Topic: Leading People and Teams

Order Description CASE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In June 2002, RT commenced an agreements-making project with nine Traditional Owner groups in the remote region of Western Australia. Stakeholders across all levels of the organisation were involved in the project; from the Chairman and CEO to the Executive Committee and a team of negotiators led by the General Manager of Communities at RTIO. The initial stages of negotiations focused on rebuilding relationships with the Traditional Owners addressing historical experiences that required discussions in public and private forums, whilst anthropological and archaeological research was undertaken at the same time to meet obligations as required by State and Federal Law. The process was long and arduous and it was not until January 2009 that a renewed focus on the project took place. A new General Manager of Communities was appointed to refocus the negotiations team and finalise the agreements within two years. I joined the division at this time as Manager of Agreement Negotiations. My role was to lead a small team to coordinate the running of the negotiation meetings and commence implementation of the agreements. However, I soon learnt that there was low morale amongst the team members thus the negotiations were failing. In this case, I will analyse and evaluate the function of the native title agreements-making team and introduce the Input-Process-Output model that will be addressed further in assessment number three. The group not yet a team I can now only look at this case in retrospect. The negotiations team initially started as a group of eight social scientists that were successful in their fields of native title research. They however, lacked experience working as a team navigating their way through the large corporation of RT without any strategic planning, coordination of tasks and regular reporting. It was clear to me from the onset that the group I was leading was not introduced to RT as an organisation that has goals, commitments, teams and authority to adhere to. There was great expectation that the new General Manger would rectify the function of the group. Team duties were initiated leading to a restructure of the group recognising the work already completed. Two senior advisors were promoted to superintendent roles reporting to me and three advisor roles were reviewed and compensated according to new position descriptions. The immediate changes appeared to forge a new team and settle their anxiety to allow me to establish myself as their manager and leader. Unfortunately, the way the team had functioned previously continued to surface, making it difficult for me to lead them. It was frequently said that the previous General Manager held the view that this team would leave the company upon signing of the agreements and not promoted to other sections of the business. A restructure of the negotiations team at the onset of the new General Managers appointment was vital to boosting the morale of the team and refocusing their efforts. Unfortunately for this team, it was too late in the project to think such changes would encourage a renewed and engaging team. Input-Process-Output analysis The input-process-output model (IPO) analyses team effectiveness and how teams perform (Mohammed & Hamilton, 2007). “Inputs are the conditions that exist prior to group activity, whereas processes are the interactions among group members. Outputs are the results of group activity that are valued by the team or the organisation” (Mohammed & Hamilton, 2007). Providing effective resources needed to perform and function as a team enhance the interactions of a team. Enhancing the team’s productivity is the provision of a reward system, training system, physical environment to work in, along with managerial support and technology. Each frame gives the provision of a version of life in an organisation with a range of techniques, ideas and processes useful in the improvement of effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation. Appendix A addresses the IPO model specific to my case, and will be expanded upon in assessment three. References Caproni, P. J. (2012). Creating high-performing teams. In P. J. Caproni, Management Skills for Everyday Life: The Practical Coach (2nd Ed.), (pp. 311-348). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (2000). Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business Review. Katzenback, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review (July/August), 162-171. (Reprinted. First published in HBR, 1993). Mohammed, S., & Hamilton, K. (2007). Input, Process, Output Model of Team Effectiveness. In Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.) (2007). Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Appendix A: The input-process-output model The IPO framework in which the negotiations team worked in is best outlined in the following table: Input  Minimal governance of the team  Lack of strategic planning and direction  Limited goals established  No coordination of tasks to reach the goals  Lack of regular reporting  Continual changes in reporting  Continual restructure of the team  Lack of confidence in team by senior leaders and the Executive Committee Process  Low morale  Lack of trust amongst team  Performance was lacking  Career development conversations were limited  Misuse of reporting structure  Segregation from wider team  Location of team in Perth and Karratha  Significant length of service on one specific project Output  Project is political by nature  Burdensome on individuals  Tightened timeframes added pressure to the political environment  Resolving conflict was difficult ADDITIONAL INFORMATION… Reframing and recommendations Whilst analysing my team through the four frames I soon came to realise the importance of not rushing the restructure of the team, even if there is an expectation from senior leaders; particularly when teams with such longevity of staff are in place. Perhaps a restructure of the team in three months would have facilitated an understanding team to change and wanting to meet the high demands within a shorter timeframe, and upon review I would recommend the following to occur to allow for increased ownership and pride of the project: • Attend a team retreat to plan the project and set agreed timeframes to individual tasks aimed towards the main objective of finalising the agreements. • Introduce planning tools such as a “Strategy On A Page” that addresses quarterly planning and reporting. • Celebrate when milestones are met. • The General Manager addresses the division on a quarterly basis with a “State of the Nations” presentation informing and discussing with the wider team the negotiations progress. • Invite human resources to engage with the team more often to ensure individuals’ needs are met, career planning and progression are being discussed whilst ensuring roles, responsibilities and policies are understood.