USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
826144_assignment_case_study 826144_assignment_question_and_instructions x
PLEASE FIND THE CASE STUDY ATTACHED TO THE INSTRUCTION SECTION IN MY ACCOUNT WITH YOU…THANKS! UK sources only PLEASE! Link concepts and theories used to the case study Please include diagrams where needed Straight to the point Make it simple to understand Please make use of the reading list listed at the bottom of this page. If you cant get the books, please just reference some them in the text and also in the reference list. PLEASE THIS IS IMPORTANT. Thank you
Team Case Study
Introduction
Electron, a small manufacturing company located in the North of England was established in 1997. Electron manufactures components for the telecommunications sector. The UK headquarters employs 150 people, with 90 people in the manufacturing department. Electron was originally a division of a large telecommunications firm, and the Electron management team, purchased the component manufacturing department as part of an outsourcing scheme introduced by the parent company in 2007. However, the original parent company remains Electron’s largest customer. Electron operates through a traditional departmental structure, consisting of manufacturing, engineering, sales/marketing, human resources, and finance. The structure of Electron’s business remained the same as when it was part of the parent company. Electron has both full-time and part-time staff. The management division of Electron realised that in the late 1990s, the company was struggling to survive in a competitive and innovative marketplace. In order to improve their market competitiveness Electron identified they needed a more effective and efficient production processes with an emphasis on improving company culture, customer service, increased productivity and a commitment to teamwork. It was clear from their analysis that the inherited operating structure from the parent company was not the most efficient method and that a new structure needed to be introduced.
The manufacturing department at Electron is made up of eight teams in total, each are named according to a colour. The team colours are: red, blue, white, green, silver, aqua, purple and yellow. All of the teams consist of 10 team members, with some on temporary contracts, whilst others are full-time employees. The teams contain female and male workers, with an age range of between 25 and 50 years old. In 2007, when the focus on teamwork became more prevalent, the teams were each given an objective. The teams’ objective was to achieve improved productivity within 2 months of their formation. The teams’ achievement was going to be judged on the basis of whether they fulfilled criteria which indicated how many electrical components they had made within that two month period. The reward for achieving this improvement in productivity was a pay bonus to all team members of the successful team.
The case
Electron experienced competition from other electronic manufacturers during the 1990’s, but it survived and in early 2000, the company began to prosper. A large number of new workers were employed and these individuals had to be integrated into one of the teams, discussed above. These new workers were unfamiliar with the teams’ value consensus and they posed an immediate challenge to the power relationships the older employees had formed. Further, when Electron began to hire new workers, they hired them on a temporary basis and let the teams decide who to hire on as full-time workers. Jack, a team member of the blue team and who had worked at Electron for 10 years, was responsible for placing some of the older, experienced workers on these new teams to help them get organized, and the teams had to integrate their new teammates into their value-based social order. As the team’s value consensus and particular work ethic began to penetrate and subjugate the new members’ individual work ethics, this process took on a heightened intensity. The substantive rationality of the teams’ values gave them authority, which they would exercise at will.
Members of the old teams responded to these changing conditions by discursively turning their value consensus into normative rules that the new workers could readily understand and to which they could subject themselves. By rationalizing their value-based work ethic, the new team members could understand the intent and purpose of their team’s values and norms (e.g., why it was important to work overtime to meet a customer need), use the norms to make sense of their daily work experience, and develop methodical patterns of behaviour in accordance with the team’s values.
The longer-tenured team members expected the new workers to identify with (they called it “buy into”) the teams’ values and act according to their norms. By doing this, Electron’s teams were asserting concertive control over the new workers: The new members began to take part in controlling themselves. Slowly, the value-based norms that everyone on the team once “knew” became objective, rationalized rules that the new members could easily understand and follow.
