Arctic Mining Consultants
Arctic Mining Consultants - An OB Case Study
This report examines the underlying reasons why field assistant, Brian Millar, has refused numerous offers to work for Arctic Mining or Field supervisor Tom Parker. It analyzes the issues by applying theories of leadership, motivation and team dynamics, theories found in this case scenario. It is our hope that the outcome of the analysis will lead to us to a further understanding.
Why is it that Millar decided to refuse any further work from Arctic Mining Consultants? What we have identified is that there isn’t one major issue, but several smaller issues which resulted in Millar’s refusal to continue with to Arctic Mining Consultants.
Tom Parker assembled a task force team to accomplish a 15 stake claim up in Eagle Lake. A goal was set to complete this task in 7 days and failed. If we look to the “Team Effectiveness Model”, we can identify several issues surrounding the actual dynamics of this team that were detrimental to its success. When looking at the effectiveness of Parker’s team, …show more content…
It would be expected that they had already gone through their forming, storming, and norming of stages of development but it was evident, by the end of the job, that there was a lack of both team cohesion and trust. Parker had previously worked with all members on past jobs, and one would expect some level of an identification based trust or else he wouldn’t have hired them. Though this may be trust, the design of the team had really converted each team member’s trust level to more of a calculus-based trust. This being the lowest form of trust, it was easily broken as Millar struggled to perform. This led not only to a decline in Parker’s trust but Millar, with the treatment he received, could not accept the vulnerability based on positive expectations of behaviour it would take to ever trust Parker
This report examines the underlying reasons why field assistant, Brian Millar, has refused numerous offers to work for Arctic Mining or Field supervisor Tom Parker. It analyzes the issues by applying theories of leadership, motivation and team dynamics, theories found in this case scenario. It is our hope that the outcome of the analysis will lead to us to a further understanding.
Why is it that Millar decided to refuse any further work from Arctic Mining Consultants? What we have identified is that there isn’t one major issue, but several smaller issues which resulted in Millar’s refusal to continue with to Arctic Mining Consultants.
Tom Parker assembled a task force team to accomplish a 15 stake claim up in Eagle Lake. A goal was set to complete this task in 7 days and failed. If we look to the “Team Effectiveness Model”, we can identify several issues surrounding the actual dynamics of this team that were detrimental to its success. When looking at the effectiveness of Parker’s team, …show more content…
It would be expected that they had already gone through their forming, storming, and norming of stages of development but it was evident, by the end of the job, that there was a lack of both team cohesion and trust. Parker had previously worked with all members on past jobs, and one would expect some level of an identification based trust or else he wouldn’t have hired them. Though this may be trust, the design of the team had really converted each team member’s trust level to more of a calculus-based trust. This being the lowest form of trust, it was easily broken as Millar struggled to perform. This led not only to a decline in Parker’s trust but Millar, with the treatment he received, could not accept the vulnerability based on positive expectations of behaviour it would take to ever trust Parker