Case Analysis (ellen moore)

Case Analysis: E

llen Moore: Living and Working in Korea

Executive Summary

Andrew Kilpatrick is being held accountable for a currently ineffective system implementation

team for Joint Venture Inc. in South Korea. The team, co-managed by Ellen Moore, an A

merican, and Jack

Kim, a Korean, is suffering from a lack of communication, unclear leadership (related to poor work team

structure), problems with group development, low group emotional intelligence and disagreement over the

decision-making process. There is currently great disagreement between Andrew and the Korean

management of JVI regarding the cause of these problems, and much of the disagreement centers around

Ellen.

The recommended plan of action for Andrew is to restructure the SI team. Ellen

is to be

immediately assigned as the single manager of the team, while Jack is re

-assigned as a specialist consultant.

All consultants on the team, including Jack and Scott now report directly to Ellen. Ellen’s first

responsibility is to lead a team norm building session. Brainstorming for the norm building session will be

done in advance through a newly created drop box. The box will then be used as a method of anonymous

communication between members of the team and Ellen. The restructuring of the team and the creation of

the drop box communication system will eliminate the root causes of the ineffective SI team.

Problem Facing Andrew

Andrew Kilpatrick is the key person within this situation since he will be held accountable for any

delays in complet

ion of the project. An assessment of the situation suggests that the main problem Andrew

faces is an ineffective system implementation team which is falling behind schedule. The confrontational

meeting with Mr. Song is the most obvious symptom of the dys

functional SI team.

Root Causes and Symptoms of the Problem

The ineffectiveness of the SI team is attributable to the following root causes: lack of

communication, unclear leadership (related to poor work team structure), problems with group

development, low group emotional intelligence and disagreement over the decision-making process.

The lack of communication is visible in Scott’s inability to confirm the Korean consultants’

understanding of his instructions and in Jack’s passive

-aggressive dinner speech directed at Ellen.

Symptoms of unclear leadership are the misalignment between Jack’s instructions and Ellen’s, as well as

the inconsistent following of orders by the Korean consultants. Due to the failure of the SI team to

successfully develop their group, power struggles exist between Jack and Ellen, and there is disagreement

over the roles of the consultants in relation to the client. Moreover, Jack’s requests that the team work on

tasks outside the scope of the project deliverables without consulti

ng Ellen, and Jack’s inappropriate

management of client expectations, are likely signs of unclear work team structure and process as well as

disagreement over decision-making.

Short Term vs. Long Term Problems

Within the short term, problems relating to leadership, work team structure, work team process,

and decision making might be solved since those solutions revolve around providing clear guidelines,

without needing to develop buy-in from team members. In the long term, it might be possible to address

communication problems and group development. These issues will take longer to tackle since they are

contingent on short term problems being solved first. Moreover, while work team norms may be explicitly

stated, sincere adoption of them requires internal change within team members as opposed to mere external

changes.

Decision Facing Andrew

Given these problems, Andrew’s decision requires determining what step(s) should be taken to

ensure that the project is completed on time. More specifically, Andrew will need to consider the

effectiveness of the team, the current structure of the team, and who the team should comprise of.

Communication

One hindrance to the SI team’s performance is ineffective communication. Nelson and Quick

outline three barriers to communication:

cultural diversity

,

gender differences

, and

language

(2010, p. 126).

Differences in work-related values due to

cultural diversity

can obstruct communication. In this

case, Korean values of authority and hierarchy reduce the consultants ability to openly communicate with

superiors such as Scott, Ellen, Jack and the client. This is depicted by Scott being unable to train the

Korean consultants properly and the consultants’ reluctance to communicate that they are receiving mixed

direction from Jack and Ellen. Moreover, the Confucian value of obedience and respect within superior-

subordinate relationships can explain the consultants’ refusal to interview or challenge clients, which also

impede the team’s performance.

Gender differences

also seem to create communication barriers between Ellen and Jack. Not only

do conversational styles differ between men and women (p. 126), but the male-female relationship is one of

superior-subordinate in Confucianism. For Jack, his past experiences and cultural influences with respect

to women contribute to his

perceptual screen

of Ellen (p. 121). This perceptual screen might have led him

to devalue the merits or authority of Ellen’s input, which can explain the extra meetings he held alone with

the consu

ltants and his disregard of Andrew’s memo given to him by Ellen.

Finally, communication is hindered by

language

differences between the Koreans and the

Americans on the SI team. In addition to the difficulty in communicating information accurately, Ellen’

s

reliance on a translator likely impedes her ability to manage the SI team effectively since the power

dynamic between managers and employees is interconnected with their language of communication (p.

125). This power dynamic is most evident at the dinne

r shortly after Ellen challenged Jack’s market

research idea during a meeting. At the dinner, Jack asks the translator to stop translating for Ellen, which

increases his power within the SI team at Ellen’s expense. This incident also depicts

subordinate defensive

communication (p. 128) since Jack speech was self-deprecating and his behavior, though appearing passive,

stems from underlying hostility towards Ellen due to him being publicly embarrassed at the meeting.

