Case Study Question

COMPETITION AT FAIS QUESTIONABLE TEAM PERFORMANCE

Michael Filantino, the HR manager of Financial Advisory and Investment Services $($FAIS$),$ returned to his

office tired after a day$-$long discussion with the VP of human resources and the head of the project

operation. The extended meeting addressed an incident that had taken place in an off$-$shore project team

at a client in Cayman. The companys reputation was badly damaged by the incident and urgent measures

were required to save the project team. Filantino believed the project team members possessed

substantial individual technical expertise, but lacked the skills to perform together successfully. Filantino

wanted to identify the mistakes made and enact processes and procesures to prevent future incidents of

this nature.

Financial Advisory and Investment Services $($FAIS$)$ was a business process outsourcing company located

in Kingston, Jamaica, specializing in financial and advisory services to clients in the Caribbean. The

company also assisted clients in enterprise application implementation. It offered onsite and offsite

services based on the clients requirements. Client service teams, under the leadership of managers,

provided services based on the clients needs.

Karen Browne was a $29-$year$-$old junior content developer at Financial Advisory and Investment Services

$($FAIS$),$ tasked with preparing and designing training modules for ERP implementation per client

requirements. Prior to joining FAIS Consulting Services, she worked at a digital publishing company for

four years. This experience and expertise helped her land a position at FAIS.

TRAINING MATERIAL PREPARATION AND JOB DESIGN

The company treated the development of ERP training materials for a client as support tasks for the

major ERP implementation project. To complete these supportive tasks, a team would be formed with

an experienced executive as team leader. While most of the tasks were done online, select clients

required team members to relocate onsite to complete and implement the training materials effectively. A

team typically spent a minimum of two months to one year to complete an assignment.

A team was comprised of anywhere between two members to a maximum of twenty$-$five. The onsite

team was selected based on communication skills, writing and documentation capabilities. The selection

process entailed identifying employees based on their specific skill sets and experience matching

the project requirements, which were then forwarded to the client, and finally confirmed during an

interview with the client team.

Training materials usually involved designing course curriculum and a course outline, and then

modules for the clients. The training material focused on varied areas like HRM$,$ finance or other

general management modules.

A typical project team included a project manager, a team leader, senior developers and junior

developers. The team members$$ promotion, pay hike and future prospects for off$-$shore projects depended

upon the appraisal and feedback provided by the project manager. There were three levels in an appraisal

$($a$)$ below expectations $($b$)$ met expectations and $($c$)$ exceeded expectations. Each individual wished

to $$exceed expectations$$ to increase their prospects and growth within the company.

THE TEAM

In the first phase of the project, Browne and Jordon Knight were selected and sent to a client in New

Jersey. They both reported to Chris King, a project manager in FAIS$$ North American division. It was

Browne$$s fourth project and third off$-$shore assignment with North American clients. She was primarily

selected based on an evaluation of her previous performance in both offshore and onshore projects.

Browne was also evaluated based on her approach towards her team leaders, peers and clients, and most

importantly, her ability to meet deadlines. She always $$exceeded expectations$$ and once was even quoted

as $$an important asset for the team$$ on her performance evaluation feedback by a previous project

manager. King was known to be a polite person and an expert in designing training materials. He had

vast experience in handling and executing huge projects for FAIS.

According to Knight,

When it came to organizing his work for the current project, King seemed very lax for

unknown reasons. He always took a week to reply to our emails. There were occasions where I

had to remind him about important emails requiring his immediate attention. Once, King

mentioned in a meeting that he always had around $200$ unread emails at any given point. His

lackadaisical approach affected the team a lot and consequently, our course materials went to the

clients unchecked. Approvals were delayed, creating frustration among team members. The

project team ended up working late hours in the office and struggled to meet deadlines. There were

instances when King refused to take important calls from clients, claiming he was neck deep in

work. He also failed to make calls he had promised to make. King$$s approach toward each project

started irritating the client team; they would often take the initiative to walk up to his desk for a discussion ABOUT THE TEAM

After two months, a few more members from Jamaica joined the team, increasing its membership to $15.$

Browne and Knight were the most junior members overall, but in terms of onsite visits, this was their

third deputation. For the rest of the team members, this was their first onsite experience. The entire team

stayed at a hotel and each member was provided with a separate room. As some of the earliest arrivals,

Browne and Knight provided the initial orientation and briefing about the clients$$ place and the status of

the work to their team. The team was assigned with designing different courses, training material and

preparation and preparation tasks. Each component of these tasks was performed by different team

members; these components would later require alignment and integration to complete the final module.

