PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANIZATION

QUESTION

CASE ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT TASK 2
INFORMATION SHEET

Due Date: Week 9 at start of tutorial
Word Limit: 2500 words excluding references
Weighting/Value: 35%

Assignment Aims
The aim of this piece of assessment is to develop your skills in analysing and summarising
academic journal articles. This piece of assessment is also designed to develop and
broaden your literature search skills by using the online databases provided by the library.
Finally, this piece of assessment should help you to understand the differences between
type and quality of academic journals in the Management field.

Assignment Task
You are to use the case entitled “The Group Assignment” available on the unit’s blackboard
site to complete this assessment task.

Drawing on the literature and empirical research on group development, group effectiveness,
and group dynamics you need to identify and analyse what the key problems were in the “A
Team”. Your analysis should also outline how these problems/issues may have been
avoided. You may also draw on other OB concepts that you feel are relevant in explaining
what went wrong with the “A Team”.

Presentation Requirements
It is important to ensure your assignment is professionally presented. This includes ensuring
you have correctly completed an assignment coversheet and attached this to the front of
your assignment. All of the pages in your assignment should be numbered and stapled
together (please don’t use bulky binders for your assignment). You also need to ensure all of
your work is double-lined spaced and free from grammatical and spelling errors. You deny
yourself marks by handing in work that has not been proof read prior to submission. Your
reference list should be on a new page at the end of your assignment. This list should
contain only those items which you have directly cited in the body of your assignment. You
need to use either the APA or Harvard system to format your references.
CASE ANALYSIS MARKING CRITERIA

Student Name:  ___________________________________________________

Student No: ______________________________________________________

Grade: _____

Criteria

1. Problem Identification

 Does the paper succinctly and accurately
identify the key issues/problems in the case?

10%
2. Analysis/OB Concepts

 Are appropriate, relevant, specific OB
concepts identified and applied?
 Are examples of how OB concepts relate to
the case provided?
 Does the paper demonstrate breadth and
depth of understanding OB concepts using
academic articles, books etc?
 Does the paper identify ways in which the
problems may have been able to be
avoided/could be rectified?

SOLUTION

Abstract

In this case study, we consider a team of seven students (A Team), which is assigned to complete a web designing project by a specific deadline. The case study makes a qualitative analysis of the dynamics and functioning of the students. It also illustrates the complexities and key problems which are faced in the group functioning. We use existing organizational behavior models and concepts to illustrate the case study.

OB concepts help to spot the complexities in a group functionality, to acknowledge the diversity of group experiences. The main factors that appeared to influence to influence the efficiency and success of the group were lack of proper communication, faulty leadership and imbalances in demography and qualification among the group members.

Introduction

Several renowned OB theorists have studied organizational behavior of work groups for many years, of which the earliest and well researched study could be the Hawthorne studies. Wood, J and et.al, 1998 did a series of studies in one organization to observe the groups at work, and particularly relationships between employees.

In any work organization or university, groups make natural and important part. Group activities are particularly important in business courses or creative courses involving various technical expertises (Anderson, M. and Moore, D. 1998). One reason why group performances are preferred in work organizations is higher performance outcomes (Wageman, R. 1997). In the context of this case study where Raceview University allocates a introductory group project to students, intends to give students an introduction to the experience of working in groups. The paper analyses how the process of organizational behavior may be applied to students’ group functionality and performance.

The case study tries to illustrate how OB concept and model helps identifying students experiences associated with group functioning. As students’ group organizational behavior findings cannot generalise an organizational setting, therefore it may only be applied on student groups or small business groups.

The paper makes use of several OB theories and concepts to reach the logics and reasoning to support the identification and causes of the key problems that occurred in the activity of the group in consideration.

Synopsis of Case

The primary subject matter of this case involves the key problems that hampered the students’ group development, their effectiveness and what could be the possible ways to avoid those problems for an efficient and successful group formation and performance. Therefore the central goal of the case study is to explain how and why diversity in group can have a powerful and asymmetric effect on the group existence and ultimately on its performance outcome.

Theoretical Background

For the purpose of the case study, we have defined an ideal team or group to be an organization, which is characterized by following factors that it is supposed to possess

• A greater degree of individual commitment towards the goal and performance
• The welfare of the team and equal consideration to each member’s importance and skill.
• Lore cohesiveness among members (Robbins et al., 1994).

Any organizational system of a small students group may constitute of the following factors, which would determine its effectiveness and performance:

• The authoritative structure or the leadership specification
• Organizational strategy to divide and complete the work
• Resources (in this case it could be the skill and qualification of the individual team member)
• The group process (in this context it could be flow of all the tasks performed)
• The group communication and productive interactions

Empirical Literature of the Group

Here we study the composition and empirical literature of the “A Team” which is allocated the task of doing a web designing project in group.