Around March-April 2008, Jack began to notice that the way the team members talked, both informally and at team meetings, had changed. They did not talk so much about the importance of their teamwork values as they did about the need to “obey” the team’s work norms. Team meetings, which took place for one hour every two weeks, began to have a confrontational tone, and the new workers’ attitudes and performance became open topics for team discussion. When the longer-tenured team members saw someone not acting in accordance with their norms, such as not being willing to do whatever it took for the team to be successful, they said something about it. Liz, an original team member of the aqua team, spoke of the old team workers’ feelings:
“We’ve had occasions where we’ve had a person say, ‘I refuse to sit on the [assembly] line.’ And we had to remind him, ‘Hey, you are a part of the team and you go where you’re needed and you do it’.”
Team meetings became a forum for discussing norms and creating new rules. Team members could bring up anybody’s behaviour for discussion. Again, Liz clarified their feelings: “If you notice that somebody’s not getting anything done, then we can bring it up at a meeting, you know, and ask them what the problem is, what’s causing them not to be able to get their work done.”
The new team members began to feel the heat, and the ones who wanted to be full-time members began to obey the norms. The teams’ value-based concertive control began to penetrate and inform the new workers’ attitudes and actions. Stephi, who was a temporary employee at the time, told of how she personally tried to conform to the values and norms of her team:
“When I first started I really didn’t start off on the right foot, so I’ve been having to re-prove myself as far as a team player. My attitude gets in the way, I let it get in the way too many times and now I’ve been watching it and hoping they [her team] will see the change in me and I can prove to them that I will make a good Electron employee”.
Stephi’s words indicate that concertive control at Electron now revolved around human dignity. The team members rewarded their teammates who readily conformed to their team’s norms by making them feel a part of the team and a participant in the team’s success. In turn, they punished teammates who had bad attitudes, like Stephi, with guilt and peer pressure to conform. The power of the team’s concertive work ethic had taken on its predicted heightened intensity.
“Well we had some disciplinary thing, you know. We had a few certain people who didn’t show up on time and made a habit of coming in late. So the team got together and kinda set some guidelines and we told them, you know, “If you come in late the third time and you don’t wanna do anything to correct it, you’re gone.” That was a team decision that this was a guideline that we were gonna follow”.
The team members’ talk turned toward the need to follow their rules, to work effectively in concert with each other. In mid-2008, Ronald, a technician and a worker on the green team, angrily commented about a mistake made by a new technician who had not followed the rules:
“All this should have been caught three months ago, and I’m just now catching it. And upon looking into it, it was because the tech wasn’t taking his responsibility for raising the flag or turning on the red light when he had a problem”.
Later that day, the silver team, who had Ryan as an older member, confronted a newer team member who was working on four boards at a time instead of one, which the team had discovered increased the chance for error. Ryan stood above the offender and pointed at him, “Hey quit doing that. You’re not allowed to do that. It’s against the rules.”
By turning their norms into rational rules, the teams could integrate new members and still be functional, getting products out the door on time. The “supervisor” was now not so much the teams’ value consensus as it was their rules. You either obeyed the rules and the team welcomed you as a member, or you broke them and risked punishment. This element of concertive control worked well. As Danny, a temporary worker at this time told me, “If you’re a new person here, you’re going to be watched.”
Peer pressure amongst new and old team members was seen by employees as a means of ensuring effective teamwork, and the older members were concerned about not wanting to be seen as being too harsh to their new peers. But longer standing members, such as Jack who had ‘seen all this before’ commented that
“There is some more authority and control seen in Electron with the new teams now. It rests in the norms and values of the team and people comply based on how their team members respond with them. They invest a lot in the team and give it their all. They are quite careful to ensure they do things right to please their other members”.
Acknowledgement is given to J. Barker whose interesting and insightful research in 1991 provided the foundation for this case study.
Instructions
PLEASE FIND THE CASE STUDY ATTACHED TO THE INSTRUCTION SECTION IN MY ACCOUNT WITH YOU…THANKS!
UK sources only PLEASE!
Link concepts and theories used to the case study
Please include diagrams where needed
Straight to the point
Make it simple to understand
Please make use of the reading list listed at the bottom of this page. If you cant get the books, please just reference some them in the text and also in the reference list. PLEASE THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Thank you!
Assessment
A report that critically evaluates, using academic concepts, theories and models, the team performance evident within the case study (supplied). You must provide clear evidence of both positive and negative issues surrounding team dynamics and make recommendations for change.