A week after the team$$s arrival, they began forming groups inside the team. A few members had

worked together in a previous organization; they always moved among themselves and were reluctant to

involve the other members. They preferred to be together during tea breaks or lunch breaks. These

members almost always kept the office pick$-$up van waiting, refusing to step into it until their companions

joined them. Even the team leader, Calvin Jones, was reluctant to get along with other members outside

his own group.

In meetings conducted by King, team members commonly framed their suggestions as group

oriented. Members who voiced their opinions or gave suggestions often stated, $$We have decided$$ or $$We

have worked$-$out$$ to identify their own small groups. These groups provided suggestions without

consulting or briefing the rest of team members prior to the meeting. Often, debates during these meetings

ended acrimoniously with every member promoting their own agenda.

It got to the point where people started refusing to share resources and critical information. In

one instance, I was seeking information regarding a deadline. A senior team member named Kimbery

Miller, a close companion of Jones, refused to share this information with me$.$ When I requested the

resources, he bluntly refused to share, stating that it took him two days to gather those documents. He

believed I should spend the same amount of time looking for it$.$ He also advised to return to him, if I failed

to find them. I was disappointed, when I saw Miller sharing the same documents with one of his group

members. Knight and I told King about this particular incident. We stressed that information sharing had

to be addressed at the next meeting. We also suggested that a common folder be created so team members

people could openly share documents.

According to Karlene Allen, another team member,

For me$,$ it took days to find which team members had a connection with my training material

and course work. We were working like individuals and mini$-$groups within a team. The

team members did not realize this project required integrating each individual$$s work into a

cohesive whole; they were stuck in a rivalry mindset. A few members were even reluctant to reveal

the details about their own work. Our work was like a difficult puzzle. Every morning, there

were debates and arguments due to confusion in the integration issues, chaotic situations

resembling a FAIS market. Throughout this project, we worked with misunderstandings, clashes

and disagreements.

ABOUT JONES$$ THE TEAM LEADER

It was a common sight to see Jones running behind King, gifting him books and memorabilia on

any ordinary day. Jones regularly requested King to join him for lunch or tea. For Jones, the current

project was significant for his promotion, pay hike and future in off$-$shore projects. He always showed the

utmost compliance to whatever King said and rarely offered opinions or counter suggestions to King$$s

own statements. In some instances, Jones took advantage of King$$s delayed decisions and started working on most of King$$s tasks. King then began relying on Jones even for minor decisions regarding the project.

BROWNE$$S ENCOUNTERS

Jones and his group often gossiped about the rest of team members in the hotel$$s lobby. One evening while

Browne was in the lobby waiting for Knight, she happened to overhear Jones discussing King with others.

Jones claimed King had lost his concentration and looked depressed due to his upcoming divorce. Jones

claimed King was relying on him to complete his tasks. In another instance, Allen heard Jones state Browne

was not competent or talented enough to prepare course curriculum. When told about this incident, Browne

was taken aback $$ Jones had never shown any obvious discontent with her work. Annoyed with his

comments, Browne felt Jones should have discussed the issue with her rather than talking about it behind

her back. However, Browne chose to ignore this and concentrate on her work.

Jones derived pleasure from making junior team members feel inferior about their own knowledge

and skills. He tried to intimidate Browne, but her assertive replies and non$-$submissive approach began

bothering him.