• There are seven members in the “A Team”
• Number of female members is three, while that of male member is two
• Education diversity of the members is as follows:
  • Sara(F)and Hamish (M) are both IT major, domestic student, studying full-time.
  • Tai(M) IT major, international student, studying full-time
  • Ying(F) is management major, international student, studying full-time
  • Khadeeja(F) is accounting major, international student, studying full-time
  • Scott(M) is property & construction major, domestic student, studying full-time
  • Anthony(M) is property & construction major, domestic student, studying part-time
  • Age group: All the female members (Sara, Ying and Khadeeja) are between the age group of 19 and 22 years. Hamish is the oldest at 36, and Scott, Tai and Anthony are 20, 22 and 21 respectively
  • Nature of course term: Sara, Ying, Khadeeja and Tai are full time students. Hamish and Anthony are part-time students.
  • Task: To design a website for a fictitious company

Factors that determined diversity of members in the team:

1. 1.     Demographic difference: Team members differed in age and nationality
2. 2.     Education difference: Except three students, four students differed in their education major stream:

• Stages of degree: Members were also at different stages of their degree. Hamish and Ying were in their final year, Anthony, Tai and Scott were all mid-way through their degrees, whilst Sara and Khadeeja were in their first year

1. 3.     Geographic Location: Some team members lived quite a distance from the university

Group Analysis

The case study makes an analysis of the team on the basis of two levels-individual level and group level.

Individual Level: On individual level organizational behavior involves the study of learning, perception, creativity, motivation, performance and cooperative behavior of each individual.

Group Level: At group level, organizational behavior involves the study of group dynamics, intra and inter-group conflict and cohesion, leadership, communication and roles.

Following is the point-wise analysis of the groups taking factors from both the above mentioned levels, besides some more factors suggested by the group behavirol study Robbins et al.1998. The findings of the Robbins et al.1998 group behavior study has been used to support the analysis.

Learning: There was quite a difference between learning and knowledge about the project among the members. The fact is supported with evidence of education difference among the members that states that except Sara, Hamish and Tai, all the rest four members did not belong to IT background. Therefore they might have relatively less exposure to web designing as the three with IT major.

Perception/Cooperation: The team comprised of members with considerable difference in their age group that ranged between 19 to 36 years. Besides, there was also a difference of nationality among the student with three being international students and the other four being the domestic students. Gender difference among the group also contributed to diversity of members. These demographic differences can have influence on individual perception about working in a group, which ultimately hampers the desired cooperative behavior of the members (Robbins et al.1998).

Creativity/Motivation/Determination: Difference in exposure and experience with the project affects may affect the creativity, motivation and determination of each individual at varied degrees. The literature of the case study suggests that Sara, Ying, Hamish, & Khadeeja were consistently involved in the project throughout the semester. However, Scott, Anthony, and Tai remained quite irregular in the semester. Besides, geographic distance can also hamper the individual motivation level.

External Conditions: The study used the criteria of external conditions to evaluate the group on the basis of organizational strategy, Resources, authority structure, performance and physical work setting (Robbins et al. 1998).

Organizational Strategy: In this case, the formation of team was relatively unstructured. There was hardly any inter-group orientation session organized in order to acquaint the team members to one another. Students were asked to develop group norms and a plan for how to tackle the team assignment. Members were asked for individual’s perceptions of norms and assignment plans. The students were not specifically instructed to share their answers with their fellow team members.

Resources: Each team member had to take responsibility for one of the individual pages to create the overall website. We consider the individual skill and knowledge level as resources in this case study. The team comprised of members who differed not only course major, but also differed stages of their degree Hamish and Ying were in their final year, Anthony, Tai and Scott were all mid-way through their degrees, whilst Sara and Khadeeja were in their first year. This certainly would have created a difference in the level of their knowledge and expertise on the project. Besides, only four members were regular and consistent in working on the project throughout the semester.

Authority Structure: Ever since the first meeting held to discuss the plan, single member(Scott) appeared dominant in establishing the norms and strategies. Other members could not make put forward their ideas elaborately and were convinced to adopt Scott’s project ideas. Eventually, Scott appeared as a self-declared leader without any common consensus.

Performance: The leader(Scott) who had non-IT course major disappeared from the scene after making other members adopting his ideas. Hamish, one of the seven members who could not attend the face-to-face meetings, as scheduled by Scott, due to long distance of his house from the university. He could not properly follow the process and developments of the project. Ying and Sara, who already differed from ideas of Scott took responsibility of resolving the organizational leadership issues. However, Scott, Anthony, & Tai were absent still remained absent, not knowing about the latest changes made in the organization. These three members had not been doing their parts.

Physical Setting: No defined physical setting could be established, because the prior leader, Scott decided to hold non-feasible communication and meeting system, which did not suit all the members. It led quite a few members to miss the meetings and unorganized physical set up.

