Henry Tam & MGI Team Case
Members: Ashwin, Jared, Kevin, Michelle, Hannah, Patrick
1 Identify the problem: What is your evaluation of the MGI team’s processes and outcomes? The MGI team was comprised of seven members, three of which were founders: Sasha Gimpeison, Igor Tkachenko, Roman Yakub, Dav Clark, Alexander Jan Sartakov, Dana Soiman, Henry Tam Jr. The evaluation of the MGI team concerning processes and outcomes can be determined by analyzing the five stages of team development. The five stages are, forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. In forming the stage, members were brought into the team at different times. For example, Dav Clark was not introduced until the third meeting. There were some conflicts and confusion among the group members in the storming stage. The confusion about group roles arose when Sasha felt Dana and Henry were merely interns. Dav and Igor, the other team members, saw Dana and Henry as strategic contributors to the business. In the norming stage, the group usually starts to work together, conflict is reduced, and team confidence increases. However, in this case, the team failed to establish proper ground rules and values, not allowing the team to function successfully. There were still disagreements between Sasha, Henry and Dana. Since no information regarding rules and norms had been formally discussed in the norming stage, the problems amongst the team followed them to the performing stage. The performing stage was unsuccessful because the team did not achieve their goal of finishing their task on time. The business plan was not completed by the appropriated time. In the final adjourning stage, due to the disagreements between group members, the task of completing the business plan was not accomplished in the allotted timeframe. 2.
Identify the causes: What are the root causes of the team’s problems? The root causes of the team’s failures came as a result of many factors, including the task, the people and subgroups that formed, and lack of organization. The task was to create a business plan, however the team did a poor job of assigning roles for each member to complete and their brainstorming sessions were led in a disorganized manner.
Through this case, we also saw the formation of subgroups in the form of Dana and Henry, who were making the business plan, and Dav, Igor, and Sasha who worked on the technical side of product design. The founders were Sasha, Igor, and Roman. With this being said, role clarification was very poor and team members did not apply their skills as well as they could have with direction. Group members took on larger roles than they could handle, as evidenced by Henry and Dana when they struggled to finish their workload. From an organizational standpoint, there was no team leader and therefore a lack of cohesion within the team. The team did a poor job of making decision and assigning roles. There was also no system of feedback from which they could find their faults and improve from them. Values and norms were never instilled in the team, giving the MGI team a poor culture to work in. Team members were putting fault on each other, as seen by Igor and Roman blaming Sasha for ignoring sales, while Sasha blamed Henry and others for not utilizing his contributions. Their self-serving bias as they took credit for good work but looked to blames others in tougher situations instead of taking collective responsibility. Their poor communication resulted in-group conflicts and lack of cohesion as a whole. 2 Evaluation: What are the strengths of the MGI team?
The diverse team at MGI was the biggest strength that the start-up possesed. MGI had collaborators from many different backgrounds that provided many of the expertises and skill sets that they needed. The MGI team had strengths when it came to musical and composition expertise. Roman and Igor provided musical skills and developed technical skills...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document