Question

Amber Briggs looked nervously at her watch as she sat at the front of a large table in the cafeteria at Kerzner Office Equipment. It was now 10 minutes after 3:00 and only 10 of the 14 members had arrived for the first meeting of the Kerzner anniversary task force. Just then two more members hurriedly sat down and mumbled apologies for being late. Briggs cleared her throat and started the meeting. KERZNER OFFICE EQUIPMENT Kerzner Office Equipment is located in Charleston, South Carolina. It specializes in the manufacture and sales of high-end office furniture and equipment. Kerzner enjoyed steady growth during its first five years of existence with a high-water employment mark of more than 1,400 workers. Then a national recession struck, forcing Kerzner to lay off 25 percent of its employees. This was a traumatic period for the company. Justin Tubbs was brought in as the new CEO, and things began to slowly turn around. Tubbs was committed to employee participation and redesigned operations around the concept of self-managing teams. The company soon introduced an innovative line of ergonomic furniture designed to reduce back strain and carpal tunnel. This line of equipment proved to be a resounding success, and Kerzner became known as a leader in the industry. The company currently employs 1,100 workers and has just been selected for the second straight time by the Charleston Post and Courier as one of the 10 best local firms to work for in South Carolina. AMBER BRIGGS Amber Briggs is a 42-year-old human resource specialist who has worked for Kerzner for the past five years. During this time she has performed a variety of activities involving recruitment, training, compensation, and team building. David Brown, vice president of human resources, assigned Briggs the responsibility for organizing Kerzner’s 10th anniversary celebration. She was excited about the project because she would report directly to top management. CEO Tubbs briefed her as to the purpose and objectives of the celebration. Tubbs stressed that this should be a memorable event and that it was important to celebrate Kerzner’s success since the dark days of the layoffs. Moreover, he confided that he had just read a book on corporate cultures and believed that such events were important for conveying the values at Kerzner. He went on to say that he wanted this to be an employee celebration—not a celebration conjured up by top management. As such, she would be assigned a task force of 14 employees from each of the major departments to organize and plan the event. Her team was to present a preliminary plan and budget for the event to top management within three months. When discussing budgets, Tubbs revealed that he felt the total cost should be somewhere in the $150,000 range. He concluded the meeting by offering to help Briggs in any way he could to make the event a success. Soon thereafter Briggs received the list of the names of the task force members, and she contacted them either by phone or e-mail to arrange today’s meeting. She had to scramble to find a meeting place. Her cubicle in human resources was too small to accommodate such a group, and all the meeting rooms at Kerzner were booked or being refurbished. She settled on the cafeteria because it was usually deserted in the late afternoon. Prior to the meeting she posted the agenda on a flipchart (see Figure C11.1) adjacent to the table. Given everyone’s busy schedules, the meeting was limited to just one hour. THE FIRST MEETING Briggs began the meeting by saying, “Greetings. For those who don’t know me, I’m Amber Briggs from human resources and I’ve been assigned to manage the 10th anniversary celebration at Kerzner. Top management wants this to be a special event— at the same time they want it to be our event. This is why you are here. Each of you represents one of the major departments, and together our job is to plan and organize the celebration.” She then reviewed the agenda and asked each member to introduce him/herself. The tall, red-haired woman to the right of Briggs broke the momentary silence by saying, “Hi, I’m Cara Miller from Plastics. I guess my boss picked me for this task force because I have a reputation for throwing great parties.” In turn each member followed suit. Below is a sampling of their introductions: “Hi, I’m Mike Wales from maintenance. I’m not sure why I’m here. Things have been a little slow in our department, so my boss told me to come to this meeting.” “I’m Megan Plinski from domestic sales. I actually volunteered for this assignment. I think it will be a lot of fun to plan a big party.” “Yo, my name is Nick Psias from accounting. My boss said one of us had to join this task force, and I guess it was my turn.” “Hi, I’m Rick Fennah. I’m the only one from purchasing who has been here since the beginning. We’ve been through some rough times, and I think it is important to take time and celebrate what we’ve accomplished.” “Hi, I’m Ingrid Hedstrom from international sales. I think this is a great idea, but I should warn you that I will be out of the country for most of the next month.” “I’m Abby Bell from engineering. Sorry for being late, but things are a bit crazy in my department.” Agenda 3:00 Introductions 3:15 Project overview 3:30 Ground rules 3:45 Meeting times 4:00 Adjourn FIGURE C11.1 Celebration Task Force Briggs circled the names of the two people who were absent and circulated a roster so that everyone could check to see if their phone numbers and e-mail addresses were correct. She then summarized her meeting with Tubbs and told the group that he expected them to make a formal presentation to top management within 10 weeks. She acknowledged that they were all busy people and that it was her job to manage the project as efficiently as possible. At the same time, she reiterated the importance of the project and that this would be a very public event: “If we screw up, everyone will know about it.” Briggs went over the ground rules and emphasized that from now on meetings would start on time and that she expected to be notified in advance if someone was going to be absent. She summarized the first part of the project as centering on five key questions: when, where, what, who, and how much? She created a stir in the group when she responded to a question about cost by informing them that top management was willing to pay up to $150,000 for the event. Megan quipped, “This is going to be one hell of a party.” Briggs then turned the group’s attention to identifying a common meeting time. After jousting for 15 minutes, she terminated the discussion by requesting that each member submit a schedule of free time over the next month by Friday. She would use this information and a new planning software to identify optimal times. She ended the meeting by thanking the members for coming and asking them to begin soliciting ideas from co-workers about how this event should be celebrated. She announced that she would meet individually with each of them to discuss their role on the project. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. 1. What barriers is she likely to encounter in completing this project? 2. What can she do to overcome these barriers? 3. What should she do between now and the next meeting? 1. Team Development Analysis: The following activities are based on the group project that you have been involved in while taking this course. a. Analyze the development of the team in terms of the five-phase model and the punctuated equilibrium model. Which model does the best job of describing how the team evolved? b. Analyze the group in terms of the nine situational factors that influence team development. What factors positively contributed to group performance? What factors negatively contributed to group performance? How did the group try to overcome the negative factors? What could you have done differently to overcome these negative factors? c. Analyze how effectively the group managed meetings. What did the group do well? What didn’t the group do well? If the group were formed again, what specific recommendations would you make about how the group should manage meetings?

