David Fletcher Case Analysis
Why did Fletcher's first attempt to build an effective research team not work out as intended?
Fletcher’s primary mistake was not communicating a clear vision for what he expected of his team and what contributions they needed from him in order to flourish. In her article, “Managing a Team Vs. Managing the Individuals on a Team”, Loren Gary points out the importance of sending the appropriate signals during the initial stages of a team’s creation so that everyone is on the same page (pg. 3). At the time, Fletcher had an opportunity to set the tone and establish cohesion, but by failing to do so he ultimately let the situation get away from him.
Fletcher had unknowingly established a single-leader unit (SLU) during his first attempt, as opposed to an effective team. He hired team members to perform certain functions within the group that didn’t necessarily connect to the work being done by other individuals, which meant that there was very little need for members to work collectively. As the sole leader in the team, this also meant that Fletcher was left with the duty of integrating of all of their individual pieces once the work was complete. He ultimately created more work for himself because he was managing the individuals that made up the team, as opposed to managing the team as a whole and allowing them to take mutual accountability for the work being done.
Fletcher also made the common mistake of ignoring the importance of compatibility when he formed the team. He didn’t investigate each individual’s career goals to consider whether or not they “fit” into a team environment, nor did he consider how compatible each individual was with the other team members. Had he done that then he likely would have seen some of the red flags earlier on; specifically in Whitney and Doyle’s relationship.
What should he do this time around?
To begin, Fletcher should ask himself if a team is the best organizational structure for what he’s trying to accomplish. If
Fletcher’s primary mistake was not communicating a clear vision for what he expected of his team and what contributions they needed from him in order to flourish. In her article, “Managing a Team Vs. Managing the Individuals on a Team”, Loren Gary points out the importance of sending the appropriate signals during the initial stages of a team’s creation so that everyone is on the same page (pg. 3). At the time, Fletcher had an opportunity to set the tone and establish cohesion, but by failing to do so he ultimately let the situation get away from him.
Fletcher had unknowingly established a single-leader unit (SLU) during his first attempt, as opposed to an effective team. He hired team members to perform certain functions within the group that didn’t necessarily connect to the work being done by other individuals, which meant that there was very little need for members to work collectively. As the sole leader in the team, this also meant that Fletcher was left with the duty of integrating of all of their individual pieces once the work was complete. He ultimately created more work for himself because he was managing the individuals that made up the team, as opposed to managing the team as a whole and allowing them to take mutual accountability for the work being done.
Fletcher also made the common mistake of ignoring the importance of compatibility when he formed the team. He didn’t investigate each individual’s career goals to consider whether or not they “fit” into a team environment, nor did he consider how compatible each individual was with the other team members. Had he done that then he likely would have seen some of the red flags earlier on; specifically in Whitney and Doyle’s relationship.
What should he do this time around?
To begin, Fletcher should ask himself if a team is the best organizational structure for what he’s trying to accomplish. If