Group Emotional Intelligence

Another factor that hurt the team’s performance is the absence of group emotional intelligence.

Druskat and Wolff state that three conditions must exist before a team can achieve the necessary levels of

participation, cooperation and collaboration among its members:

mutual trust among members

, a

sense of

group identity

, and

a sense of group efficacy

(2001). In this case, group trust is discouraged by Jack

superceding Ellen’s instructions initially and later when t

he consultants refuse Jack’s orders. Tru

st

between Jack and Ellen is effectively terminated when Ellen interrupts Jack during the market research

report meeting and causes him to “lose face” in front of the SI team. A

lso, despite attempts to integrate

Ellen and Scott into Korean culture, there

is little fostering of the SI team’s identity as exhibited by the

additional meetings held without Ellen being included. Finally, a sense of group efficacy is difficult to

achieve since there are few clear performance measures (due to the inattention to work team structure as

discussed below) and because Ellen perceives the consultants as under-qualified and inexperienced.

Leadership and Work Team Structure

The ineffectiveness of the SI team is exacerbated by the inattention to work team structure issues

such as

objectives

,

operating guidelines

,

performance measures

and most importantly,

role

specification

(Nelson, p. 145). Regarding

role specification

, it is unclear who the leader is given that Ellen

believes Jack considers himself the sole project manag

er, when “formally” they are co

-managers. On a

related note, J. Richard Hackman (as cited in Coutu, 2009) argues that to form an effective team, a leader

must provide a compelling direction, with all members of a team agreeing on and understanding the goa

l

being pursued. The confusion over who is providing direction makes it difficult for Ellen to manage the

team because the consultants frequently take their final orders from Jack. Thus, the absence of role

specifications lead to “different team members pursuing different agendas” which Hackman notes as a

likely outcome and impediment to team performance. The absence of a clear leader also translates into

confusion over goals and objectives of the group. For example, Scott believes that the objective of the SI

team is to advise the client whereas the Korean consultants believe the team must do exactly what the client

asks. Similarly, the lack of consensus on operating guidelines has lead to the consultants accepting work

from the client which is beyond the scope of the project. Finally, since neither co-manager identifies

performance measures throughout the project, the project team is unaware that they are falling behind

schedule.

Group Development

Applying Bruce Tuckman’s Five

-Stage Model of Group Development (Nelson, p. 142), it appears

that the SI team had significant problems during the

forming

stage which has translated into stagnation at

the

storming

stage. During

forming

,a team’s purpose, objectives and external relationships tend to be

clarified by the leader, however as mentioned previously, it is unclear who the leader of the SI team is.

Moving onto the

storming

stage, power struggles (such as those between Jack and Ellen as they compete

for the leadership position) and factions within the group (manifested as Americans versus Koreans in this

case) are present in the SI team. During this stage, team members are also assessing “one another with

regard to trustworthiness, emotional comfort, and evaluative acceptance”. Within the SI team,

there is a

low assessment of trustworthiness since neither Ellen nor Jack seem to be able to trust the consultants to

follow their direction consistently and there is emotional discomfort between Jack and Ellen following

Jack’s dinner speech which he purpo

sely makes in Korean. Overall, without successful progression

through

storming

, the team will be unable to advance to the stage of

norming

(characterized by clear roles

and focus on task completion) and

performing

(characterized by strategic awareness of purpose and

resolution of task, interpersonal and authority issues), which are both required for successful completion of

the SI team’s project.

Decision-making

Analysis of the decision-making process in the SI team also reveals causes of their limited work

performance. Firstly, the lack of operating guidelines specifying the decision

-making limits has led to Jack

and Ellen making decisions without consulting each other, best exemplified by Jack’s presentation o

f the

proposed market research project to Ellen’s surprise. Secondly, the

cultural diversity

within the team

seems to impact decision-

making (Nelson, p. 167). For example, high “power distance” is seen within

Korean work culture in the emphasis of titles (Koreans would call someone named Y.H. Kim, Manager

Kim as opposed to Y.H. or Mr. Kim), formality (strict rules of conduct are a basic Confucian value), and

seldom challenge of authority (the Korean consultants accepted work from the client that is outsid

e the

scope of the project). High power distance might explain the Korean consultants lack of active

involvement in the decision making process. In addition, Jack’s desire to undertake the project is

understandable considering that South Korea is a country with very high uncertainty-avoidance according

to Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (Geert

-Hofstede, 2009), which means its people prefer to avoid the

ambiguity and uncertainty that would be reduced by such a study. However, these dimensions also indicate

that South Korea is a collectivist society in which group decisions are valued (p. 21), and thus Jack’s

unilateral decision to conduct the market research might suggest that he does not view Ellen as part of the

group.