Group Dynamics - Team Building

Our group discussions regarding the teams and teamwork at Nut Island and at Digital Equipment took place on Blackboard's Group Chat. Group members voiced approval of Group Chats fluid nature and intuitive format; however the group had to unconsciously develop a collective sense of discipline and structure so the real-time forum would not become a dartboard at which disjointed posts were hurled. The group also used Blackboard's Group Discussion Board in addition to using the Group Chat on other occasions, during which the team member submitted work for the final project and discussed issues such as delegation of responsibilities among the group members and updates regarding the overall progress of the group with regard to the project.

The group discussed many ideas regarding the problems at the Nut Island, and all members of the team agreed that at the Nut Island there were two separate issues with the management. The first issue was that the supervisors in Boston were not keeping tabs on the Nut Island facility properly. Senior management actively avoided addressing potential problems within the Nut Island facility unless it was in their interest politically, and they took the teams self sufficiency for granted by ignoring team members when they asked for help or tried to warn of impending trouble. The fact that the Nut Island workers depended on citizens to complain to the government about the smell before they could get the needed materials struck our group as a sign of trouble. This management indifference bred resentment in the team members, reinforced their isolation and heightened their collective sense of being a band of heroic outcasts. This led to the second issue: problematic managerial situations within the Nut Island operations team.

Because of the neglect from the supervisors in Boston, the Metropolitan District Commission, the Nut Island team became bitter and made choices to do things their own way. They knew that they could do their work regardless of management being around or not, and they became proud of that fact. There were some political issues the workers at Nut Island had to deal with as well, and one major one resulted from the fact that the local municipal government affected the way the plant was run. This further led to us-against-the-world mentality among the team members with a goal to stay out the management's way by denying or minimizing problems and avoid asking for help. Without any external input on practices and operating guidelines, the team began to make up its own rules. They were more concerned about appearances of things being under control in their own autonomous ways. Finally, both the team and the senior management formed distorted pictures of reality that were very difficult to correct.

The MDC would have gotten a huge backlash from the public if they shut down the Nut Island for a few days or weeks in order to fix its operational issues, and we agreed that was a possible reason for their avoiding seeing all of the potential issues. The MDC was easily misled by the team's skillful disguising of its flaws and deficiencies. In fact, they did not want to know about any troubles at the plant as long as it didn't warrant closing the plant. They refused to act until a crisis forced their hand. The price of failure meant having oil slicks and raw sewage wash up on the neighborhood beaches. Success for the people worked the Nut Island meant that they would continue to be ignored, and ultimately management's ignorance led to pollution being spewed into Boston's water.

Following the Nut Island discussion, the group moved onto the PRISM/ Alpha team at Digital Equipment. The consensus was that Dan Dobberpuhl had a quality product that he was developing and he knew that his product had huge potential for the organization. He utilized a forceful, charismatic approach to make sure the Alpha project wouldn't be cancelled like the Prism project was. Dobberpuhl never became too bitter about his team officially getting disbanded, as he knew his product would never work without support from management.

Management at Digital gave the teams a lot of leeway, but they still made it clear what everyone's objectives were. They did not push or neglect their teams; although we agreed Dobberpuhl's angry letter sent the message that the only way to get noticed in the organization was to make a big deal about something. They had the ability to prevent issues. The team members in that case felt that the recognition and acceptance of their accomplishments by their peers and by society was the true test of their creative abilities.

The creative tension between the team and senior management kept the group working on the edge, making them even more close-knit with a "We'll Show Them" attitude. The Us vs. Them mentality was needed by the team in order to solve problems and to create discussions about what to do next. A very high-powered group of individual technologists had come together through self-selection to work towards a single-minded objective is a strong contributing factor toward the success of the Alpha chip development.

By sending out an irate memo, Dobberpuhl had taken a risk and he had a strong basis from which to take this risk. However, in doing so he managed to capture the attention of a few senior sponsors who helped link his technical interests to the strategic interests of the company. It was the unfortunate cancellation of PRISM that sparked the motivational responses and behaviors of the design team. The team was significantly aroused because of the PRISM project and was finally willing to do something to redirect its efforts and attention.

The group spent a considerable amount of time discussing the role of "renegades" as illustrated in the cases and what the boundaries are for renegade behavior from a managerial perspective. The consensus was that if a team is renegade and it is doing things counter productive to a company, then it needs to be disbanded or at a minimum moved somewhere within the organization where they don't have much control. If a renegade activity turns into something that seriously hinders the organization and can not be used then it can not be tolerated.

The group also agreed that insubordination is generally a bad thing within an organization or a team, but doing things such as pursuing constructive goals on the side without official sanction can sometimes be good in certain cases. We discussed how it is definitely one of managements tasks to stay informed enough on a project to be able to answer questions and provide advice in a timely fashion, and how it is very hard to move a project forward when you are not getting support/approval from management. This usually causes teams to start making their own decisions.

