Donna Burke was a systems engineer at Southwest Engineering Services for five ye
ID: 421276 • Letter: D
Question
Donna Burke was a systems engineer at Southwest Engineering Services for five years when she was invited to participate in a project to develop a new type of software for the company. The project director was Ron Morrison, who had a reputation as a software whiz and rising star in the company. Donna was not sure why she was invited to work on this project, but she was very excited about it. She understood that the work would be important, and she knew that a successful project would also provide a big boost for her career in the company.
Ron called a meeting the first day for the 12 people invited to be part of the project team. After introducing himself, Ron gave a short welcoming speech to the group. “All of you are here today because you have special skills that are essential for the success of this project. Your boss recommended each of you, and only the most qualified people in the company were invited to participate. As you know, the volume of business handled by Southwest Engineering has been growing steadily. The company needs a better type of decision support system for managing engineering projects in a way that will guarantee quality while keeping costs low. Southwest Engineering faces an increasingly competitive market, and this decision support system is essential for the company to remain profitable. Our objective is to develop a new and innovative system that is better than anything else currently available. It is an extremely challenging assignment, but I believe we can pull it off if we have total commitment by every member of the team. If you are going to be part of this team, the project must take priority over everything else in your life for the next nine months. We will be working long days and even many weekends. If anyone has reservations about making a total commitment, there is still time to withdraw from the team. Please let me know your decision by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.” The next day, Donna and 10 other employees joined the team. The one person who declined to join had family health problems that would prevent him from working extra hours on the project.
As the team plunged into the project, the work was even more intense than Donna had expected. On weekdays it was common to order in food and work late into the evening. Working Saturday mornings was taken for granted, and the team would often go to lunch together after finishing work on Saturdays. Ron had an attitude of enthusiasm and optimism that was contagious, and before long even the most cynical and unemotional member of the team was caught up in the excitement. Despite the long hours, the work was exhilarating because everyone knew that they were part of something that would change the way things are done in the company.
Ron provided a clear picture of the specifications necessary for the new system, and this picture was important for guiding the work of team members and keeping them focused on the same objective. However, Ron did not dictate how the work should be done. Team members were expected to use their expertise to determine how to do the work. Ron was available to provide guidance if asked, but he was careful not to impose himself when not needed. When someone was experiencing difficulties in doing a task, Ron was supportive and helpful. Nevertheless, it was clear that he would not tolerate less than a maximum effort.
Ron pushed relentlessly for continued progress in the work. The team met regularly to evaluate progress and determine how to deal with obstacles and problems. Every member of the team had an opportunity to influence important decisions about the design of the software system, and the actual influence for a particular issue depended on one’s expertise and quality of ideas rather than on status in the company or years of experience.
An important part of Ron’s job as project director was to make sure the team got the resources and assistance it needed from the company. Ron spent considerable time traveling to various company facilities to meet with key people whose support and cooperation were needed to design and implement the new system. Before leaving on these trips, Ron would ask a member of the team to carry out his internal leadership responsibilities. When it was her turn, Donna was at first apprehensive, but she found it to be an interesting and satisfying experience. As Ron debriefed her afterward, he encouraged her to consider a managerial position at Southwest Engineering in her career plans.
At one point during the fourth month, the team became discouraged over a series of setbacks involving some persistent technical problems. Ron called a meeting to give them a pep talk. He said to them, “I know you are discouraged about these setbacks, but it happens in any project that is breaking new ground. We have made tremendous progress, and I am really proud of what you have accomplished so far. I am confident we can overcome this latest obstacle and make the project a success. Let’s take the rest of the day off to give ourselves a little rest and meet again tomorrow to discuss some new ideas for integrating the system components.”
The following week the team figured out an innovative way to deal with the obstacle. They celebrated this breakthrough with a party at Ron’s house. The project was completed three months later, which was several weeks earlier than the original deadline. The project was a great success, and they felt tremendous pride in what they accomplished. A final celebration party was held before people dispersed back to their regular units or to new projects. Afterward, Donna and another team member reminisced about their experiences. Donna gave Ron much credit for being a fantastic coach and facilitator, and she hoped to have the opportunity to work with him again on another project. However, she also realized that their success was a team effort that could not have been accomplished without the significant contributions of all the team members and their willingness to cooperate and put the needs of the project above individual self-interests.
Questions
a. Describe the leadership behaviors Ron used and their influence on the attitudes and behavior of the team members.
b. Compare this cross-functional project team to a self-managed operations team by identifying similarities and differences in the leadership roles.
Explanation / Answer
Q1:
Describe the leadership between behaviors Ron used and their influence on theattitudes and behavior of the team members.
Answer:
Ron give motivational speeches to his subordinates, which help them to complete or achieve the sated or aimed goal. He set challenging objectives for the team members and expressed his full confidence in them if they promised him for the full commitment and loyalty to the task.
Ron didn’t dictate work to his subordinates but only provide them necessary specifications needed for the system.
He allowed his team members to use their skills in doing and completing the tasks. Ron guides them whenever needed but doesn’t impose anything to his subordinates. Ron was always supportive and helpful.
He used participative leadership by organizing numerous meetings to evaluate the system’s progress and deal with the obstacles and problems.
Q2:
Compare this cross-functional project team to self-managed operations teamby identifying similarities and differences in the leadership roles.
Answer:
The workflow management architecture is different in cross-functional projectteam and self-managed operations team.
Cross-functional project team consists of a group of people with different functional specialties and responsible for carrying out all phases of a program or project from start to finish. It is basically a temporary group of subordinates selected from different units which are sent back to their respected groups after the task completion. While self-managed operation teams havea longer existence, and the members pass most of their time doing the work of the team. A cross-functional team members are selected from different units but self-managed team selects its own members and then the members evaluate each other performances.
Self-managed and cross-functional teams have some similarities as well. Cross-functional team members can sometimes make decisions of their own without higher level management approval while self-managed teams are designed to give ownership to the members to take decision of their own. Proper training is required in both types of the group. All the subordinates must understand their role and positions.
Q1:
Describe the leadership between behaviors Ron used and their influence on theattitudes and behavior of the team members.
Answer:
Ron give motivational speeches to his subordinates, which help them to complete or achieve the sated or aimed goal. He set challenging objectives for the team members and expressed his full confidence in them if they promised him for the full commitment and loyalty to the task.
Ron didn’t dictate work to his subordinates but only provide them necessary specifications needed for the system.
He allowed his team members to use their skills in doing and completing the tasks. Ron guides them whenever needed but doesn’t impose anything to his subordinates. Ron was always supportive and helpful.
He used participative leadership by organizing numerous meetings to evaluate the system’s progress and deal with the obstacles and problems.
Q2:
Compare this cross-functional project team to self-managed operations teamby identifying similarities and differences in the leadership roles.
Answer:
The workflow management architecture is different in cross-functional projectteam and self-managed operations team.
Cross-functional project team consists of a group of people with different functional specialties and responsible for carrying out all phases of a program or project from start to finish. It is basically a temporary group of subordinates selected from different units which are sent back to their respected groups after the task completion. While self-managed operation teams havea longer existence, and the members pass most of their time doing the work of the team. A cross-functional team members are selected from different units but self-managed team selects its own members and then the members evaluate each other performances.
Self-managed and cross-functional teams have some similarities as well. Cross-functional team members can sometimes make decisions of their own without higher level management approval while self-managed teams are designed to give ownership to the members to take decision of their own. Proper training is required in both types of the group. All the subordinates must understand their role and positions.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.