Richard L. Daft - Management. 9th ed., 2010
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
PART 5 LEADING520
2. The avoiding style re ects neither assertiveness nor cooperativeness. It is appro-
priate when an issue is trivial, when there is no chance of winning, when a delay
to gather more information is needed, or when a disruption would be costly.
3. The compromising style re ects a moderate amount of both assertiveness and
cooperativeness. It is appropriate when the goals on both sides are equally impor-
tant, when opponents have equal power and both sides want to split the differ-
ence, or when people need to arrive at temporary or expedient solutions under
time pressure.
4. The accommodating style re ects a high degree of cooperativeness, which works
best when people realize that they are wrong, when an issue is more important
to others than to oneself, when building social credits for use in later discussions,
and when maintaining harmony is especially important.
5. The collaborating style reflects both a high degree of assertiveness and
cooperativeness. The collaborating style enables both parties to win,
although it may require substantial bargaining and negotiation. The col-
laborating style is important when both sets of concerns are too important
to be compromised, when insights from different people need to be merged
into an overall solution, and when the commitment of both sides is needed
for a consensus.
As a new manager, appreciate that some confl ict can be healthy, but don’t let confl ict
reduce the team’s effectiveness and well-being. Take the New Manager Self-Test on
page 522 to learn about your personal style for handling confl ict.
Effective team members vary their style to t the speci c situation. Each of the
ve styles is appropriate in certain cases. These styles of handling con ict are espe-
cially useful when an individual disagrees with others. But what does a manager or
team leader do when a con ict erupts among others within a team or among teams
for which the manager is responsible?
Research suggests the use of superordinate goals, mediation, and negotiation for
resolving con icts among people or departments:
▪ Superordinate goals. The larger objective that cannot be attained by a single
party is identi ed as a superordinate goal.
69
It is similar to the concept of vision.
A powerful vision often compels people to overcome con icts and cooperate for
the greater good. Similarly, a superordinate goal requires the cooperation of con-
icting team members for achievement. People must pull together. To the extent
that employees can be focused on team or organization goals, the con ict will
decrease because they see the big picture and realize they must work together to
achieve it.
▪ Mediation. Using a third party to settle a dispute is referred to as mediation. A
mediator could be a supervisor, a higher-level manager, an outside consultant,
or someone from the human resource department. The mediator can discuss the
con ict with each party and work toward a solution. If a solution satisfactory to
both sides cannot be reached, the parties might be willing to turn the con ict over
to the mediator and abide by his or her solution.
Negotiation
One distinctive type of con ict management is negotiation, whereby people engage
in give-and-take discussions and consider various alternatives to reach a joint deci-
sion that is acceptable to both parties. Negotiation is used when a con ict is formal-
ized, such as between a union and management.
TakeaMoment
s
s
s
s
s
sup
eror
d
inate
g
oa
l
Ag
A
g
oal
oal
t
t
t
h
h
h
ha
t
t
t
h
ha
t
tc
t
c
ann
ann
ot
ot
b
be
be
rea
rea
h
che
che
db
db
d
b
ya
y
a
y
s
s
s
s
si
i
ngle party.
m
m
m
m
m
e
d
iation T
h
e process o
f
u
u
u
u
u
sing a t
h
ir
d
party to sett
l
e a
d
d
d
d
d
ispute
.
n
n
n
n
n
egotiation
A
c
o
nfl i
c
t
m
m
m
m
m
m
ana
g
ement strate
gy
whereb
y
y
p
p
p
p
p
eop
l
e en
g
a
g
e in
g
ive-an
d
-
t
t
t
a
ak
e
d
iscussions an
d
consi
d
er
v
v
v
v
v
va
a
rious a
l
ternatives to reac
h
a
j
j
j
o
o
o
o
int
d
ecision t
h
at is accepta
ble
e
t
t
t
o
o
both
p
arties.
CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 521
5
Leading
Types of Negotiation Con icting parties
may embark on negotiation from different
perspectives and with different intentions,
re ecting either an integrative approach or a
distributive approach.
Integrative negotiation is based on a
win-win assumption, in that all parties
want to come up with a creative solution
that can bene t both sides. Rather than
viewing the con ict as a win-lose situa-
tion, people look at the issues from mul-
tiple angles, consider trade-offs, and try
to “expand the pie” rather than divide it.
