Henry Tam Group Case
1. Problems and their root causes
The MGI team, in light of their working and performance so far, can be considered as an ineffective team of highly skilled people. They act more like a collection of split individuals, full of conflicts, no team consensus, easily lose track of time and lack commitment and devotion etc. All of these superficial problems have its root causes. And as this report is solution oriented, it will start from the analysis of problem to the exploration of root and deep cause, and arrive at the final solution.
The first problem is that there is no clear task assignment and role identification for each team member, especially to clarify who should act as a leader in this team. For example, Sasha considered the HBS student as business plan writer and just as some interns who can share their heavy workload, that’s why he even asked them to phone the alumni to ask help in product marketing [1], while Henry and Dana think they should set the tone during the contest session and ultimately design the business plan for the company and the product. However, the HBS students gradually felt that they are being overused by the founders of MGI and that is affecting their efficiency [2]. This problem is caused by the fact that at the very first beginning, each part of group members haven’s sit down calmly to clarify their role and reach an agreement on task they should take responsibility for.
The second is they do not have consensus on direction, agenda, plan and easily lose track of time. As we see in this case, only three weeks left to close the contest, however, the biggest disagreement about the target market still haven’t been dealt with [3]. In addition, when we take a look at each meeting they had, it can be observed that they were quite disorganized and unproductive. Henry and Dana realized the emergency of time limit and want to see progress in each meeting, whereas the founders of MGI seemed to be less concerned with that and were quite
The MGI team, in light of their working and performance so far, can be considered as an ineffective team of highly skilled people. They act more like a collection of split individuals, full of conflicts, no team consensus, easily lose track of time and lack commitment and devotion etc. All of these superficial problems have its root causes. And as this report is solution oriented, it will start from the analysis of problem to the exploration of root and deep cause, and arrive at the final solution.
The first problem is that there is no clear task assignment and role identification for each team member, especially to clarify who should act as a leader in this team. For example, Sasha considered the HBS student as business plan writer and just as some interns who can share their heavy workload, that’s why he even asked them to phone the alumni to ask help in product marketing [1], while Henry and Dana think they should set the tone during the contest session and ultimately design the business plan for the company and the product. However, the HBS students gradually felt that they are being overused by the founders of MGI and that is affecting their efficiency [2]. This problem is caused by the fact that at the very first beginning, each part of group members haven’s sit down calmly to clarify their role and reach an agreement on task they should take responsibility for.
The second is they do not have consensus on direction, agenda, plan and easily lose track of time. As we see in this case, only three weeks left to close the contest, however, the biggest disagreement about the target market still haven’t been dealt with [3]. In addition, when we take a look at each meeting they had, it can be observed that they were quite disorganized and unproductive. Henry and Dana realized the emergency of time limit and want to see progress in each meeting, whereas the founders of MGI seemed to be less concerned with that and were quite
Citations: [1] : Jefferey T. Poltzer and Ingrid Vargas and Hillary Anger Elfeinbein(2003) Henry Tam and MGI case page 7 [2]: Jefferey T [3]: Jefferey T. Poltzer and Ingrid Vargas and Hillary Anger Elfeinbein(2003) Henry Tam and MGI case page 9 [4]: Jefferey T [5]: Jefferey T. Poltzer and Ingrid Vargas and Hillary Anger Elfeinbein(2003) Henry Tam and MGI case page 8 [6]: Jefferey T [7]: Jefferey T. Poltzer and Ingrid Vargas and Hillary Anger Elfeinbein(2003) Henry Tam and MGI case page 12 [8]: Jefferey T [11]: Jefferey T. Poltzer and Ingrid Vargas and Hillary Anger Elfeinbein(2003)Henry Tam and MGI case page 3 [12]: Jefferey T [13]: Jefferey T. Poltzer and Ingrid Vargas and Hillary Anger Elfeinbein(2003) Henry Tam and MGI case page 6