Part
Type of assessment
Word or time limit
Submission dates
010
A report that critically evaluates, using academic concepts, theories and models, the team performance evident within the case study (supplied). You must provide clear evidence of both positive and negative issues surrounding team dynamics and make recommendations for change.
3000
Part 010 – Assignment
Mark
Learning Outcome
Effective Team and Performance Management Analysis and Evaluation
1. Clear introduction outlining what the report will cover, why it is important and how it is going to be covered.
5%
N/A
2. Apply the appropriate theories and concepts to critically analyse how team dynamics and team formation has occurred in the case study. This may include (but is not limited to) applying and analysing: team norms/values; stages of group development; interpersonal skills; team context, structure and team cohesion.
25%
LO1 & LO4
3. Evaluate the critical factors impacting on the team’s performance (i.e. team size; emotional intelligence; social loafing). Through this evaluation, summarise the main factors impacting on an effective team environment.
25%
LO2
Effective Team and Performance Management Recommendations
4. Explain the relevant recommendations for change to occur in the team, recognising conflict; leadership style; decision making and conformance. Explain how these recommendations could be implemented
20%
LO2
5. Identify the relevant changes required in leadership and management styles that may arise in implementing your chosen recommendations.
15%
LO3
Report Style and Academic Rigour
6. Your report should be well structured and presented. It should be set out as a report, including an executive summary; introduction and conclusion. Your report should clearly include academic theories, concepts and models, with supporting references, indicated in the report and listed in the references and bibliography.
10%
N/A
TOTAL MARKS
100%
Marking Grid and Feedback
Assessment Part 010 is marked according to the following grid
Feedback
Mark
1. Clear introduction outlining what the report will cover, why it is important and how it is going to be covered
/5
2. Apply the appropriate theories and concepts to critically analyse how team dynamics and team formation has occurred in the case study. This may include (but is not limited to) applying and analysing: team norms/values; stages of group development; interpersonal skills; team context, structure and team cohesion.
/25
3. Evaluate the critical factors impacting on the team’s performance (i.e. team size; emotional intelligence; social loafing). Through this evaluation, summarise the main factors impacting on an effective team environment.
/25
4. Explain the relevant recommendations for change to occur in the team, recognising conflict; leadership style; decision making and conformance. Explain how these recommendations could be implemented.
/20
5. Identify the relevant changes required in leadership and management styles that may arise in implementing your chosen recommendations.
/15
6. Your report should be well structured and presented. It should be set out as a report, including an executive summary; introduction and conclusion. Your report should clearly include academic theories, concepts and models, with supporting references, indicated in the report and listed in the references and bibliography.
/10
TOTAL MARKS /100
You can also make use of this reading list
Reading List Template
Key text
Forsyth, D.R. 2013. Group Dynamics, 6th International Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 0-534-36822-0.
This book requires the support of additional/ wider reading from the list below
This book examines all aspects of groups, dealing with such topics as the individual and the group, group formation, group development and socialization, structure and influence, leadership, performance, and intergroup relations in their own separate chapters.
Forsyth provides comprehensive coverage, including evolutionary psychology, social identity theory, individualism-collectivism, introversion/extraversion, primary and secondary groups, and the belongingness hypothesis.
Fourteen extended case studies illustrate the application of concepts to actual groups.
Conceptual analyses of groups are reviewed in depth, along with empirical studies that highlight important principles.
Forsyth explores topics that will interest both theoretically minded basic research scientists and applications-oriented group experts.
Books
Adair, J., 2007. Leadership for Innovation: How to Organize Team Creativity and Harvest Ideas. London, Kogan Page.
Belbin, M., 2010. Management Teams: Why they Succeed or Fail. London, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ebook
Drucker, P., 1999. Management Challenges in the 21st Century.
HarperCollins
Hardingham, A., 1995. Working in Teams. Institute for Personnel Development
Jelphs, K., 2008. Working in Teams. Bristol, Policy.
Lencioni, P., 2004. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team – A Leadership Fable. San Fransisco, Jossey- Bass.
