GROUP CASE: Report #4

The Leo Burnett Company Ltd.: Virtual

Team Management

COURSE: GBUS 871 – Group

Dynamics in Organizations

INSTRUCTOR: Allison Goldman

TEAM MEMBERS: Theralee Wright-Kelly

Okwukwe Obadiah
John Joseph
Abbas Bari Audhip

DATE: August 10, 2022

Introduction

This report examines the team at Blake Sports Apparel and its Chief Executive Officer, Cameron Barker, based

in Birmingham, England. It highlights the operating procedures of its seven executive team members, including

its newly founded subsidiary, Switch Activewear, situated in Edinburgh, Scotland. The group is highly

qualified and has contributed significantly to the company's success. They are diverse in gender, and

personality types and highly competitive between divisions. This competitiveness comes about because each

division reports independently to Barker, who has not ensured that the teams work with team spirit and

collaboration. Despite their apparent successes, the team is plagued with dysfunctionalities due to a lack of

trust, cohesion, inter-dependence, succession planning, withholding information, and a masculinity contest

culture.

Background

Blake Sports Apparel was originally established by Barker’s father. He paid licensing fees to leagues to use

their brands and logos to manufacture sports apparel and accessories, which would then be sold to retailers in

the market. After ten years, Cameron Barker took over its leadership and boosted its revenue significantly by

partnering with Cartlock, a mid-size brand that gave them a larger market share. Despite its success, the

partnership was disproportionate, with Cartlock accounting for ninety percent of Blake’s business but only

fifteen to twenty percent in reverse. After a decade, feeling that their businesses were no longer aligned, Barker

decided to dissolve the partnership, through many negotiations while brokering a new one with Howell, a

significant global brand. To meet their requirements, Barker had to undertake infrastructural upgrades despite

limited resources. This partnership also had to be re-negotiated to fulfill the needs of both entities adequately,

but it took six stressful months. However, five years later, Blake’s was poised to become one of Howell’s

largest-volume partners. Switch Activewear, the subsidiary, was built to leverage Blake Sports Apparel’s

infrastructure. Though his executive team performed excellently all through the transformation period, Barker
worried about his team. The organization was structured to resemble silos, which meant different divisions

acted independently of each other. There was no cross-functional leader to bring the teams together, therefore

communication and trust among members were low, and only sub-group socialization existed. Barker is now

weighing his options to deal with the dysfunctions of the team, which include dissolving the team, and allowing

them to dismantle themselves or providing an intervening solution before the situation worsens.

Problem

Barker wanted his executive team to collaborate to achieve Blake’s long-term goals of five hundred million

dollars in revenue in the next five years and one billion dollars in revenue by ten years. But even after the

completion of the latest annual Gap review, which highlights company opportunities, was finalized, the

company still experienced reduced revenue from missed opportunities.

This led from miscommunication and lack thereof to delayed business decisions, difficulty communicating

business processes and a clear indication that task guidelines and procedures were not documented or being

adhered to. With the executive team finding it hard to arrive at group cohesion, it has affected customer support

and may ultimately cost them industry reputation and hinder the ambitious goals Barker has set.

The lack of group inclusion and integration of the Switch Activewear group indicates management oversight.

The clear purpose and structure of this addition to the team were not clearly expressed to headquarters, or else

they would not have been viewed as a waste of time and a distraction from the company's main goals. They

were also ill-equipped to manage themselves and contribute effectively to team output, reducing their

credibility and relevance to the overarching goals. It is also evident that the executive team lacks effectiveness

due to the absence of psychological safety, structure and clarity, dependability, meaning and impact (Google’s

Project Aristotle: Rework n.d.a), which resulted in a significant decrease in profitability and continuous loss of

opportunities.
The executive team needs to work with a team spirit to return their company to profitability by breaking the

communication barrier, eliminating mistrust, and adopting collaboration in their daily activities across

departments without seeing each other as competitors.

Analysis

Before its partnership with Howell, Blake’s structure and modus operandi were ad hoc in nature, which had to be

changed to a more organized and detail-oriented profile to keep up with the pace of change and growth of Howell.

