In this case, Jose was assigned tolead a group of employees from several companies to discuss and come up withnew ideas for pet caskets. The group consists of representatives from Japan,United States and South America companies. The characteristic of this groupbehavior is it is a formal group. A task group is a group of people that workstogether to complete a job or a task in a limited time and it is not limited byhierarchical boundaries. The aim of the group formed is to gain ideas for a newdesign for their product.
Although the group are consists of people fromdifferent companies and different expertise, they still have to work togetherto achieve their group goals. Besides that, the group was in thesecond stage of group development which is storming. In this stage, the groupmembers are facing some conflicts that might lead to dissatisfaction amongstthem. The objective of their meeting cannot be reach as the group members didnot want to give their cooperation. Instead of brainstorming for new ideas fortheir product, one of the group members, Mariana Preus suggested to justcontinue with their old product design as he said the current design are justfine.
Noko Takeshi also agreed with Mariana Preus. Next, analyzing the roles of thegroup members, Jose acts as initiator as he starts the meeting and aninformation giver when he agreed to contribute some ideas for the new design.He is also an opinion seeker as he asked for other opinions from other groupmembers and an orienter as he directs the meeting back to its main objectiveafter Mariana Preus disagreed with renewing the product’s design.
On the otherhand, Mariana Preus also plays his role as an information giver when he opposethe restructuring of the product’s design. Last but not least, other groupmembers just serve as passive audience-followers as they just agreed withMariana Preus without giving other opinions. Lastly, the task force group had nogroup cohesiveness as the group members did not share the same objective anddid not want to contribute for the task force’s goals. At the end of themeeting, they still cannot come up with new design and Jose was asked torecommend to the council of presidents to use the old design. Thus, it can beconcluded that the task force meeting is not successful.
QUESTION 2Yes, Jose cancommunicate about the need of revolutionize because he has been directed by theprincipal that making him as a decision maker for the meeting. Firstly, therevolutionize is needed because the purpose of the meeting as the collaborationfor brainstorming a new idea about creating a new product line in order ofmeeting the increasing demand around the world. The existing of only consideredas the guideline of recreating a new one.
According to the Jose conversations withMariana Preus, the head of product design from Argentina, it is stated thatMariana Preus insist not to recreate the new product because the current designof the product was already using the latest and technology. Just so the NotoTakeshi, an assistant director from Tokyo recommend and agreed on the currentdesign we good enough which need no new design. In thissituations, As a decision maker, Jose supposedly slowly communicate with themembers, tell them that the purposed of the joint venture is to completelyrevolutionize the product because the existing design has been rejected due tounable to manufacture at low cost to boost the market.
If it is possible, Joseneed to present all the solid evidence and industry data in order to convincethe members that the purpose of the meeting is to redesign the product. Duringthe discussion of the possible new design element, Jose should list down allthe benefits of using old design whether it needs the demand and slowly if it’snot meeting the product can be redesign. In this case, Jose played an importantrole of as the decision maker. According to thebehavioral approach, when the decision maker cannot deal with informationregarding all the aspect relating to a problem. Therefore, He / She choose todeals with something easy at the moment (“4 Types of Approach toDecision-making within an Organisational Setting”, 2017). This approachinvolve a few steps which by using the rules and procedure to reduceuncertainty in decision making. For example, Jose should provide them all withthe details of the needs of product to be revolutionize as well as its solidevidence and industry data.
Next step is sub optimizing which is by acceptingless than the best possible outcome in order of avoiding the unintendednegative effect. According to the case, Jose is accepting the opinion of themembers about writing a memo to the president so that they can continue usingthe existing product. Lastly, the effective communications might help Josecommunicate better with the persons with various job positions and ideas.QUESTION 3In my opinion, I think expertise from each of the groupmembers work as barriers towards discussing the design. Discussion is somethingthe people talk and order to achieve a good decision. In this situation,discussion is important to solve the problem occur in an organization and tryfind the good solution.Inthis situation, the members from each organization need to participate jointthis discussion and indeed exists the group members as barriers towardsdiscussing design. We can look in this situation, each of the leaders such asfrom Japan, United States and South America have a different opinion andreasons.
Jose as a chair of this task force initiated a discussion with themembers of new company. The discussions actually about develop new design forthe new product to increase product demand in future. The first leaders fromArgentina which is Mariana said the current design for the product was enough.She also mentions in meeting that is did not any reason to develop new designfor that product. All members in meeting agreed with Mariana which they don’twant make any changes for their product. Noto Takeshi from Japan also said inmeeting, that is the current product is good enough and no need to update a newproducts. Besides that, Tex which is from United State said he agreed withMariana opinion earlier. Tex said the current design a good enough to do job.