Answer 1

a. Analyze the development of the team in terms of the five-phase model and the punctuated equilibrium model. Which model does the best job of describing how the team evolved?

The development of the team was more in line with the punctuated equilibrium model than the five phase model. In the punctuated equilibrium model, the first meeting establishes the behavior and roles that dominate the first phase of the project (Larson & Gray, 2014). This was definitely the case in our group. The contracting officer led the meeting and defined the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved. This helped everyone leave the meeting with a solid understanding of exactly what was expected of them. We had meetings often, where we could voice concerns, and have the contracting officer answer questions we may have had. The contracting officer could also provide additional guidance or changes to existing guidance. An issue that can arise with the punctuated model is the midpoint, the transition between the first and second phase, can take a while to reach. Since the midpoint is the point in the project when the team starts making the most progress, it would be good to get to that point earlier than later. With good project management, deadlines and milestones can be used to push the transition, and set the team into their phase of increased progression (Larson & Gray, 2014). The contracting officer set multiple deadlines for us, to keep us on track, and ensure we were progressing towards the final product.

The equilibrium model worked best for us for a couple of different reasons. First, all the team members, in this situation, knew each other. Although this was a new project, we had all worked together on different things, here and there, in the past. There was no forming and storming phases. Instead, our group mirrored the equilibrium model as we started in phase one, and quickly moved into phase two as deadlines neared.

b. Analyze the group in terms of the nine situational factors that influence team development. What factors positively contributed to group performance? What factors negatively contributed to group performance? How did the group try to overcome the negative factors? What could you have done differently to overcome these negative factors?

One thing I have always thought is underused are templates. In this situation, and others throughout my time working for the Air Force, I noticed that there are too many data calls, and taskers, with no template. When asking various organizations to produce input and things along those lines, I think giving them a template or tool to fill in would make it easier for two reasons. First, when the organizations receives the template or tool, they know exactly what information is needed. Also, when the function in charge of compiling the data has to, it will be much easier if the information from everyone is uniform. For example, when I worked as a budget analyst, the budget officer would do a data call for all the organizations on base without providing a template. First, we would receive a ton of questions about exactly what he wanted from the various resource advisors. Then, the analysts would receive all kinds of different excel spreadsheets, with all kinds of different data. It made it hard to compile the final product that headquarters wanted.

c. Analyze how effectively the group managed meetings. What did the group do well? What didn’t the group do well? If the group were formed again, what specific recommendations would you make about how the group should manage meetings?

The team managed meetings fairly well. The contracting officer would send out the invite, and let the group know what they needed to bring to the meeting. When everyone showed up and was socializing, when the meeting was supposed to begin, he would always start by saying “Alright, today we are here to discuss This let everyone know the meeting had started, and exactly what the goal for the outcome of the meeting was. This is much different than the situation in videos we watched this week. The group in the video was not able to accomplish anything at their meeting because no one came prepared. Also, on top of not being prepared, there was no structure to their meeting, so everyone wanted to talk about different things, and there was no itinerary to fall back on for direction. The only thing the team did not do well was hold on to their questions until the end. Sometimes, team members would ask questions about guidance unique to their organization. This could get the group off track, making the contracting officer answer questions that did not pertain to anyone else. In the end, if I were to form the group again, my recommendation would be for us to discuss the major issues, and hold questions that do not affect everyone in the group until the end, or after the meeting. This would prevent excessively long meetings, and allow us to use our time more efficiently.