With integrative negotiation, con icts are
managed through cooperation and com-
promise, which fosters trust and posi-
tive long-term relationships. Distributive
negotiation
, on the other hand, assumes
the “size of the pie” is xed and each party
attempts to get as much of it as they can.
One side wants to win, which means the
other side must lose. With this win-lose
approach, distributive negotiation is com-
petitive and adversarial rather than col-
laborative, and does not typically lead to
positive long-term relationships.
70
Most experts emphasize the value of
integrative negotiation for today’s collaborative business environment. That is, the
key to effectiveness is to see negotiation not as a zero-sum game but as a process for
reaching a creative solution that bene ts everyone.
71
Rules for Reaching a Win-Win Solution Achieving a win-win solution through
integrative negotiation is based on four key strategies:
72
1. Separate the people from the problem. For successful integrative negotiation, peo-
ple stay focused on the problem and the source of con ict rather than attacking or
attempting to discredit each other.
2. Focus on interests, not current demands. Demands are what each person
wants from the negotiation, whereas interests are why they want them. Con-
sider two sisters arguing over the last orange in the fruit bowl. Each insisted
she should get the orange and refused to give up (demands). Then, the girls’
aunt walks in and asks each of them why they want the orange (interests). As
it turned out, one wanted to eat it and the other wanted the peel to use for
a class project. By focusing on the interests, the sisters arrived at a solution
that got each person what she wanted.
73
Demands create yes-or-no obstacles
to effective negotiation, whereas interests present problems that can be solved
creatively.
3. Generate many alternatives for mutual gain. Both parties in an integrative nego-
tiation come up with a variety of options for solving the problem and engage
in give-and-take discussions about which alternatives can get each side what it
wants.
4. Insist that results be based on objective standards. Each party in a negotia-
tion has its own interests and would naturally like to maximize its outcomes.
Successful negotiation requires focusing on objective criteria and maintaining
standards of fairness rather than using subjective judgments about the best
solution.
© NEUCEL SPECIALTY CELLULOSE/PRNEWSFOTO (NEWSCOM)
The closing of the pulp mill in Port Alice on Canada’s
Vancouver Island put 350 people out of work in a community of only 700. “There was
no one in the village who didn’t suffer,” said employee Stu Roper. In late 2005, foreign
investors bought the plant after British Columbia absolved the new owners of responsi-
bility for past environmental damage, the community approved a fi ve-year reduction in
property taxes, and union members and Neucel management, pictured here, reached
an agreement after contentious distributive negotiation. The newly christened Neucel
mill produces high-purity cellulose used in a variety of industries.
i
i
i
i
in
in
int
e
g
rat
i
ve ne
g
ot
i
at
i
on
A
c
c
c
co
ol
c
l
a
b
orative approac
h
to neg
o
o
-
-
-
-
t
t
t
t
i
i
ation t
h
at is
b
ase
d
on a win-
w
w
w
w
w
w
in assumption, whereby the
p
p
p
p
ar
p
ties want to come u
p
p
with
a
a
c
c
c
c
cr
re
c
at
iv
e
so
l
ut
i
o
n
t
h
at
be
n
e
fi
ts
b
b
b
b
b
ot
h
s
i
de
s
o
f
t
h
e
co
nfl i
ct.
d
d
d
d
istributive ne
g
otiation
A
c
c
c
c
co
o
m
c
p
et
p
itive and adversarial
n
n
n
n
n
n
egotiation approach in which
e
e
e
e
ea
a
ch part
y
strives to
g
et as
m
m
m
m
m
m
uch as it can, usuall
y
at the
e
e
e
e
ex
x
pense of the other part
y.
PART 5 LEADING522
Managing Confl ict
Confl icting opinions and perspectives occur in
every team. The ability to handle confl ict and dis-
agreement is one mark of a successful new man-
ager. To understand your approach to managing
confl ict, think about disagreements you have had
with people on student teams or in other situa-
tions, then answer each of the following items as
Mostly True or Mostly False for you.
Mostly
True
Mostly
False
1. I typically assert my
opinion to win a
disagreement.
2. I often suggest solutions
that combine others’
points of view.
3. I prefer to not argue
with team members.
4. I raise my voice to get
other people to accept
my position.
5. I am quick to agree
when someone makes a
good point.
6. I tend to keep quiet
rather than argue with
other people.
7. I stand fi rm in express-
ing my viewpoints during
a disagreement.
8. I try to include other
people’s ideas to cre-
ate a solution they will
accept.
