The Army Crew Team
From my personal experience, team related questions are the most frequently asked questions in job interviews. Companies want to know the interviewees’ experience with diversified teams, because they want to know the type of team player of the interviewee. As most companies function in the unit of a team, it is increasingly important for employees and managers to understand how a team works, and how to transit smoothly from different stages. The Army Crew Team case reveals the frustration associated with declining performance by the varsity boat at the United States Military Academy. The symptoms are obvious, but the root causes lie underneath the symptoms. Multiple factors from multiple parties contributed to the situation. The best solution that addresses the root causes will be discussed in the conclusion. The problem presented in the case is that Colonel Stas Preczewski (Coach P), the coach for the Army Crew team was facing a unique situation he had never faced before. After a long series of objective measuring tests, Coach P had selected the top eight members with excellent strength, conditioning, and rowing technique to form the Varsity team representing the Military Academy for the national championship race. The rest of team had formed the Junior Varsity. However, the Junior Varsity had frequently beaten the Varsity during practice and some races. As the new season was approaching, Coach P was facing decisions of making the Junior Varsity team go for the game or intervening the Varsity team to improve performance. The root causes of the Junior Varsity’s regular victory against the Varsity team are associated with the three key factors in the case: Coach P, the Varsity team and the Junior Varsity team. Like most of his peers, Coach P used a wide range of quantitative metrics for each rower to determine who would sit in the varsity boat. However, the research result presented in the case revealed the four most important...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document