At the end of meeting, Jose which as chair of the task force told to othermembers that their task purpose for design a new product and manufacturing thesystem. Finally, Jose had agreed with all members’ decision which all membersjust want to use the current product and Jose have a different opinion. Josewant write the memo to council of president with his recommendation to usecurrent design of product and manufacturing system.Besidesthat, based on this situation, all the participants in this discussing the newdesign are from different scope of work. We can look not all participants inthis discussing are from design technology scope of work. For example, companyfrom Japanese which is Furuay Masahiko from Yokohama is the president ofJapanese company, Hamada Isao is marketing from technology group and NotoTakeshi is from financial management department. On other hand, company fromUnited States also has the same situation with Japanese company. Thomas Booneis the top manager from forest lands group, Richard Maret is the director ofinformation systems group and Tex is the former CEO.
They feel it’s not theirduty to think about the new design. They feel current designs are enough fortheir company. If all participants are from same scope of work of design,possibility the new design will produced in this company but all participantsare from different scope of work.Inthis case study, it is really work barriers from all members to discussing thedesign. In my opinion, this group development process was not finished secondstage storming. For example, Mariana as information giver because she just wantuse with current design of the product and the other members in that meeting aspassive followers. This is because the all members just agreed with Marianaopinion and did not give any their own opinion.
QUESTION 4From my point of view, the meeting was not successfulbrainstorming session. As far as brainstorming, people regularly tend tooverlook that with the end of goal for it to be accomplished the appropriateresponse is quantity, not quality. Brainstorming represents to the fundamentalinitial phase in beginning periods of another task, significant that everybodysees it is so imperative to be open towards all thought and factors. Normally,issues happen when colleagues want to channel themselves from possible smartthought that they may appear to be unrealistic or just essentially consideringthe fact.In this case study we know that Jose as thechairperson scheduled formal group meeting in the organization together withall the new members from new company and different country. The main purpose ofmeeting because to discuss about innovate the design or remain the existingdesign product.
As we know that, make changes and improve the better service isone of strategy for increase the organization profit. But, in this situationMariana Preus the first representative from Argentina which the head of productdesign said the current design in production at Argentina were just fine anddidn’t see any reason why they should innovate the new design of their product.Additionally, other members of the meeting also agreed with the suggestion ofMariana where not to make any changes.
Even though Jose still reminded themabout their task force’s to redesign the product but still they no consensusand finally Jose agreed with other participants to write a memo to the councilof presidents with the endorsement to stay use current designs and to startdirectly to design the plan and the manufacturing system. In conclusion, the stage of group development for thissituation wasn’t complete and storming. It’s like lots of conflict between allthe participants of the group and Jose as a leader not breaking down thegathering part of roles, in circumstance Jose is the initiator of the meeting, informationgiver, opinion searcher and oriented. Meanwhile, Mariana Preus has a part ofinitiator and data supplier, since he demanded the not overhauling of the product.Other members appear to serve similarly as an uninvolved gathering of peopleadherents, since they all consented to the Mariana’s suggestion, and didn’tgive some other suggestions. Likewise, there was no gathering cohesiveness a”we feeling” restricting gathering individuals together to finishtheir objective. The differing idea of the gathering influenced the board’sactivity by not understanding and taking part of all participants in themeeting. If I was in Jose’s position, I would attempt to keep the gatheringmade a positive impact for the expressed objective better, and not to concurwith the proposal of one part, yet to check the sentimental of everyone fromthe meeting.
QUESTION 5In my opinionculture will be one of the barrier in promoting good team work. A good teamwork is a team that generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. Theindividual efforts result in a performance that is greater than the sum of theindividual inputs. There are several reasons to support my opinion.
Based onthe difficult task force case study, there are 3 different country jointventures and have the objectives to make, sell and also provide service for petcaskets (coffins) for the burial of beloved pets. There are 3 people fromUnited States, 3 people from Japan and 3 people from South America and Joe actas the chair of task force. All the representative from all the differentcompany hold a different position in their company as for example Mariana as the head of product design and NotoTakeshi as assistant director of financial management department.First andforemost, based on the case study we can see that there is diversity workforcein task force. According to Kreitner and Knicki (2008), diversity representsthe multitude differences and similarities that exist among people. When wetalk about diversity it includes ethnicity, physical ability, language, andlife experience. In order to enable people to perform up to their maximumpotential. Diversity is good when an organization can manage diversity wherebythey create organizational change that enable people to perform to theirhighest potential.