9. I like to smooth over
disagreements so people
get along.
SCORING AND INTERPRETATION: Three
categories of confl ict-handling strategies are
measured in this instrument: competing, accom-
modating, and collaborating. By comparing your
scores you can see your preferred confl ict-handling
strategy.
Give yourself one point for each item marked
Mostly True.
Competing: Items 1, 4, 7
Accommodating: Items 2, 5, 8
Collaborating: Items 3, 6, 9
For which confl ict-handling strategy do you score
highest? New managers may initially be accommo-
dating to get along with people until they size up
the situation. A too-strong competing style may
prevent subordinates from having a say in impor-
tant matters. The collaborating style tries for a
win-win solution and has the long-run potential to
build a constructive team. How would your strat-
egy differ if the other people involved in a disagree-
ment were family members, friends, subordinates,
or bosses?
New ManagerSelf-Test
WORK TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Teams are the building blocks of today’s organizations, but teams do not always
live up to their potential or to the dreams managers have for them. In this sec-
tion, we look at the positive outcomes of effective teams. By assessing teams
CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 523
5
Leading
in terms of productive output, personal satisfaction, and the capacity to adapt
and learn, managers can better identify actions that will enhance work team
effectiveness.
74
Productive Output
One aspect of effectiveness relates to whether the team’s output (such as decisions,
products, or services) meets the requirements of customers or clients in terms of qual-
ity, quantity, and timeliness. An IBM team made up of members in the United States,
Germany, and the United Kingdom, for example, used collaboration software as a
virtual meeting room to solve a client’s technical problem resulting from Hurricane
Katrina within the space of just a few days.
75
Whether online or in physical space,
effective meetings are essential to effective teamwork. The Manager’s Shoptalk gives
some tips for running a great meeting.
Effective teams can unleash enormous energy and creativity from employees.
Social facilitation refers to the tendency for the presence of others to enhance
one’s motivation and performance. Simply being in the presence of other peo-
ple has an energizing effect.
76
This benefit of teams is often lost in virtual and
global teams because people are working in isolation from their teammates.
Good virtual team leaders build in communication mechanisms that keep peo-
ple interacting.
Satisfaction of Members
Another important question is whether the team experience contributes to the
well-being, personal satisfaction, and development of its members. Effective teams
provide multiple opportunities for people to satisfy their individual needs and to
develop both personally and professionally.
77
As described in Chapter 15, employ-
ees have needs for belongingness and af liation, and working in teams can help
meet these needs. Participative teams can also reduce boredom, increase individu-
als’ feeling of dignity and self-worth, and contribute to skill development because
the whole person is employed. At Radius, a Boston restaurant, for example, two-
person kitchen teams have full responsibility for their part of a meal, which gives
them a greater sense of accomplishment and importance and enables them to
expand their culinary and organizational skills.
78
People who have a satisfying
team environment cope better with stress, enjoy their jobs, and have a higher level
of organizational commitment.
Capacity to Adapt and Learn
A professor of management at Santa Clara University analyzed 14 years of National
Basketball Association results and found that teams that had played together lon-
ger won more games. By playing together over a period of time, members learned
to anticipate their teammates’ moves and adapt their own behavior to defeat the
competition.
79
The same thing happens in effective work teams, where members
can anticipate one another’s actions and respond appropriately. A good example is
the emergency room trauma team at Massachusetts General Hospital, which func-
tions so smoothly that the team switches leaders seamlessly depending on the cri-
sis at hand. With each new emergency, direction may come from a doctor, nurse,
intern, or technician—whoever is particularly experienced with the problem.
80
Over
time, effective teams learn from experience and use that learning to revitalize and
regenerate themselves, smoothly adapting to shifting organizational and competi-
tive demands.
81
s
s
s
s
s
soc
ial facilitation T
h
e ten-
d
d
d
d
d
d
en
d
cy for the presence of oth-
e
e
e
er
rs
er
rs
to
to
in
in
flu
fl
u
enc
enc
ea
e
a
ni
n
i
ndi
ndi
vid
vid
ual
ual
’
s
s
m
m
m
m
m
ot
m
ivation and
p
er
p
formance.
