Carr Leadership & Org Behavior
Week 3 Case Study
Reflecting on the case I just read, the group seems to be at the storming stage due to the hostility and infighting occurring. Mike is not going to meetings and the contribution he has made so far is not nearly up to the standard the group has set. Understanding that the group is in this stage is important to the group to know because to have the problems that they do have at this point are somewhat normal and obviously have been researched, practiced, and documented for future references such as the case with this group. Knowing the different stages as well as the stage they are in now should ...view middle of the document...
The fact of the matter is that Mike is expecting this group to carry him thru and they do not owe him that just because his life is a little rough. Christine has had five whole weeks to figure out that Mike is not taking responsibility for his assignment and should have went to Sandra Thiel about two weeks earlier to report this. Christine should have also challenge Mike more to do a better job. Offering Mike alternative to showing up for meeting he claimed he could not make such as video-conferencing, group chat, or just in his own time frame consistent with the weeks everyone else did work in. This would have allowed Mike the ability to do it and just have it in to us by the end of the week. Groups do not necessarily need to meet in order to be successful. Secondarily Christine needs to have more backbone in her handling of people like Mike. In order to be taken seriously Christine needed to be more demanding of Mike in order for him to see e was not getting a free ride on this assignment.
Given that there is no perfect solution for this problem, I would have (1) had my team members clearly define their weekly intentions to me as the group leader and would have expected those results on a timely basis. In my opinion the group never took Mike serious and probably knew not to get stuck out in the cold waiting on his contribution and therefore had already taken actions to do his part from day one. The group as a whole was a good group with the exception of one member. This is actually not so bad because they could have been two or three members not contributing. Fragmenting the goals to one week at a time could have lowered the overall stress of the project itself making the road to achieving goals a shorter distance. As the group leader, it would have been my responsibility to compile and compose the project the way it was originally envisioned, making the group member aware of those visions on a weekly basis. If there was a group member not living up to his/her part, then I would have told them on week two and by week three if the problem had persist, then I would have went to our professor, made her ware of the situation as well as the remaining group members and devised a plan of action that would ensure that any part given to him was delegated to the remaining group members. A secondary solution could have been us all as member signing...