Newbridge Leadership

Newbridge Leadership

Contents

TOC o “1-3” h z u Executive Summary PAGEREF _Toc376341566 h 1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc376341567 h 1Challenges, Problems and Issues in the Case PAGEREF _Toc376341568 h 2Assumption of Case Study PAGEREF _Toc376341569 h 2One Major Problem in the Case PAGEREF _Toc376341570 h 3Organizational Behavior Theory to Critically Evaluate the Problem PAGEREF _Toc376341571 h 3Support Argument with Academic Research Collected in Step 2 PAGEREF _Toc376341572 h 4Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc376341573 h 4Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc376341574 h 6

Executive SummaryWith increased levels to access to information, globalization and competition, team work has gained a lot of popularity among organizations as it brings about different sets of talents, skills, expertise and opinions together in the ultimate goal of enhanced performance levels through effective decision making and efficient problem solving techniques.

Introduction

The case study depicts Newbridge leadership as inclusive of all the team members – Link, Oliver, Georgia and Bob. Newbridge led the proton project which he had discovered. The team spirit was instilled by the project head Dr Goh. However, this changed with the introduction of Zaph, a brilliant individual able to think outside the box but who believed that team work is mediocre. Newbridge is not happy but opts to be quiet as Zaph seems to handle all the projects alone. Team meetings decrease and Newbridge as well as other team members apart from Link get concerned. When the day of the presenting the project to investors reached, Newbridge, requests Dr Goh to allow Zaph present it. However this does not stop Newbridge’s feeling that his value in the organization has been compromised. After the presentation he looks for another job and moves on. Dr Goh is surprised by this sudden change of heart because he had considered giving Zaph another project while Newbridge still leads the proton project.

Case Analysis

Challenges, Problems and Issues in the CaseCommunication is important because it facilitates the flow of information within the organization. It is the bloodline of any organization, this because it gives the organization a competitive advantage over other companies, (McGinnis 2005, pg. 50). In the case study we come to see the organization has some deep communication problems. With the introduction of Zaph, problems began emerging with most members feeling marginalized by his actions and predominance over the project. We can see despite all these misgivings no one addresses this issue and people are silent over the matter. Communication within a team is vital because it plays a crucial role in altering members’ attitudes. This is because a well-informed member of a team has a better attitude than one who is less informed, (Dyne & Botero 2003, pg. 14). This can be seen in the case where Zaph does all the work and only informs members about the project. He uses complicated words that some of the members do not comprehend. Thus, the members of the team did not really understand.

Leadership was also a problem in the proton lab. The failure of the project leader Dr Goh to read into the signs of discontent among the team was an indication that there was a leadership vacuum within the organizations’ leadership. Effective and efficient leadership involves the leaders of the organization to dig deeper when they make structural changes within its structures.

Assumption of Case StudyThe main assumption is that team work enhances better decisions because it involves discussions of divergent points of views, (Singh 2009, 30). The ultimate success depends on what every team member brings to the table. This can be seen in the case, where after Zaph hijacks the project, the team breaks down because the contribution of members to the project is not considered and this ultimately leads to Newbridge looking for another job. In case study it is reported that the proton lab team was hit hard by this lack of team work and this was despite the fact that the project was successful.

One Major Problem in the CaseThe main problem in this case study is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was another problem that was evident in the case study. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to accomplish a particular task, and this has a powerful effect on the behavior of people and how they think or feel. Individuals that have high self-efficacy mainly focus on the assessment of a problem and the finding of solutions, (Thompson 2007, Pg. 188). Individuals do not have self-efficacy on all sectors and situations, and this is why teams are fundamental to the success of an organization, (Driscoll, 2004). In the case study we come to see that Zaph, as an individual who is very bright and has high self-efficacy on problem solving and the identification of weak areas. He has strong work ethic in that we see he works even late at night, as evidenced in the case where he made a very late call to Newbridge in the middle of the night, to inform him about how he found the solution to the weak sectors of the project.