PART 5 LEADING524
A recent survey in the United States and Britain found
that people spend an average of 5.6 hours a week in
meetings, yet 69 percent of respondents considered
most of that time wasted. Meetings can be excellent
avenues to solving problems, sharing information,
and achieving shared goals, but good meetings don’t
just happen. Here are some tips on how to make
meetings worthwhile and productive:
Prepare in Advance
Advance preparation is the single most important
tool for running an ef cient, productive meeting.
▪ De ne the purpose. Is the meeting’s purpose
to share information, draw on participants’
expertise and skills, elicit their commitment to
a project, or coordinate the efforts required to
accomplish a speci c task? The leader needs to
be clear about what the purpose is. If a meeting
isn’t essential, don’t have it.
▪ Invite the right people. Meetings fail when too
many, too few, or the wrong people are involved.
Don’t let the meeting get too big, but make sure
everyone with a contribution to make or a stake
in the topic is represented.
▪ Prepare an agenda and identify the expected out-
come. Distributing a simple list of the topics to
be discussed lets people know what to expect. If
the meeting is for exploration only, say so. A lack
of decision making can be frustrating if partici-
pants expect action to be taken.
Bring Out the Best During the Meeting
During the meeting, certain techniques will bring out
the best in people and ensure a productive session:
▪ Start on time, state the purpose, and review the
agenda. Starting on time has symbolic value,
because it tells people that the topic is important
and that the leader values their time. Begin by stat-
ing the meeting’s explicit purpose and clarifying
what should be accomplished by its conclusion.
▪ Establish ground rules. Outlawing cell phones,
PDAs, and laptops can make sure people aren’t
distracted. Other rules concern how people
should interact, such as emphasizing equal par-
ticipation and respectful listening.
▪ Create involvement. Good leaders draw out
the silent and control the talkative so that the
meeting isn’t dominated by one or two assertive
people. In addition, they encourage a free ow
of ideas, provoke discussion with open-ended
questions, and make sure everyone feels heard.
▪ Keep it moving. Allowing participants to waste
time by getting into discussions of issues not
on the agenda is a primary reason people hate
meetings. Move the meeting along as needed to
meet time constraints.
Attend to the End as Much as the Beginning
Review and follow-up is important to summarize
and implement agreed-upon points.
▪ End with a call to action. Summarize the discus-
sion, review any decisions made, and make sure
everyone understands his or her assignments.
▪ Follow up swiftly. Send a short memo to sum-
marize the meeting’s key accomplishments,
outline agreed-upon activities, and suggest
schedules for implementation.
SOURCES: Based on Suzanne Bates, “Learning to Lead:
Five Steps to Pain Free, Productive Meetings,” Supervision
(August 2006): 18–19; Beth Bratkovic, “Running an Effective
Meeting,” Government Finance Review (April 2007): 58–60;
Phred Dvorak, “Corporate Meetings Go Through a Makeover,”
The Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2006; Antoney Jay, “How
to Run a Meeting,” Harvard Business Review (March–April
1976): 120–134; and Richard Axelrod, Emily M. Axelrod, Julie
Beedon, and Robert Jacobs, “Creating Dynamic, Energy-
Producing Meetings,” Leader to Leader (Spring 2005): 53–58.
How to Run a Great Meeting
Manager’sShoptalk
CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 525
5
Leading
ch17
A MANAGER’S ESSENTIALS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
▪ Several important concepts about teams were described in this chapter. Teams
can be effective in providing the coordination and information sharing needed to
accomplish interdependent tasks. However, teams present a dilemma for many
people. Individuals have to give up their independence and sometimes make
sacri ces for the good of the team. Other potential problems are free riders and
dysfunctional teams.
▪ Some teams are part of the formal structure, while others are designed to increase
employee involvement and participation. Formal teams include vertical teams
along the chain of command and horizontal teams such as cross-functional
teams, committees, and special-purpose teams. Employee involvement via
teams brings lower-level employees into decision processes to improve quality,
ef ciency, and job satisfaction. Companies typically start with problem-solving
teams, which may evolve into self-directed teams that take on responsibility
for management activities. Innovative approaches to teamwork include virtual
teams and global teams, which place new demands on team leaders.
▪ Most teams go through systematic stages of development: forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning. Team characteristics that in uence orga-
nizational effectiveness are size, diversity, cohesiveness, norms, and members’
roles.
▪ All teams experience some con ict because of scarce resources, ambiguous
responsibilities, communication breakdown, or goal con icts. Some con ict is
bene cial, but too much can hurt the team and the organization. Techniques for
managing and resolving con icts include superordinate goals, mediation, and
negotiation.