Changing how they viewed their revenue and margin figures allowed them to see that they were not meeting those

marks as previously perceived and that they were under-performing in that area. The realization meant that these

teams that were previously operating as stand-alone divisions now had to work together to develop new ideas to

make the company more substantial and more viable.

Impact of Early Entrepreneurial Success

The organizational structure of Blake’s Apparel was designed to foster a silo approach to reporting, but as each

department demonstrated its own level of success, the structure and its procedures were not questioned. But as the

company is seeking ambitious growth potential, it is forced to revisit its current operational processes since they are

currently impeding business transactions and may damage its reputation. Despite the obvious dysfunctionalities, the

company was growing faster than its competitors, stood to be the largest-volume partner for Howell, and received a

large loan from a global bank to improve its infrastructure and business operations.

Trust, Communication and Information Sharing

There is a lack of interdependence among departments and as a consequence there was a lack of commitment to

building each other (Ferrazi, 2021), which reduced their performance metrics and brought about apportionment of

blame (Ferrazi, 2021). Psychological safety was an issue too since members were uncomfortable sharing their

opinions during meetings for fear of letdown or ridicule from others. There was also a masculinity contest culture of

“give ‘em hell” (crush the opposition) in existence as executive members tried to outsmart each other (Berdahl,

2018). Since each department worked in isolation, it caused friction in ascertaining margins or revenues
(Eisenhardt, 1997). Mistrust about other members' motivation led them to “making decisions in a vacuum” (Zartler,

2017). Conflict resolution was poor (Eisenhardt, 1997), and mediation was always requested from Barker, who was

clearly uncomfortable in that role.

Impacts on Team Performance and Cohesion

The company's goals were financially based, their evaluation and rewards were also monetary based, and the plans

did not expand to group orientation and cooperation (Wheelan, et al. 2020), which is why the Finance department

felt they had more prominence and a louder voice than other departments. The four central departments: Sales,

Operations, Marketing and Finance, are struggling with their agendas to meet their individual goals without

recognizing that they are just slices within a whole pie. They all need to collaborate to reach their overall goals

without it being the luck of the draw.

Team Structures and Decision Making-Process

Howell is a well-established company and has set high standards for operating under its umbrella, so too is the

global bank from which they secured additional funding. They have also stipulated stringent policies that Blake

would have to comply with meeting their audit reviews. These stakeholders, along with the internal turmoil and a

lack of inter-group leadership support, have placed a heavy burden on Barker to meet his ambitious goals. There was

a lack of a balanced power structure (Eisenhardt, 1997). There was a lack of commitment to strengthening the group

as a whole as seen when the parent company totally focused on their outcomes while ignoring its subsidiary, Switch

Activewear (Ferrazi, 2021), because its operation had little to do with Howell’s.

CEO’s Leadership Style

Barker’s leadership style is questionable and not engaging enough with team members. He has also not held his

executives accountable for purposefully missing team meetings or important deadlines or abstaining from sharing

pertinent information with other members. His senior team meetings have no clear structure or purpose and go on

for long periods, which could be one of the reasons the executives abscond from them. Barker has not empowered

the middle management team to take on the business's daily operations, while creating a pool of succession
prospects, so senior executives can focus on strategic goals. He held no one accountable for any shortcomings

(Zartler, 2017), not even himself. He now considers his next options to move the company forward, whether he

should dissolve his executive team, rotate staff or find a middle ground to save jobs and gel the team together before

the situation worsens and further impacts the bottom line.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Ensure that the different departments feel their distinct identities are valued and that their work is

essential to the superordinate team.

Pros: The departmental heads would all feel that their contributions are worthy and are participating in the

achievement of the company’s goals, as opposed to always competing for the attention and approval of the

CEO and their peers. The respective departments will be more involved in the work process and will be more

inclined to share information across departments.

Cons: Since this is usually accomplished through the leader, the CEO will have to commit to changing his

current practices and adopt a more inclusive approach to leadership. This approach will require using a third

party assistance, which would require effort, time and money to succeed.

Alternative 2: The C.E.O. could demonstrate flexible leadership styles throughout the leadership phases to

enable him to get desired results to ensure growth and sustainability and to ensure that the masculinity contest

culture in place is abolished.

