Arctic Mining Consultants - An OB Case Study
This report examines the underlying reasons why field assistant, Brian Millar, has refused numerous offers to work for Arctic Mining or Field supervisor Tom Parker. It analyzes the issues by applying theories of leadership, motivation and team dynamics, theories found in this case scenario. It is our hope that the outcome of the analysis will lead to us to a further understanding.
Why is it that Millar decided to refuse any further work from Arctic Mining Consultants? What we have identified is that there isn’t one major issue, but several smaller issues which resulted in Millar’s refusal to continue with to Arctic Mining Consultants.
Tom Parker assembled a task force team to accomplish a 15 stake claim up in Eagle Lake. A goal was set to complete this task in 7 days and failed. If we look to the “Team Effectiveness Model”, we can identify several issues surrounding the actual dynamics of this team that were detrimental to its success. When looking at the effectiveness of Parker’s team, we can see that he did assemble a sufficiently sized crew for a job with fairly low task interdependence. This low level of interdependence can work in a team setting but what seems to have adversely affected Millar, was the actual composition of the team. Parker had established a team in which there was minimal cooperation between each of the members. In the case it describes Parker’s instructions to the team, “Only one week to complete the job, everyone would have to average seven and a half lengths per day” The lack of the teaming component was inefficient and had the effect of singling out members that had struggles (Millar). Parker’s poor coordination and minimal communication with the crew, further added to the breakdown. As stated in the case, when Parker did communicate it was usually unconstructive such as, “I thought I told you that I wanted seven and a half lengths a day!” he shouted at Millar and Boyce.” Communication...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document