▪ To identify ways to improve work team effectiveness, managers can assess teams
in terms of productive output, personal satisfaction, and the capacity to adapt
and learn.
1. Volvo went to self-directed teams to assemble cars
because of the need to attract and keep workers in
Sweden, where pay raises are not a motivator (high
taxes) and many other jobs are available. Are these
factors good reasons for using a team approach?
Discuss.
2. Discuss how the dilemmas of teamwork might be
intensi ed in a virtual team. What dilemmas do
you feel when you have to do class assignments as
part of a team? Discuss.
3. Suppose you are the leader of a team that has just
been created to develop a new registration process
at your college or university. How can you use an
understanding of the stages of team development
to improve your team’s effectiveness?
4. Imagine yourself as a potential member of a team
responsible for designing a new package for break-
fast cereal. Do you think interpersonal skills would
be equally important if the team is organized face-
to-face versus a virtual team? Why or why not?
Might different types of interpersonal skills be
required for the two types of teams? Be speci c.
5. If you were the leader of a special-purpose team
developing a new computer game and con icts
arose related to power and status differences
among team members, what would you do? How
might you use the various con ict-resolution tech-
niques described in the chapter?
6. Experts say that for teams to function well, mem-
bers have to get to know one another in some
depth. What speci cally would you do to facilitate
this in a co-located team? What about in a global
virtual team?
7. When you are a member of a team, do you adopt
a task specialist or socioemotional role? Which role
is more important for a team’s effectiveness?
ch17
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
PART 5 LEADING526
8. Some people argue that the presence of an outside
threat correlates with a high degree of team cohe-
sion. Would you agree or disagree? Explain your
answer.
9. Do you believe that admitting ignorance is a good
way for a team leader to earn respect? Would this
cause some people to disrespect the leader and
question his or her suitability for team leadership?
Discuss.
10. One company had 40 percent of its workers and
20 percent of its managers resign during the rst
year after reorganizing into teams. What might
account for this dramatic turnover? How might
managers ensure a smooth transition to teams?
ch17
MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE: EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
This and That: Best Team—Worst Team
Think of two teams of which you were a member—
the best and the worst in terms of personal satisfac-
tion and team performance. These teams could come
from any area in your experience—for example, ath-
letic team, student club, class team, work team, project
team, church committee, or volunteer organization.
List below the speci c behaviors of the teams that
made them the best and worst for you.
Best team behaviors: _____________________________
________________________________________________
Worst team behaviors: ____________________________
________________________________________________
In class: (1) Sit in a small group of three to ve stu-
dents. Each student tells the brief story of his or her
best and worst team experiences. (2) After all stories
are heard, one team member writes on a ipchart
(or blackboard) two headings—"More of This” and
“Less of That.” Under “This,” write team member
suggestions for positive behaviors that make for effec-
tive teamwork. Under “That,” write team member
suggestions for negative behaviors that prevent effec-
tive teamwork. (3) After brainstorming items, each
group condenses each list to ve key behaviors the
group considers most important (4) After the lists are
nalized, students can walk around the classroom
and review all lists. (5) Discuss answers to the ques-
tions below either in your group or as a class.
1. What is the most important behavior for This and
for That?
2. What factors in uence the presence of This or That
behaviors on a team?
3. What personal changes would you need to make as
a team member to demonstrate more of “This"?
4. What personal changes would you need to make as
a team member to demonstrate less of “That"?
5. How might a team leader be able to attain more of
“This” on a team and less of “That"?
SOURCE: Based on James W. Kinneer, “This and That: Improving
Team Performance,” in The 1997 Annual: Volume 2, Consulting (San
Francisco: Pfeiffer, 1997), pp. 55–58.
One for All and All for One?
Melinda Asbel watched as three of her classmates
led out of the conference room. Then she turned
back to the large wooden table and faced her fellow
members (a student and three faculty members) of the
university’s judiciary committee.
The three students—Joe Eastridge, Brad Hamil,
and Lisa Baghetti—had just concluded their appeal
against a plagiarism conviction stemming from a
group project for an international marketing course.
Melinda, who happened to be in the class with the
students on trial, remembered the day the professor,
Hank Zierden, had asked Joe, Brad, and Lisa, along
with the group’s leader, Paul Colgan, to stay after
class. She happened to walk by the classroom a half
hour later to see four glum students emerge. Even
though Paul had a chagrined expression on his face,
Joe was the one who looked completely shattered. It
didn’t take long for word to spread along the ever-
active grapevine that Paul had admitted to plagiariz-
ing his part of the group paper.