Here I will explain regarding the organizational culture andsocietal culture. Organizational culture will focus on changing anorganization’s culture and infrastructure such that people provide the highestproductivity possible. An organization cannot use diversity as a strategyadvantage if employees fail to contribute their full talents and commitments.Thus, it is a must for an organization to create an environment or culture thatallows all the employees to react the full potential. In order to have a goodteam work, we need to have a clear working culture so that people willcontributing to their fullest.
There are 4main function of organizational culture. First as an organizational identity.For example, Google is known as a fun place to work that values employeesatisfaction and customer loyalty over corporate profits. The next function isto facilitate collective commitment, as sense-making device and social systemstability. Moreover, based on this case study they come from different companyand they carry different organizational culture, this is one of the reason teamwork cannot be achieved. As the Chairman Joe should create an organizationalculture so that all the joint venture will adapt with the changes made in theorganizational culture so they will contribute to the ideas on improvement ofthe casket. There is several importance of culture in organization. A sharedorganizational culture helps to bond workers of diverse demographics.
Numerousemployees inside the organization come from different backgrounds, families andtraditions and have their own cultures. Having a shared culture at theworkplace gives them a sense of team work and understanding towards each other,promoting better communication and decrease number of conflict. In addition, ashared organizational culture promotes equality by ensuring no employee isneglected at the workplace and that each is treated equallyNext, I wouldlike to explain about the social culture. Culture is a set of beliefs andvalues about how the community of people should and do act. In this part,culture influences organizational behaviour which are employees bring theirsocietal culture to work with them in the form of customs and language. Whenmanaging people at work, the individual’s societal culture, the organizationculture and any interaction between two need to be taken into consideration.For example, American worker’s cultural orientation toward quality improvementdiffers significantly from the Japanese cultural pattern.
Unlike Japaneseworkers, American aren’t interested in making small step-by step improvementsto increase quality. They want to achieve the breakthrough, the impossibledream. Usually ask for the big leap rather than for tiny steps. That is why wethink that culture can be the barrier of good team work if the culture is notbeing manage well in an organization. QUESTION 6Inmy opinion, it is very important for an organization management to understandthe concept of groups, teams and teamwork in order to achieve good performance.
From the case study, we understand that the task force is a formal group madeup of Jose as the chair person and few other members from different countries.Positive dynamic group makes team members trust one and another, work togethertowards a team decision, contribute to the team is the desire of every membersand they are very capable of coordinating their efforts to the high performancelevel. However, Jose’s group obviously have a poor group dynamics. His groupmember’s behavior and attitude disrupts the work and the group didn’t come toany good decision because the other group members could not explore alternativeeffectively. From my opinion, Jose’s groupdevelopment process wasn’t finished and it ended on the second stage which isthe storming stage. A good team need to undergo all the stages in groupdevelopment in order to become a fully functional group. The main problem whichlead the group to this worst situation is the weak leadership skill of Jose. IfI were in his position, I would stand firm in my position and use my authorityas a leader and lead the group to proper direction and avoid other dominantgroup member take charge of the group process.
Besides,another problem that arise is the blocking from the group member. This happenswhen there is a member behave in a way that annoy the movement of informationin the group. In the case study, Jose act as initiator role and opinion seekerin the meeting.
Mariana Preus from South African company has the role ofinitiator and information giver because she was the first one who insisted onnot redesigning the current product. While theother members seem to act just like passive audience-followers because they allagreed to Mariana’s suggestion without giving any other useful opinions. If Iwere in Jose’s position, when I notice there is some member in my team has anunhelpful behavior that affecting the group, I would act immediately to showthe team member the impact of their actions. Then, I will do some encouragementto them and leading on how they can change their behavior.
Moving on, if Iwere in Jose’s position, I would bring the team to focus on our direction toavoid poor group dynamic. I will help team members to find out their role inthe group by reviewing the group’s vision, mission, and everyone’sresponsibilities when the team leader form the team. It is also important tobreak down the barriers between group members if they do not know each other inthe first place. Leader has the responsibility to conduct some effective teambuilding activities in the beginning so that every member has the chance toknow each another more and build up the spirit as a team among members. Next, Iwould also develop cohesiveness in the group. Team with higher degree of socialcohesiveness displays more liveliness.
The deep bond between the team memberswill develop if work includes fun and play. While Task cohesiveness is abilitiesand skills of the team is mixed to produce effective results. Hence, groupmember can together to accomplish their goals with the reinforcement of groupcohesiveness.