Thompson, L. L., 2011., Making the Team: A Guide for Managers. 4th International Edition. London: Pearson.
Thompson, L. L. and Hoon-Seok-Choi., 2013, (eds) Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams. London: Psychology Press.
Thompson, L. L., 2003. The Social Psychology of Organizational Behaviour: Key Readings. NewHove, Psychology Press.
Whelan, S. A., 2010. Creating Effective Teams: A Guide for Members and Leaders. 3rd ed. London, Sage.
Mueller, F. and Procter, S., 2002. Issues in Teamworking. Bradford, Emerald Group Publishing.
Ebook
Organizational Behaviour (OB)
Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A., 2010. Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. and Judge, T. A., 2012. Organizational Behaviour. Global ed. 15th ed. London, Pearson Education
Negotiation
Thompson, L. L., 2009. The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. 4th ed. Harlow, Pearson Education.
Team decision making
Letsky, M. P., 2008. Macrorecognition in Teams: Theories and Methodologies. Aldershot, Ashgate
ebook
Kemp, J. M., 2008. Moving out of the Box: Tools for Team Decision Making. Westport, Conn, Praeger.
Teams & emotional intelligence (EI)
Ernst, C.and Martin, A., 2006. Critical Reflections: How Groups Learn from Success and Failure. Greensboro, N. C. Centre for Creative Leadership.
ebook
Levi, D., 2007. Group Dynamics for Teams. 2nd ed. London, Sage.
Senge, P., 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London, Random House Business.
Explores the links between leadership, creativity and change. Features case studies from MNC.
Considers the different Team Role behaviours which shape everyday interactions in teams.
This book looks at the future of management thinking and practice. It considers the changes in the world economy, and shifts in the practice of management.
This text looks at teamworking and considers the following: understanding the nature and make-up of teams; finding out if your team is on track; overcoming common teamworking problems
Introduces a range of theories, models and research to demonstrate the benefits – and pitfalls – inherent in teamworking.
Concisely examines, and suggests solutions to, dysfunctions. Provides in-depth readings which explore the dynamic relations between individual thinking, group processes, and organizational environment
Combines/ applies theory with/ to organisational practice.
Provides in-depth readings which explore the dynamic relations between individual thinking, group processes, and organizational environment
A collection of readings (e.g. science of organizational behaviour; decision making; negotiation and social dilemmas; groups and teams; procedural justice; relationships and trust; and vales, norms and politics)
A practical guide for building and sustaining top performing teams with real- life examples and problem solving skills.
Focuses upon, and explores, the experiences of teamworking and being managed in teams.
Generic overview and synopsis of underpinning concepts, theories, models and frameworks which are applied in the organization of workplace teams; and to analyse and explain the dynamic operation of teams in different workplace settings.
This text provides an integrated view of what to do and what to avoid during negotiation. Integrates theory, scientific research, and practical examples.
Provides a greater understanding of the macrocognitive (e.g ideas, beliefs, decisions) processes which support collaborative team activity
Identifies five decision-making profiles related to effective/ ineffective decision making
Provides managers with specific advice on how to complete a developmental task or solve a leadership challenge.
Relates and applies psychological concepts of group dyamics to teams and group processes.
Explains and explores teams in relation to a much broader environmental variables or systems dynamics
Specific journal articles
Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A, and Macrosson, W.D.K. 1998. The structure of Belbin’s team roles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 71: 283-288.
Druskat, V.U., and Wolff, S.B., 2001. Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review.
Gibson, C., and Vermeulen, F., 2003. A Healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behaviour. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48: 202-239.
Hart, Paul’t., 1991. Irving, L. Janis’ Victims of Groupthink. Political Psychology. 12(2): 247-278
Huusko, L., 2007. Teams as substitutes for leadership. Team Performance Management. 13(7/8): 244-278.
Medina, F.J, Munduate, L. and Dorado, M.A., 2005. Types of intragroup conflict and affective relations. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 20(3/4): 219-230.
Rosh, L., Offerman, L.R., and Van Diest, R., 2012. Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review. 22: 116-127.
Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cohen, D., 2012., Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 5: 2-24.
All available on the VLE