At the hearing, the students recounted how
they’d quickly and unanimously settled on Paul to
lead the group. He was by far the most able student
among them, someone who managed to maintain a
stellar GPA even while taking a full course load and
ch17
MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE: ETHICAL DILEMMA
CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 527
5
Leading
holding down a part-time job. After the group worked
together for weeks analyzing the problem and devis-
ing a marketing plan, Paul assigned a section of the
nal paper to each member. With the pressure of all
those end-of-the-semester deadlines bearing down on
them, everyone was delighted when Paul volunteered
to write the company and industry background, the
section that typically took the most time to produce.
Paul gathered in everyone’s contributions, assembled
them into a paper, and handed out the nal draft to
the other members. They each gave it a quick read.
They liked what they saw and thought they had a
good chance for an A.
Unfortunately, as Paul readily admitted when
Professor Zierden confronted them, he had pulled
the section he’d contributed directly off the Internet.
Pointing out the written policy he had distributed at
the beginning of the semester stating that each group
member was equally responsible for the nal product,
the professor gave all four students a zero for the proj-
ect. The group project and presentation counted for
30 percent of the course grade.
Joe, Brad, and Lisa maintained they were com-
pletely unaware that Paul had cheated. “It just never
occurred to us Paul would ever need to cheat,” Brad
said. They were innocent bystanders, the students
argued. Why should they be penalized? Besides, the
consequences weren’t going to fall on each of them
equally. Although Paul was suffering the embarrass-
ment of public exposure, the failing group project
grade would only put a dent in his solid GPA. Joe, on
the other hand, was already on academic probation.
A zero probably meant he wouldn’t make the 2.5 GPA
he needed to stay in the business program.
At least one of the faculty members of the judi-
ciary committee supported Professor Zierden’a
actions. “We’re assigning more and more group
projects because increasingly that’s the way these
students are going to nd themselves working when
they get real jobs in the real world,” he said. “And the
fact of the matter is that if someone obtains informa-
tion illegally while on the job, it’s going to put the
whole corporation at risk for being sued, or worse.”
Even though she could see merit to both sides,
Melinda was going to have to choose. If you were
Melinda, how would you vote?
What Would You Do?
1. Vote to exonerate the three group project members
who didn’t cheat. You’re convinced they had no
reason to suspect Paul Colgan of dishonesty. Exon-
erating them is the right thing to do.
2. Vote in support of Hank Zierden’s decision to hold
each individual member accountable for the entire
project. The professor clearly stated his policy at
the beginning of the semester, and the students
should have been more vigilant. The committee
should not undercut a professor’s explicit policy.
3. Vote to reduce each of the three students’ penal-
ties. Instead of a zero, each student will receive
only half of the possible total points for the project,
which would be an F. You’re still holding students
responsible for the group project, but not impos-
ing catastrophic punishment. This compromise
both undercuts the professor’s policy and punishes
“innocent” team members to some extent, but not
as severely.
SOURCE: Based on Ellen R. Stapleton, “College to Expand Policy
on Plagiarism,” The Ithacan Online (April 12, 2001), www.ithaca
.edu/ ithacan/articles/0104/12/news/0college_to_e.htm.
ch17
CASE FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Calgary Oil Shale Technologies, Inc.
When Martin Bouchard took over as president and
CEO of Calgary Oil Shale Technologies, Inc. (COST),
one of his top goals was to introduce teams as a way
of solving the morale and productivity problems at
the company’s Alberta eld operations site. COST is
a subsidiary of an international oil eld services com-
pany. The subsidiary specializes in supplying technol-
ogy and data management to optimize the recovery of
oil from oil shale formations in Alberta, Colorado, and
Utah. Oil shale is sedimentary rock containing a high
proportion of organic matter that can be converted
into crude oil or natural gas. With the price of crude
oil skyrocketing and world supplies limited, energy
companies in Canada and the United States were
making a big push to recover hydrocarbons trapped
in oil shale and slow-forming oil formations. Through
its proprietary logging technology, COST could
distinguish oil-bearing rock layers and help energy
companies gain higher productivity from oil shale
production.