Group Members Attributes:

(Robbins et al. 1998) Group behavior analysis on the criteria of observing group member attributes, means the highlighting ability and personality of members that constitute the group.  In this case into consideration, we found the following points:

1. Scott constantly showed his dominant behaviour on other members and did not consider their ideas or suggestions. However, when it came to working, he did not perform his part with honesty and effectively
2. Sara And Ying, two of the three female members showed dedicated attitude towards the project throughout and also resolved the leadership organization after Scott escaped his part and role.
3. Hamish, who was also the oldest member, showed enough willingness in doing the project with proper cooperation, despite his full-time job. He, being from IT background like Sara, contributed quite a lot in successfully completing the Project
4. Anthony and Tai seemed to be in influence of Scott all through the course of project and absented themselves from the meeting after Sara and Ying assumed the leadership role.
5. Khadeeja constantly worked on the project along with Sara, Ying and Hamish, but looked frustrated with problematic leadership.

Group Structure: The purpose of this index is to analyse degree of similarity or difference in the group on the basis of their demographic characteristics and background. Analysing the “A Team” on this basis, showed the following differences and similarities:

1. All the female members remained united all through, while the majority of male members, except Hamish, had made a separate sub group under Scott.
2. Scott and Anthony shared same course major and seemed similar in perception and performance.
3. All the female members along with Hamish shared good work relationship, because while Sara and Ying were in the first stage of their course and Ying and Hamish were in their final stage of the course. All these members probably shared similar degree of enthusiasm, as first and final level of anything needs one to get really geared up.
4. Scott, Tai and Anthony were in the mid of their course and looked laid back in performing their tasks.

Based on the above made analysis of the group we have identified and analyzed some key problems in the next section.

Key Problems in the Team

Before listing the key problems let us refer to the outcome of the group activity, which resulted because of the existence the key problems here identified.

The “A Team” was inflicted with ugly conflicts, frustration among members and dissatisfaction all through the project course. Several of the members like Scott had become the subject of distrust among many, so the team had to prepare a backup to his part of the job. Ultimately, such undesired consequences led to underperformance of the team. They did not complete the project on time and it only managed to secure passing marks. To add more bad to the outcome, some of the team members developed negative experience towards working in group.

Key problems responsible for the underperformance of the “A Team are as follows:

• The team was highly unstructured not only on the individual demography basis, but also in terms of non existence of set norms, schedule and physical set up.
• Group strategy did not involve the ideas and view-points of the members. It did not even have any paradigm to keep track of the strategy, whatsoever designed.
• Non consensus regarding group leadership always created conflicts and dissatisfaction among the members.
• No proper communication channel existed to coordinate the tasks of individuals with the overall progress of the project. Which means group process was faulty.
• No formal regulations and instructions existed for efficient guidance for group development.
• Selection of team member was also faulty as it was comprised of member who differed in course major and experience, which made some members struggle due to less knowledge, some being careless following the overall incompetent vibe and some due to their part-time enrolment remained less available.
• As per the nature of group task members with IT background should have led the group process.
• Moreover, gender difference could also contribute to lack of cohesive group performance. Bettenhausen, K.L., 1991 concluded that gender difference in group functioning can contribute to problem, depending on the degree of other variables like individual characteristic, level of skill et cetera.
• The group literature prominently indicated that major dominance of one incompetent member contributed largely to the conflict and group dysfunction. Many theories including Kozlowski, S. W. L. and Bell, B.S., 2003 and Kramer, R. M., 2001support that a single, toxic team member may be the catalyst for group-level dysfunction, low group efficacy and conflicts.

Factors That Could Have Avoided the Key Problems

A good group structure with balanced resources, and individual member with differentiated skill to complement the inter-dependant tasks, could have helped in making efficient group strategy.

Supportive formal regulations by tutors could have motivated each team member to abide by the proper group activity.

Group strategy and leadership should have developed with common consensus using the group dynamics, like individual skills, availability of each member and considering past experiences of the members.

Group process should have led with an effective communication channel, which would have suited each member equally.

References:

Anderson, M. and Moore, D. 1998, ‘Classroom Globalization’, Working Paper 14/98, Faculty of

Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne.

Bettenhausen, K.L. 1991, ‘Five Years of Group Research: What Have We Learned and What

Needs to be Addressed’, Journal of Management, vol 17, 2, pp 345-381.

Kozlowski, S. W. L., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In:

W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial

and organizational psychology, (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London: Wiley.

Kramer, R. M. (2001). Organizational paranoia: Origins and dynamics. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 23, 1–42.

Robbins, S.P., Waters-Marsh, T., Cacioppe, R. & Millett, B. 1994, Organisational Behaviour:

Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Prentice Hall, Sydney.

Wageman, R. 1997, ‘Critical Success Factors for Creating Superb Self-Managing Teams’,

Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 49-61.

Wood, J., Wallace, J., Zeffane, R. M., Kennedy, D. J., Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G. & Osborn,

R. N. 1998, Organisational Behaviour: An Asia-Pacific Perspective, Wiley, Brisbane.

KF84

But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper.  Our service offers Organization behavior essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”