Organizational Behavior Theory to Critically Evaluate the ProblemAccording to the systems theory of organizational behavior, nonlinear relationships exist between variables and small changes in on variable within the organization can have a huge counter effect on another variable. The system theory states that all components within an organizations structure are interrelated and the changing or reorganization of one variable might impact other variables. This theory assumes that the organization is always in a dynamic equilibrium in an attempt to adapt to changes within the environment that it operates. The introduction of Zaph into the organization fundamentally changed how the team worked and their performance. This led to a drastic change in how the members of the team perceived the project. The new addition to the team brought with him changes which significantly affected other members of the team, and this eventually led to the falling out of the team as the team leader Newbridge chose to resign his position as a result. The proton lab team had a rapport and a system on how they conducted themselves. This could be seen in the meetings where everyone was encouraged to share and discussions were carried out, making sure that every team member including the secretaries was up to speed with the developments of the project.

Support Argument with Academic Research Collected in Step 2Self-efficacy plays an important role in causal structure this is because it affects human functioning. This is not affects people directly but also through other different determinants. These determinants include incentives, perceived impediments, opportunities and goal aspirations. This affects self-motivation through the impact it has on the aspirations and goals that the organizations have. In the expectancy-value theory, it states that certain behavior yields certain outcomes and value is placed on the resultant outcomes, (Bandura 2000, pg. 2). In the case study, the introduction of Zaph into the team demoralized most group members. Organizational practices, such as supportive communication helps foster self-efficacy. This because it helps complement the efforts of all the team members involved the organizational process. If the project leader ensured that he used Zaph skills and combined them with Newbridge’s skills the project would have been a success and the team would have succeeded.

RecommendationsThe decision making process is often a difficult and time consuming task. The bringing together of different individuals who have different sets of values, norms and beliefs is a challenge that most organizations face, (Janssens & Brett, 2006, 150). In this case study the change of the structure in the organization with the introduction of Zaph had a negative impact on the team functioning. Highlighted are some of the recommendations on how such a situation can be prevented:

Controlling the team size

The incorporation of large teams can effectively hinder members of a team from making meaningful contributions. It is of paramount importance that the leadership of the organization or the team to manage self-efficacy and self-limiting behavior, (Gist, 1987, pg.472).

Pros

It helps the management of self-efficacy and avoids self-limiting behaviors

Cons

It limits the team’s ability to have wealth of resources in terms of skills, knowledge and expertise.

Leveling the playing field

High ranking or status members are usually the center of communication, for example in the case study, Zaph. This affects the other members’ efficacy regarding their contributions to the team. This is eliminated by eliminating the status symbols of team members during decisions making processes. This can be achieved by not referring to the team members’ titles, (Mulvey, Veiga & Elsass, 1996, p.7).Pros

This will help in improving the team’s efficacy levels and lead to better decisions

Cons

It erodes the leadership structure by not recognizing its importance in the decision making process, thus effectively minimizing the effect of the title.

Confirming the value of the team

This can be achieved by ensuring that decisions made are shared with the team so that their efforts are appreciated.

Pros

It increases the sense of value for individuals in the organization or the team.

Cons

Information that are sensitive or that may add the organizations competitive advantage over its competitors is not secure.

ConclusionThis report has looked into the case study on the proton lab. It has identified the challenges that were brought about by the introduction of Zaph into the team. It has also identified major problems and critically examined these problems based on academic research. The report has also made recommendations on how to improve these factors, giving the pros and cons of these recommendations. These recommendations were based on organizational behavior to support it.

Bibliography

Dyne, L.V., Soon, A.S., Botero, I.C. (2003) Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies.

Singh, S. K. G. (2009). A study on employee participation in decision making. Unitar E-Journal, 5(1), 20–38.

Janssens, M., & Brett, J (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Global Teams: A Fusion Model of Collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31, 124-153.

Marilyn E. Gist, (1987) Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. The Academy of Management Review Vol. 12, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 472-485

Mulvey, P. W., Veiga, J. F., & Elsass, P. M. (2005). When teammates raise a white flag. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 10(1), 40-49.

McGinnis, K. Sheila, (2005). Organizational Behavior and Management Thinking. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organization behavior. (pp. 120-136). Oxford,

UK: Blackwell.

Thompson, L. L. (2007). Making the team (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Driscoll, M. P. (2004). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.