COST used highly trained professionals, such as
geologists, geophysicists, and engineers, to handle
the sophisticated technology. They also used skilled
PART 5 LEADING528
and semiskilled labor to run the company’s eld
operations. The two groups regularly clashed, and
when one engineer’s prank sent a couple of opera-
tions workers to the emergency room, the local press
had a eld day publishing articles about the con ict.
The company hired Algoma Howard, a First Nations
descendant, to develop a teamwork program to
improve productivity and morale at the Calgary facil-
ity. Howard previously had great success using teams
as a way to bring people together, enable them to
understand one another’s problems and challenges,
and coordinate their efforts toward a common goal.
The idea was to implement the program at other
COST locations after the pilot project.
In Alberta, Howard had a stroke of luck in the
form of Carlos Debrito, a long-time COST employee
who was highly respected at the Alberta of ce and
was looking for one nal challenging project before
he retired. Debrito had served in just about every pos-
sible line and staff position at COST over his 26-year
career, and he understood the problems workers faced
on both the technical and eld sides of the business.
Howard was pleased when Debrito agreed to serve as
leader for the Alberta pilot program.
The three functional groups at the Alberta site
included operations, made up primarily of hourly
workers who operated and maintained the logging
equipment; the “below ground” group, consisting of
engineers, geologists, and geophysicists who deter-
mined where and how to dig or drill; and a group
of equipment maintenance people who were on
call. Howard and Debrito decided the rst step was
to get these different groups talking to one another
and sharing ideas. They instituted monthly “ reside
chats,” optional meetings to which all employees
were invited. The chats were held in the cafeteria dur-
ing late afternoon, and people could have free coffee
or tea and snacks brought by Howard and Debrito.
The idea was to give employees a chance to discuss
dif cult issues and unresolved problems in a relaxed,
informal setting. The only people who showed up at
the rst meeting were a couple of engineers who hap-
pened to wander by the cafeteria and see the snack
table. Debrito opened the meeting by folding out a
cardboard “ replace” and pulling four chairs around
it for the small group to talk. Word quickly spread
of the silly “ replace” incident (and the free food),
and more and more people gradually began to attend
the meetings. Early sessions focused primarily on
talking about what the various participants saw as
“their” group’s needs, as well as the problems they
experienced in working with the “other” groups. One
session almost came to sticuffs until Debrito loudly
announced that someone needed to go out and get
another log for the re, breaking the tension and mov-
ing things along. During the next session, Debrito
and Howard worked with the group to come up with
“rules of engagement,” including such guidelines as
“focus on the issue, not the person,” “lose the words
us and them,” and “if you bring it up, you have to help
solve it.”
Within about six months, the reside chats had
evolved into lively problem-solving discussions
focused on issues that all three groups found impor-
tant. For example, a maintenance worker complained
that a standard piece of equipment failed repeatedly
due to cold weather and sand contamination. Debrito
listened carefully and then drew a maintenance engi-
neer into the discussion. The engineer came up with a
new con guration better suited to the conditions, and
downtime virtually disappeared.
The next step for Howard and Debrito was to
introduce of cial “problem busting” teams. These tem-
porary teams included members from each of the three
functional areas and from various hierarchical levels,
and each was assigned a team leader, which was typi-
cally a respected rst-line supervisor. Team leaders
were carefully trained in team-building, shared-
leadership, and creative problem-solving techniques.
The teams were asked to evaluate a speci c problem
identi ed in a reside chat and then craft and imple-
ment a solution. The teams were disbanded when the
problem was solved. CEO Martin Bouchard authorized
the teams to address problems within certain cost
guidelines without seeking management approval.
Despite the camaraderie that had developed dur-
ing the reside chats, some delicate moments occurred
when engineers resented working with eld person-
nel and vice versa. In addition, some managers felt
disempowered by the introduction of problem-busting
teams. They had seen their role as that of problem
solver. Now, they were asked to share responsibil-
ity and support decisions that might come from the
lowest-level workers in the company. Building com-
mitment and trust among lower-level employees
wasn’t easy either. Howard suggested to DeBrito that
they use a “connection ladder” that she had observed
used in a hospital nursing team. The idea is for the
leader to identify where each team member is in
terms of connection/disconnection with the process to
determine what approach can help move the person
from indifference toward commitment. Over time, and
with Debrito’s and Howard’s continuing guidance,
the problem-busting teams eventually began to come
together and focus on a number of chronic problems
that had long been ignored.