The group noted situations in which the principals covered in the cases are illustrated in other organizations. Microsoft was noted as a company in which behavior that is renegade in that workers are left to pursue individual pet projects for the company for a certain period each week. General Douglas MacArthur's Dobberpuhl-esque renegade behavior during the Korean War was noted, and one group member related an experience he had in his family business with a renegade employee who ultimately failed and left the business to clean up the aftermath.

As a group, we concurred that organizations can take the following steps to stop the Nut Island effect before it starts. Management should install performance measures and reward structures tied to both internal operations and company-wide goals. For example, performing annual employee appraisals to make sure the employees' performance is in align with departmental goals, as well as the organizational goals. Senior management must establish a hands-on presence by visiting the team, holding recognition ceremonies and leading tours of customers or employees from other parts of the organization through the site. Management could accomplish this by making regular visits to all of the organization facilities, showing the workers that management is there to back them up if need arises and recognizing and rewarding outstanding performances.

Team personnel must be integrated with people from other parts of the organization. For example, cross functional training within the departments and through out the organization. Finally, outside people, managers and line workers alike need to be rotated into the team environment. Management should manage teams by being aware of a team's activities and not let them be on auto drive like the Nut Island team. It must make sure that the goals of each team are working toward matching with the organization's strategies. It has to show that it cares about what a team is doing, help solve problems, and provide resources.

During the discussion of the Nut Island case, one group member stated that he had an experience that illustrated one of the issues the Nut Island management faced and later posted this regarding his own situation: "One of our sales managers brought an opportunity to our attention to purchase a California based company that was rooted in concert touring. He pushed for us to pursue it until upper management was convinced it could be lucrative and keep our employees busy in the summer (the off-season). This employee was put in charge of managing the acquisition and ensuring that the new office sales stayed up while we integrated them into our business model. Unfortunately, he was more concerned with being able to capitalize on the opportunity for him and his family to take multiple trips to California on the company's dime than he was the operations of the new branch. When the acquisition was complete, many of the best fit employees had already moved on to new jobs, which left a handful of people in the new office as his team. While they took care of the business that was already on the books, they found it was very easy to provide management with bogus information that made them look profitable and healthy. They continued to get a paycheck, and the manager continued to take trips to California for free. Like the guys on Nut Island, the manager was more concerned with bettering himself and the employees didn't think they were doing anything wrong. They were still doing work just as they had been before, just not as much as they reported."

Although everyone involved shares part of the blame for the operations on Nut Island, the responsibility mostly falls on the indifference of the management. While the team on the island is definitely a renegade team, they only acted defiantly because they were being ignored in their requests to prevent a disaster and the potential loss of their job. This led them to believe what they were doing was right, even though it wasn't sanctioned. They were doing exactly what was needed to get the job done, without having to wait for a response or approval from management. Unfortunately this allowed the workers to circumvent the controls that were supposed to be in place to prevent this type of negative impact on the environment, such as the EPA regulations which the sewage material was being tested for. When the results came in and were not up to standards, they assumed the test must be wrong and retested until the got an "acceptable" result. Management ignored the team here because it was out of sight, and out of mind. When the employees of the island came to them with a pressing issue, such as needing to overhaul the diesel generators that ran the pumps, they were turned away because it wasn't something that had to be dealt with right then; it wasn't a public facing issue at that moment. Management was more concerned with the politics and bureaucracy than with how efficiently the wastewater problem was being taken care of. The article described how many of the upper management team used the position with the public water works as a stepping stone to further their own career. Many of them only stayed in position for 2 years. It was this lack of passion for their job that allowed the people who really did care, the employees on Nut Island, to take control of operations. This led them to discover ways of getting supplies and funding without having to deal with management.

In the situation for Digital, management is responsible for the delayed development of the updated RISC chip. The management of Digital is responsible because they had created a group called PRISM that was formed to research how to create the RISC chip but they cancelled the group's funding when it realized that the program was late to getting the technology developed. They cancelled PRISM not only because they were late but because management felt that they could sufficiently get into the RISC technology by licensing the technology through MIPS Computer Systems. The fault of Digital management was that they never went to the PRISM's leaders, Dobberpuhl, Cutler, and Witek, to see how close they were to getting the product completed and to see if the product by MIPS was smart decision.

Dobberpuhl's attention-drawing actions would not have been needed if upper management had investigated and discussed the development of the original PRISM team project. Digital created PRISM as an autonomous team with a specific goal but Digital management would have wasted a lot of time and money if Dobberpuhl did not finish the project after it was cancelled. More money would have been wasted if Digital had continued to purchase RISC chips from MIPS Computers. The downsides of management in this case is that they did not sufficiently monitor the programs that they already had, PRISM, and they did not welcome an open debate as to which direction the company should go. They failed to realize the potential of the original PRISM team and they declined to debate with Dobberpuhl, Witek, and Cutler on how good the RISC technology would be and when it would be finished. The only reason that Dobberpuhl got his team to finish the product behind managements back is because he knew his technology would work and that management need to realize its potential for the firm.

