Analysis Managing Dynamic New Melbourne Team

One of the essential activities of manager is forming a team to execute the task and managing the team effectively to achieve the goal and objective of the company. Effective team management is directly related with cohesive leadership, effective communication, common goal and defining roles and responsibilities of team members (Meredith, 2011). The major barrier in team management is the lack of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, lack of accountability and not paying attention to results. In the context of Dynamic, the team management of the new team at Melbourne is examined by task interdependence, importance of team cohesion and recommendation to manage the issue by Jeff at company. Task interdependence can be defined as a functional approach that explains the sharing of information, material and expertise between team members working to achieve the common goal of the team (Cannella, Park, and Lee, 2008). In the process of defining the task interdependence in some cases there is accelerated chance of conflicts between team members and it impacts the team cohesion. Team cohesion is the common bond between members of team and their joint effort to contribute to success of the team.   Thus team cohesion results in better cooperation and effective performance by achieving set goal. Lack of cohesion is harmful for the health of the team and impact the performance negatively by enhancing stress and non cooperation on the part of team members (Cannella, Park, and Lee, 2008). Thus in the long run cohesion in the workplace signifies success of team while lack of cohesion signifies failure of the team thereby impacting the performance and goal of the company. In the context of Dynamic the digital strategy director Jeff formed a team of eight members to execute the Burnfit account. The team is mix of members from Dynamic and MediaHype, the new acquisition of the former in Melbourne to expand the business in Australia (Dyer, 2007). As the project was crucial, team members were assigned roles and responsibility and three deliverables identified to be achieved by month end. The reporting structure of the team members was also clarified as they were directly reporting to the director to avoid waste of time by creating additional line of reporting (Dyer, 2007). Thus every step taken to make the team perform such as effective communication, common goal and defining roles and responsibilities of team members. But the problem was team cohesion among the members of the team. The problem associated with the lack of team cohesion within the Dynamic is outlined below As the team was formed by combining the staff from two different company namely Dynamic and MediaHype, there is difference in the culture and work approach resulting in lack of trust on each other and fear of conflict. Thus in first weak every member expressed positive feedback as part of formality (Mackin, 2007). Even Jeff found flow of mails between team members indicating the team is working towards goal as is evident from the case study. The first team meeting also exhibited the same with no team members raising any issue and problem. From the cash study analysis it was evident that the team from MediaHype and Dynamic did not coordinate and support each other effectively. In the second week meeting Anjana Singh –the web editor and content strategist complained that she did not get the feedback regarding the progress of new website from the Yuchou and Wen – the senior digital strategy consultant (Mackin, 2007). Similarly Mike –the social media manager also complained about Yuchou and Wen and stated that they were not serious about the project and informed to proceed as he feels without contributing their opinion. Similarly from the case study analysis it was evident that the Dynamic team Sydney and Dynamic team Singapore also exhibited lack of cohesion In the third week Yuchou and Wen complained that team of Sydney Franz and Amanda – Junior digital strategy consultant were not fit for the job and need to be replaced (Simsek et al., 2005). They also stated both of them lacked the confidence for executing the task and disturb them by asking questions all the time. Thus it is evident from the case study analysis that there is no bonding between the team members and it resulted in lack of communication and cooperation and it is root cause of the problems associated with the lack of team cohesion within the company (Simsek et al., 2005). Organizational behaviour (OB) is part of human resource management and it deal with the behaviour of people at workplace with regard to their act, feeling and thought process. It explains the leadership style and motivation to address problem and solve team conflict to improve cooperation thereby promoting team effectiveness (Wright, and Nishii, 2007). OB has many theories to handle the problem of team in the workplace and they can be classified into five major theories. They are explained below This theory of OB identifies the personality of individuals such as dispositional trait and behavioural dynamics to improve the team work in the workplace (Wright, and Nishii, 2007). This theory of OB identifies the inner urge of indiviaul and uses them to improve team work in the workplace. The theory of motivation has number of sub theory such as common sense theory, expectancy theory, goal setting theory, fundamental attribution theory, Herzberg’s two factor theory and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Burke et al., 2006). Based on the team requirement, the manager can select the appropriate theory to motivate members of team. This theory of OB identifies the Gestalt principles that shape the perceived though of an individual. It helps to address such as lack of trust, and fear of conflict in team members (Burke et al., 2006). This theory of OB identifies aims to adjust the attitude and behaviour of individual to develop common bond (Edwards, 2009). It uses organisational behaviour modification, single and double loop learning, reinforcement theory and social cognitive theory. In the context of Dynamic where the eight members team belong to three different category namely Dynamic Singapore, Dynamic Sydney and MediaHype leading to diverse attitude and behaviour owing to the earlier workplace practice (Bowditch, Buono, and Stewart, 2007). Thus using OB theory to analyse Dynamic’s problems it was identified that the attitude and behaviour of team members of three different work culture was the main issue responsible for lack of team cohesion (Rollinson,   2008). It is is resulting from the lack of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, lack of accountability and not paying attention to results (Bowditch, Buono, and Stewart, 2007). It resulted in no cooperation and coordination between team members impacting task and performance as evident from the case analysis of problem outlined above. To formulate solution to Dynamic’s problems, the Theories of attitudes and behaviour is helpful. In specific organisational behaviour modification theory can be used to change the attitude and behaviour of eight individuals and cultivate a common bond and shared goal towards the Burnfit account so that they coordinate and cooperate with each other by communicating effectively and providing feedback on time to make progress in the work and achieve the target set for the job (Mullins, 2007). The manager can also use the Theories of motivation to be more specific common sense theory that not supporting each other is failure of the team and it affects every individual in the team Thus it can be concluded form the above discussion problem associated with lack of team cohesion within the new team of Dynamic is outlined. It is mainly related with different work culture practiced by eight team members from three different group and lack of trust and fear of conflict that resulted in poor team cohesion (De   and Den ,2008). Based on the OB theory, the problem identified is attitude and behavioural aspect of team members and the solution suggested is using the organisational behaviour modification theory, their attitude and behaviour changed to develop common bond and shared goals related with Burnfit account. Bowditch, J.L., Buono, A.F. and Stewart, M.M., 2007. A primer on organizational behavior. Wiley. Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Salas, E., Pierce, L. and Kendall, D., 2006. Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), p.1189. Cannella, A.A., Park, J.H. and Lee, H.U., 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), pp.768-784. De Hoogh, A.H. and Den Hartog, D.N., 2008. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), pp.297-311. Dyer, W.G., 2007. Team building. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Edwards, M.R., 2009. An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel review, 39(1), pp.5-23. Mackin, D., 2007. The team building tool kit: tips and tactics for effective workplace teams. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Meredith Belbin, R., 2011. Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(3). Mullins, L.J., 2007. Management and organisational behaviour. Pearson education. Rollinson, D., 2008. Organisational behaviour and analysis: an integrated approach. Pearson Education. Simsek, Z., Veiga, J.F., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dino, R.N., 2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), pp.69-84. Wright, P.M. and Nishii, L.H., 2007. Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. CAHRS Working Paper Series, p.468.