About a year and a half into the team-building
program, the entire workforce in Alberta was orga-
nized into permanent cross-functional teams that
were empowered to make their own decisions and
elect their own leaders. By this time, just about
everyone was feeling comfortable working cross-
functionally, and within a few months, things were
really humming. The professional and hourly workers
CHAPTER 17 LEADING TEAMS 529
5
Leading
ch17
ON THE JOB VIDEO CASE
Evo: Teamwork
Evo had supported a sports team of hard-core athletes
for years, but it only recently attempted the experi-
ment of launching a formal workplace team. Like
many companies, the online retailer of snowboard,
ski, skate, and wake gear had been in the habit of
sloppily throwing around team metaphors to describe
anything involving random groups of employees. Evo
nally got serious about the team concept when the
company formed a creative services team.
got along so well that they decided to continue the
reside chat sessions after work, either in the cafete-
ria with snacks provided by volunteers or at a local
bar. Some tensions between the groups remained, of
course, and at one of the chats an operations worker
jokingly suggested that the team members should
duke it out once a week to get rid of the tensions so
they could focus all their energy on their jobs. Several
others joined in the joking, and eventually, the group
decided to square off in a weekly hockey game. For
the opening game, Howard served as goalie on one
side and Debrito as goalie on the other. Implementa-
tion of teams at the Alberta facility was deemed by
management to be a clear success. Productivity and
morale were soaring and costs continued to decline.
The company identi ed the Colorado of ce as the
next facility where Algoma Howard and her leader-
ship team needed to introduce the cross-functional
teams that had proven so successful in Alberta.
Howard’s team felt immense pressure from top man-
agement to get the team-based productivity project
up and running smoothly and quickly in Colorado.
Top executives believed the lessons learned in Alberta
would make implementing the program at other sites
less costly and time-consuming. However, when
Howard and her team attempted to implement the
program at the Colorado facility, things did not go well.
Because people were not showing up for the reside
chats, Howard’s team, feeling pressed for time, made
attendance mandatory. Ground rules were set by the
leadership team at the beginning, based on the guide-
lines developed in Alberta, and the team introduced
speci c issues for discussion, again using the informa-
tion they had gleaned from the early freewheeling
Alberta sessions as a basis. However, the meetings still
produced few valuable ideas or suggestions.
When it came time to form problem-busting teams,
Howard thought it might be a good idea to let the
groups select their own leaders, as a way to encour-
age greater involvement and commitment among the
Colorado workers. The leaders were given the same
training that had been provided in Alberta. However,
although a few of the problem-busting teams solved
important problems, none of them showed the kind
of commitment and enthusiasm Howard had seen in
Alberta. In addition, the Colorado workers refused to
participate in softball games and other team-building
exercises that her team developed for them. Howard
nally convinced some workers to join in a softball
game by bribing them with free food and beer, but the
rst game ended with a ght between two operations
workers and a group of engineers.
“If I just had a Carlos Debrito in Colorado, things
would go a lot more smoothly,” Howard thought.
“These workers don’t trust us the way workers in
Alberta trusted him.” It seemed that no matter how
hard Howard and her team tried to make the project
work in Colorado, morale continued to decline and
con icts between the different groups of workers
actually seemed to increase.
Questions
1. Algoma Howard and Carlos Debrito phased in
permanent cross-functional teams in Alberta. What
types of teams are the “ reside chats” and “problem-
busting teams”? Through what stage or stages of
team development did these groups evolve?
2. What role did Carlos Debrito play in the success of
the Alberta team-based productivity project? What
leadership approach did he employ to help reduce
con ict between labor and the professionals? Do
you agree with Algoma Howard that if she just had
a Carlos Debrito in Colorado, the project would
succeed? Explain your answer.
3. What advice would you give Algoma Howard and
her team for improving the employee-involvement
climate, containing costs, and meeting production
goals at the Colorado facility?
SOURCES: Based on Michael C. Beers, “The Strategy That Wouldn’t
Travel,” Harvard Business Review (November–December 1996):
18–31; Cathy Olofson, “Can We Talk? Put Another Log on the Fire,”
Fast Company (December 19, 2007), http://www.fastcompany.com/
magazine/28/minm.html (accessed September 3, 2008); Karen Blount,
“How to Build Teams in the Midst of Change,” Nursing Management
(August 1998): 27–29; and Erin White, “How a Company Made Every-
one a Team Player,” The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2007.