If the management truly wants to foster the kind of accomplishment made by the Alpha team, then it must do more than simply encourage all technologists 'to take risks' and 'not fear failure'. It must provide the active sponsorship through witch key talented technologists can come together to work on those 'far out' ideas and problems in which they have become strong believers. This kind of sponsorship is not achieved by simply giving or 'empowering' technical teams with freedom and autonomy but it is achieved by strengthening the linkage between technical development activities and business strategies.

The issue of renegade team members applies to what is currently going on at NASA. NASA developed a plan for the retiring of retiring the current space shuttle in 2010 and is in the process of developing its Aries I project, which was unveiled in 2005. The Aries I is scheduled to be completed in 2015 and will be the rocket that will launch the new 4-6 passenger Orion spacecraft into space. This will be the new way for NASA to get astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The Aries I can also be combined with the Aries V rocket (which will be completed in 2018) which allow NASA to have extended missions to the moon or nearby asteroids. The estimated cost for this development project is $25 billion.

Engineers at NASA were comfortable with the Aries I project until management started to change some of the original plans. NASA was trying to save money and started to reduce the power of the rocket engines and this also lead to a reduction of 1200 pounds of payload capacity. There was also a sense amongst many of the NASA engineers that Aries I was the pet project of current NASA leaders Michael Griffin and Scott Horowitz. These two individuals presented very similar projects prior to their time at NASA and individuals within NASA felt that no other alternatives were considered.

This inside tension was realized when Ross Tierney, a non-NASA worker who makes detailed models of spacecrafts and launch pads, thought there may be a better idea out there. In 2004, he logged onto a chat room and voiced his opinions about how a better rocket could be made by using existing components and technologies. He ended up getting a lot of responses from engineers from within NASA who had a similar opinion. Tierney ended up creating an underground network of NASA engineers and contractors who would work in their spare time to develop technical and financial data to support their alternative to Aries I. They ended up calling their project Jupiter Direct and it formed a direct competitor to Aries I.

Eventually, Tierney was able to combine his team's ideas with Stephen Metschan, a former Boeing and NASA engineer and software developer. Metschan used experience of his rocket analytics to help validate Jupiter Direct and ended up combining ideas with Tierney. These two became the primary proponents of their program and felt they could produce a new rocket by 2013 and for $13 billion. In 2007, Metschan, Tierney and some non-NASA engineers presented Jupiter Direct at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the presentation inspired more NASA employees to secretly work on the project. The total number of NASA employees on the project is estimated at around 60 and many of these individuals remain anonymous to Tierney and Metschan in fear that they may lose their jobs.

The validity of Jupiter Direct has been debated by NASA because it only exists on paper. They feel that this project would more than likely run over budget and that it is easy to criticize Aries I because it is currently in production. Some implications for NASA management is that they need to have an open discussion of what the best strategy is for developing new rockets for future space travels. In this case, many of the engineers and designers feel that the current Aries I and Aries V are pet projects of NASA leadership but, for fear of losing their jobs cannot fully express their opinions in an open dialog. NASA has also denied its design teams a voice and sense of ownership on this project as seen by the 60 individuals who have worked on Jupiter Direct in their spare time. Regardless, the proposal was presented to the Obama administration in January 2009 so a lot of Jupiter Directs assumptions must be very accurate.

The group came to agree that general implications of team-related issues as illustrated in the previous examples can be derived, and our thoughts were supported by an article from the Harvard Business Review by Harold J. Leavitt and Jean Lipman-Blumen entitled "Hot Groups." We felt that an adequate level of autonomy is necessary for a team to flourish, as well as the team being provided with sufficient resources by management. Leavitt and Lipman-Blumen state the resources needed by a team are "space, time, and discretion. A little extra budget doesn't hurt either." The role of management in both the Nut Island and Digital Equipment case is to allow to teams the space, time, and resources to fully develop their goals and objectives. Management must also maintain a certain level of control on these teams to make sure they are not doing anything that is in any way negative or harmful to the firm.

If management is able to show interest and support for teams, then it should be able to reduce or eliminate the possible negative effects that autonomous teams can create since the team will know that their effort is being recognized and appreciated. Management also needs to hold teams accountable for their actions, and management must be thorough in their investigation of a team's work so it can prevent lying and deception regarding the possible negative consequences of a team's work. Without these actions, management will not have the optimal level of control over the team and the team's deliverables. Ultimately, management needs to embrace the creativity and commitment teams can foster among themselves toward their objectives and toward each other. Management must also display their appreciation for the team's effort and work, because it is the responsibility of management ensure that teams realize their potential.