ignored. Regardless,
anyone on the team could have been an emergent leader and proactively reached out
for guidance and then influence the team by helping them work out the problems they
faced, increasing motivation and start helping the team as a whole instill the
characteristics needed to succeed.
The eight characteristics of team excellence follow each other like a domino effect, if
one aspect is failing it will affect the entire process. Which of the eight characteristics of
team excellence are lacking in this team? All of them. In the end, not even one could
verifiably be present.

When looking at Kim Green as a leader I would say she was missing all the
essential attributes as a leader. In my opinion, she didn’t do anything to lead her team.
She never set any goals for her team or maintain any standards of excellence
throughout the entire committee meetings. The biggest red flag to me was when she
realized that the meets were no longer successful and the team morale was dying down
but she didn’t want the University president to find out, so instead of doing anything she
just kept to herself and become frustrated instead if doing anything productive to save
the groups morale or the overall project.

If I were the leader of this task force, I would start internally and be very goal-
oriented and task each member of the team with a specify task they needed to complete
with a deadline. This would ensure the team was structured for results. I would also set
up standards of excellence by creating a code of conduct, so each member knows what
they are responsible for bringing to the team. Externally I would monitor my team’s
progress and make sure every member was pulling their weight to ensure we stay on
track to meet our deadlines.