After the incident with Jones, Browne noticed gradual changes in King$$s behaviour towards her, who

had previously treated her politely. He began snubbing her and politely mocked her suggestions and

opinions in meetings. In one instance, King asked Browne, specifically, to submit a course deliverable the

day before her normal deadline. Browne completed the task as he asked, but to her surprise, King stated

in the next meeting that Browne had failed to submit her work on time. King mentioned that he did not

want anyone to delay deadlines like Browne did. Browne retaliated immediately, mentioning the date and

time of the deadline met, including the email$$s details.

These events began to disturb Browne; she felt that she was being cornered by King for no obvious

reason. She even got confirmation from other trusted teammates about a noticeable change in King$$s

behaviour toward her. Following this confrontation with King, Browne found deadline dates had suddenly

been advanced. Browne reported King$$s biased behaviour to Jones, expecting him to help her as a team

leader. Instead of discussing this with King, Jones suggested Browne avoid creating any more problems

and meet the new deadlines as King expected.

BROWNE$$S RETURN TO JAMAICA

Both Browne and Knight returned to Jamaica after the completion of their eight$-$month onsite posting. In

Jamaica, they had to provide the final shape of the training materials, based on the client$$s interactions in

New Jersey. There were three levels in the preparation of the training material $$ first, second and final

draft. The first draft contained comprehensive coverage of essential course materials, prepared based on

the interaction with the client. This first draft often contained a few blank pages, spaces and

grammatical errors, which would require further formatting and editing. Blank pages and spaces were

normally filled after receiving clarifications from the client through video conferences. Once these were

completed, the second draft would be sent to the team leader, Jones, for review. After his review and

suggestions, a final draft would be prepared and sent to King for a final review. After the final review, the

course would be delivered to the training leader on the client$$s side.

After Browne$$s return to Jamaica, she finished her first draft and sent a copy to Jones, highlighting the

points to be discussed further with the clients. The next day, Browne received a call from King to tell

Browne her training material was very poor, including formatting errors and blank pages. He also

mentioned the client was very disappointed with her course design. Browne tried to explain this was the

first draft; she still had pending online meetings with the client to provide further clarifications. Browned why Jones would point out these initial mistakes to the

client. She felt Jones had not only put her career at stake, but also the company$$s reputation. Browne

rushed to report this issue to the company$$s HR manager, Filantino. Following her report, Jones was

asked to explain his understanding of the incident. Meanwhile, the unhappy client reported the confusion

and shabby work to the lead client service manager of the Cayman division, and also contacted Roy, the

Jamaican division head. As a measure to contain the situation, Jones was immediately called back to

Jamaica and replaced with another experienced senior team leader. King was given a reprimand, but

retained until the project was completed.

Filantino contemplated this issue, hoping the new team leader would resolve the crisis, allowing the team

to finally complete the project. He also understood this incident had severely damaged the company$$s

image $$ a careful effort would be required to undo the damage. Filantino could not understand how a

mature group of people could create so much conflict among themselves while working toward a common

goal. He understood that the success of the project did not solely depend upon technical expertise of team

members and that something beyond that was needed.

Questions

Use appropriate theories that you have learned in this course, answer the following questions:

$1.$ Discuss the dysfunctional characteristics of the FAIS project Management Team

$2.$ Analyze the issues of leadership in the case. How has Chris preformed as a leader? What has he

done or failed to do to make the team effective?

$3.$ Is poor cohesiveness related to the team$$s performance failure?

$4.$ Discuss the measures that the team leader should consider in the team management processica, she finished her first draft and sent a copy to Jones, highlighting the

points to be discussed further with the clients. The next day, Browne received a call from King to tell

Browne her training material was very poor, including formatting errors and blank pages. He also

mentioned the client was very disappointed with her course design. Browne tried to explain this was the

first draft; she still had pending online meetings with the client to provide further clarifications. BrowneQuestions

Use appropriate theories that you have learned in this course, answer the following questions:

$1.$ Discuss the dysfunctional characteristics of the FAIS project Management Team

$2.$ Analyze the issues of leadership in the case. How has Chris preformed as a leader? What has he

done or failed to do to make the team effective?

$3.$ Is poor cohesiveness related to the team$$s performance failure?

$4.$ Discuss the measures that the team leader should consider in the team management process