Xrs Laser Group

XRS Laser Group

In order for companies to grow and continue to be successful, they must have effective work groups. If a group doesn't work well together, then a process intervention is needed. A process intervention is conducted to help work groups become more effective, become more aware of how it operates, and become more aware of how its members work with each other (Brown & Harvey, 2006, p. 187). Process intervention strategies include continuing, conversing, collaborating, charting, and composing (Information Search Process, 2005).

The XRS Laser Group is a perfect example of work groups not working well together. The project manager, John Everet, has been the group leader for two years. Kate Pringle, the department head, has given John the authority to run the project pretty much on his own. John hasn't produced any results, Kate hasn't stepped in to turn things around, there is friction between John and some group members, and the retreat that has been arranged for some teambuilding exercises isn't going as planned. Let's evaluate the case and identify the problems and recommendations for the XRS Laser Group.

Case Analysis

Name: XRS Laser Group

I. Problems

a. Macro

The first problem is with the retreat. It isn't structured firmly enough which allows people to do their own thing and get away with it. There is no agenda given out to participants, so they don't know what to expect and what to work towards. Who is running the retreat? What does this retreat hope to accomplish? There doesn't seem to be any clear cut goals established for this retreat. If it is a teambuilding session, then it needs to be run as such. Yet, it appears to be a fun getaway for John who is not made to participate in the exercises. If Ryan is in charge of leading the teambuilding exercises and meetings, then he needs to make sure that everyone is participating.

Another problem here is with authority. Kate is the department head and John is the project manager, but it appears that Kate has given John the authority to run the group for two years without stepping in when it wasn't working. John managed the group for two years without any results. Most managers would not allow this to continue for so long.

b. Micro

Some group members did not like John very much or his work style, but they never spoke up. They commented that it takes a long time to get things done in the group because John always joking around and goofing off. This created tension within the group, and the group doesn't feel its leadership is very good.

Another problem I see that member roles are not defined well. Roles are parts where group members have several issues to resolve while working on their tasks, and may include elements such as who is the technical expert, who initiates the conversation, who is aggressive, and who is the joke teller/tension reliever (Brown & Harvey, 2006, p. 188). Who is really in charge of this department?

II. Causes

a. Kate has not defined authority in her group.

b. John feels he is the "big cheese" and has all the authority, but he doesn't think he is accountable for the group's failure and won't change because it has been the same way for several years.

c. John thinks that by joking around he is making his coworkers feel more at ease, but it makes them mad because nothing ever gets done.

d. Group members don't know who is in charge at the retreat.

e. Group members have no respect for John as a leader.

f. Kate doesn't take as active role a role as she should have within her department.

III. Systems Affected

a. Structural:

It is important that the company utilize all available means in order to create a clear-cut structural subsystem so that the psychosocial subsystem can function harmoniously (Guide to Management, 1997). In the structural subsystem, the patterns of authority and division of work are not clearly defined. The group members don't respect John's authority, and Kate seems to give all the authority over the group to John.

b. Psychosocial:

Psychosocial subsystems affect attitudes, perceptions, motivation, group dynamics, leadership, communications, and interpersonal relations of an organization (Guide to Management, 1997).

John's nonchalant attitude towards the project, the group, and the retreat are affecting other group members. His group has the perception that he doesn't care about the group and that since he is the boss, he can get away with it. He is not an effective leader, and he tends to focus on interpersonal skills and joking around with the group in order to be accepted. However, that approach is backfiring. By allowing John to lead the group without any results and by her lack of intervention, Kate is giving the group the perception that she doesn't care about them.

c. Technical:

No technical systems were affected.

d. Managerial:

The managerial subsystem "spans the entire organization by directing, organizing, and coordinating all activities toward the basic mission (Brown & Harvey, 2006, p. 43). Managers must maintain harmony within their groups. If problems arise, managers must address the fix the problem immediately. "Researchers found that productivity and morale improved substantially when the team approach was restored" (Brown & Harvey, 2006, p. 44).

Kate and John seem to have