Pros: This will create an atmosphere of oneness, teaming, and collaboration which would help to reduce

revenue losses, and hold persons accountable for their actions.

Cons: It will take a lot of time for team members to adjust to the new normal as they have not been working

with that pattern in the past decades. There is also the possibility that executives will still not be interested in
working together.

Alternative 3: Dissolve the Team

Pros: The CEO would have a fresh perspective on moving forward. The new team would be new, motivated

and eager to make their mark. The CEO could more easily implement group activities and co-dependence

among the departments.

Cons: This process could be time-consuming and will incur additional costs. It could affect the going concern

status of the company.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Option 1 be implemented to resolve the issues Blake’s Apparel is facing and the fact

that he also needs to change his approach to leadership. In this option Barker could engage a consultant to aid

in the team bonding exercise, which is done by Barker emphasizing the importance of each department’s input

and the relevance each team has to each other. He should be demonstrating the impact they could have together

as opposed to competing with each other and withholding vital information. Barker with the aid of his

consultant could teach the teams about engaging in healthy conflicts and not interpersonal ones and holding

each other accountable for their actions, based on a set code of conduct, focusing on the overarching goal and

not just their individual goals.

Action Plan:

Short term:

● Barker will need to engage a consultant to assist him in making this change in behavior, He will need to

ensure that there is clarity of roles and responsibilities to members, which would also outline

functionalities across teams. The company needs to construct a code of conduct that will highlight
 appropriate and inappropriate group behaviors and expectations, and the consequences for compliance

and failure.

● Strengthening psychological safety by being more engaging, listening to the problems and asking

probing questions. Showing that their issues have been thoroughly considered and provide feedback.

Having regular reflection and debriefing exercises.

● Reiterate company directions and regularly communicate team goals ensuring that each team

understands their roles in achieving the overall goals of the company. Ensure the meeting has a clear

agenda and that leaders are held accountable for any absenteeism without sufficient notice or reason for

absence.

● In order to minimize competition among the teams, the practice of quick and positive feedback should

be given as well as the show of public expressions of gratitude for good work and support among teams.

● The CEO should develop a consistent habit of consulting with his team in determining pressing issues

for more focused meetings, which will consequently drive to a closure ( Lencioni, 2018). This will also

build more collaboration between him and his team.

● Co-create a clear vision that reinforces team mates contribution towards the team development, as well

as the organizational goal.

Long term:

● Engage in regular leadership training to build the capacity of the leaders in group development, as well

as to create a buffer for succession planning.

● Engage an inter-group leader as a permanent part of the organization structure.

Conclusion

Blake Sports Apparel and Switch Activewear experienced early success through its early and current

partnership. However, because of the team’s dysfunction an intervention was necessary if the CEO wanted to
achieve his ambitious goals. Lack of collaboration and cohesion was identified as the major reason affecting

the team's effectiveness. With the inclusion of group development improvements being facilitated by a third

party, a consultant, the CEO will now be able to continue his strategic business planning with the support he

requires, while learning to adjust his behavior to an engaging and accommodating leader. One that allows the

freedom to voice concerns but also enforces accountability among members. It is expected that in the long run

the executive team will develop a team spirit, reducing the barriers to communication, returning the company to

large profits and the strengthening of their reputation.

References

Berdahl, J. C. (2018). Work as a Masculinity Contest. Journal of Social Issues, 433.

Eisenhardt, K. K. (1997). How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review.

Ferrazi, K. R. (2021). Leading strategies: 7 strategies to build a more resilient team. Harvard Business Review,

6.

Google, (n.d.a.). Google’s Project Aristotle. Re-work. Guide: Understand team effectiveness.

https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/

Haas, M. &. (2016). Leading teams: The secrets of great teamwork. Harvard Business Review.

Wheelan, S., Åkerlund, M., Jacobsson, C. (2020, September 9). Creating Effective Teams: A Guide for

Members and Leaders. 6th Edition. Sage Publications Inc. ISBN: 9781544332963790

Zartler, J. (2017, September 7). Lencioni's 5 Dysfunctions of a Team.

https://medium.com/taskworld-blog/lencionis-5-dysfunctions-of-a-team-330d58b2cd81